User talk:BLongley/Archives/Archive06

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Miss Wildthyme and Friends Investigate

Re the cover image - I emailed the publishers and they are happy for ISFDB to deep-link to them. They have two earlier books in the series which were published without ISBNs; both as sci-fi, is it ok to add them? Whofan 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Delap's November 1976

I just noticed that you verified this issue of Delap's, and was hoping you could do me a giant favor. Could you scan the two Michael Bishop reviews (beginning on pages 11 and 26) and email them to me? I'd been looking for this issue as it's the only publication of the Lafferty review. When I was compiling Bishop's A Reverie for Mister Ray we were able to get a copy of the Wolfe review (from David Hartwell, I believe, or a friend of his) to include in the collection, and Michael revised it before I could get a copy of the original version. As for the Lafferty, I never got a chance to consider whether it should have been included. I'd hate to read it now and kick myself for not searching longer for it, but that's the chance I'm willing to take. That is, if you're able to send it to me. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look for it, but don't hold your breath: that's "somewhere in the Stableford Collection" if I've still got it. BLongley 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


A Virtual High-Five

Thanks for helping to clear the queue today, especially the Italian Galaxys. I've been aware a couple of days and when I saw all of those submissions, I knew it would be a whole day affair. Thanks to you, it only took half-a-day! :) MHHutchins 19:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, judging by your questions to Ernestoveg you've been checking interiorart too, which I haven't been, so there may be some more checks wanted. But with Dragoondelight doing all those cover-art merges as well the queue looked ridiculous. (I was checking the cover-merges at first and finding it a real pain, but after a few I found it was easier to approve and check afterwards and didn't find any major errors. In the end I just gave up and assumed Dragoondelight knows what he's doing in this case - although I was tempted to tell him to stop for a bit. The value of such edits is a lot less now we don't let Coverart clutter fiction title results.) BLongley 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Ernesto was posting some follow-up edits that I've been normally been doing myself, is it time to leave more of the merges and variants to him? That would take some of the pressure off us. And have you spotted any more potential moderators recently? I'm wondering why we let MartyD program but not moderate yet, BLongley 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
We discussed moderatorizing with Marty at one point, but he declined since he wanted to gain a better understanding of policies and conventions first. Ahasuerus 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
and Don Erikson is certainly looking ready for self-approval status on most of his entries. So is Bluesman mostly, when he's just adding Currey/OCLC references and covers, although he's clearly not yet grokked variants.
"moderatorizing"?? Someday I may grok, though unlikely for variants..... LOL! Mike and I briefly discussed moderatorship a few months back and I kind of let it slide, knowing full well my weakness in the variant department. But if the queue is getting out of hand, and I'm sure both of you would appreciate any breaks, I can try and at least do my own and attempt to clear some of the simpler edits (though how do you tell which is which?). I do not want to get in over my head and create more work for anyone by mistakenly accepting incorrect edits - my main reason for not taking this step at any previous time. I only see my own work, which at the moment isn't that complicated, so can't comment on how 'ready/trained/reliable' I may be.................... ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least two of us think you're ready to step up - some training can be provided, and if in doubt, just don't approve it. It's not as if we're paid per approval or anything, there's no pressure to do more than you're comfortable with (except when you get tired of long queues, then there is a temptation to do mass approvals or mass rejections: which should usually be resisted). But the long queues have got to the stage where I've been tempted to ask Editors to stop certain types of edits that are easy to submit but a pain to check - and that's a sign of overload. BLongley 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happier if we could separate self-approval from full moderatorship, but we've been built in a lot more checks and balances recently and I think you and I could do with a bit of a rest. I will probably need a break to pack and unpack books, even if I manage to get a smooth move from here to next-place without losing internet access - and that's looking less and less likely. :-( BLongley 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Ah well, before I get too Eeyore, my thanks to YOU for doing your usual moderating activities. I think we'd have driven off a lot of new editors if we hadn't kept on top of the queues recently. BLongley 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for taking care of the queue! I am trying to concentrate on development, so I don't spend as much time on moderation as I used to. I figure we have half a dozen+ active moderators and one active developer, so coding is a more efficient way to spend my ISFDB time. It's only when the queue gets really long (or when I am in no shape to code) that I start looking at it. Ahasuerus 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking at future moderator availability declared, and taking some declarations of current availability with a pinch of salt, we might want to address this sooner rather than later. Development (unless fixing something that recently broke) might need to be placed on the back-burner for a bit. BLongley 23:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, so it would appear. I don't want to delay the Foreign Languages project any more than is absolutely necessary -- the more we delay the more pubs will need to be redone (i.e. all of Ernesto's work) -- but we have to do what we have to do. Ahasuerus 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A Fortune for Kregen

I added this cover scan to this verified pub to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice who uploaded that Amazon cover scan? ;-) But yes, local ISFDB copies are almost always better, carry on the good work! BLongley 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunrise on Mercury

Expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your verified publication Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, November 1978

I am updating that issue. I already added missing columns and the book reviews, I will be adding the int. illustrations later. Tpi 09:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Survival Kit

This pub you verified is titled "Survival Kit", but the pub's title record has the title "The Survival Kit". Do you know why the titles are different? If you don't object I would like to remove "The" from the title record. Herzbube 11:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, fixed. BLongley 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambulance Ship by James White, different UK editions

I just got around to adding notes to my British hardcover edition of this title, and saw a notice on the copyright page that "Part One of this book was originally published as SPACEBIRD in NEW WRITINGS in SF 22 edited by Ken Bulmer". Well, Part One of this book is title "Contagion", but I don't think it's "Spacebird", being twice as long. It appears that this UK hc reprints the US Ballantine edition, even using the same plates, because the stories all start on the same page number. It notes that the book was "First published in Great Britain in 1980 by Corgi Books", your edition, which actually does include "Spacebird". No question here, just wanted to point out that there are differences in these two UK editions, not enough to warrant a variant, perhaps just a note in the Corgi edition that it includes a story not available in any other edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm reluctant to add a note like "not available in any other edition" as that can become untrue. For instance, have you seen the notes on this book? (And I don't just mean the unclosed italic tag.) A good example of why Omnibuses of Collections need the collection contents as well. BLongley 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Never say never. Perhaps "adds a story not included in the first edition"? Anyway...
The notes you point to don't make much sense without the full contents. I wonder if the software could show the contents of an omnibus's constituent parts by the user simply clicking on the title. Kinda like a on/off toggle when the mouse passes over, or a java pop-up showing the contents. No big deal though. Till then, I agree it would be best to add the contents to the pub record (even though I'm guilty of just entering the pub titles in the past, I've tried to go back and correct those I come across, on the fourth-or-fifth pass through my collection!) MHHutchins 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
With my IT consultant hat on, what you're suggesting is a big change: we have "Pubs", and "Pub_Content", but we'd need a "Pub_Content_Content" table or something to show which version of a Collection's contents would be included. Nice idea, but a lot of work: would you settle for a toggle for Omnibus Publications that can show either just the "Book-Type contents" (as this currently does), or "All Contents"? That would be comparatively simple. BLongley 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As to 4th or 5th passes - I've never been systematic on any pass, originally it was favourite authors, and so many single-author obscurities got missed. Later passes have often been based on me looking at stuff I verified, searching for things like "pubs I verified with no cover-image" or "where I added no notes" - but I've sort of got caught in a feedback loop where if I didn't enter it into ISFDB in the first place, I don't find it again to improve it. I now routinely add new acquisitions to ISFDB as soon as I get them, so those are in, and if I buy a duplicate by accident I'll probably add the original copy too, but I'm not sure what percentage of my collection is here. I'm trying to look at the positives of my enforced move, and one of those will be checking books against ISFDB as I unpack them. I should eventually "complete a full pass" of books at last though, and have my own "I Own this!" list. Obviously this would be preferable before the move, for insurance purposes, but evictees can't be choosers.... BLongley 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Humanity

Hi Bill, I just cloned your second printing of Beyond Humanity to add my first printing to the database. Can you check your copy again for the publication date? It now looks like both editions were published at the same time. Thanks, Willem H. 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Do you think that Canadian Edition really exists? BLongley 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. No point in adding all the Canadian information to the American edition if you publish a seperate edition there. My choice would be to delete that one. Willem H. 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to keep it but repoint it notes-wise to the actual publications, just so that ISBN searches work. But ISBN conversations tend to get a bit heated here. BLongley 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There might be some new movement on the issue of multiple / derived / corrected (I)SBNs, now we can make core database changes. I suspect Ahasuerus hasn't understood the full implications yet, but I for one support the idea. This is a good example of a publication that properly needs two different ISBN searches to find it, even if it's only one actual publication. BLongley 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Colonists of Space

Tuck reports this edition of Colonists of Space as published in 1962.--ErnestoVeg 21:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add the Tuck data, my copy is a bit buried at the moment. BLongley 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Space Tug

I added the cover artist (Jack Gaughan) and a note to this verified pub. Image is the same as on the first printing. Thanks, Willem H. 14:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Carlo Jacono

The artist of this publication is Carlo Jacono and the cover is the same of Urania #193--ErnestoVeg 17:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The artist of this publication is Carlo Jacono and the cover is the same of Urania #183--ErnestoVeg 17:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was worth a sig scan for Jacono. BLongley 18:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Vornan-19

Scanned in a clean image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, better than mine. But I have this too - SNAP! ;-) BLongley

Dark Stars

Your wait is over!!! Only took two years but Amazon.UK finally uploaded your cover for [this]. Deleted that portion of the note about the wait for a correct image. ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alpha 6

The Other Bill (tm) has added "Berkley Medallion Edition, April, 1976" to your verified Berkley Medallion edition of Alpha 6. Ahasuerus 01:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Manhounds of Antares

I added this cover scan to Manhounds of Antares to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Badger #SF13

There are two entries for this volume that you have verified. The other list also a short story in content. Can you verify and eventually update your entry (and perhaps delete the other entry).--ErnestoVeg 08:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Both are wrong. I missed the bonus short story, but it's by "Max Chartair". So this could be a Novel with a bonus, an Anthology, or a Collection disguised under multiple pseudonyms. BLongley 19:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Engineers

Expanded the notes for [this]. Changed the image as the source for the old one isn't on our list of sites, even though it was a very good image. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC) And added the artist from initials on the cover. Third spacesuit on right, next to left hand "JG" ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Destiny Doll

New image and expanded notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Seduction" in Enchantment

Can you tell if Seduction in your verified Enchantment is supposed to be an original story? We have the same title/author in 95953 from The Berkley Showcase, Vol. 4 from 1981. --MartyD 11:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I could possibly tell if I could find it. :-( BLongley 20:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

April Fools' Day Forever by Wilhelm

In your verified pub. Might it actually be April Fool's Day Forever. Although probably packed away somewhere during the move. Hope to here from you within the next year.--swfritter 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The apostrophe is definitely after the "s" on both ToC and title pages. And I haven't started packlng yet, I hope to find someone to do most of that for me. BLongley 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Digit R479

Digit imprint ran from 1956 to 1965. Tucker in his list reports D479 (not R479) in 1961.--ErnestoVeg 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It definitely looks more like an R than a D to me, but I'll go with that date. BLongley 20:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Digit 280

The correct CatalogId would be D280 as you can see in scan cover. In your scan the ID is hidden 280. Would be better to correct "Digit Books" in "Digit", according with the majority of the submissions. Perhaps a moderator can made the job in a hurry!--ErnestoVeg 18:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. A moderator CAN regularise Publisher names, but I don't consider it polite to do so without checking with the verifiers. I do prefer to go with the simpler name though. BLongley 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, there's only two "Digit Books" left. Take it up with the Verifiers - I suspect Kraang would be happy to shorten to "Digit", Harry (Dragoondelight) sometimes likes longer publisher names. BLongley 20:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Digit R617

Would be interesting change in this publication the publisher from "Digit Books" in "Digit"--ErnestoVeg 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Note of Dragoondelight refers to Ward, Lock pb. edition, 1955--ErnestoVeg 19:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Digit 671

Tuck reports R671, for this publication--ErnestoVeg 19:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Could be, any letter prefix has worn off my copy completely. BLongley 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Digit R82

Tuck reports R828, for this publication--ErnestoVeg 19:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Could be, the spine is worn and there's room for one more digit maybe. BLongley 20:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No Enemy But Time

Hi Bill. You have verified this pub, and I have a copy that matches your pub in almost all respects, except the printing and the publication date. May I ask how you know that your pub is the third printing? Does it state so on the copyright page. Here is information from my copy, this might help in verifying whether my copy is the same as, or different than, yours:

  • Copyright page statements
    • "Published by Sphere Books Ltd 1983"
    • "Reprinted 1983" (to me this indicates that I do not have the first printing, and that my pub has been printed 1983; however, lacking a numberline or other additional information, I still don't know whether it's the 2nd, 3rd, or whatever printing)
  • Unnumbered pages inside the book, right after the cover:
    • An excerpt from the book's content
    • Blank page
    • Title page
    • Copyright page
    • Dedication
    • Blank page
    • Author's Note on the first numbered page (7)

Thanks for your help, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the same copy as Bill (see the Primary 2 indicator). He and I have discussed this before coming to the conclusion that it is a third printing. Where your copy states "Reprinted 1983" our copies state "Reprinted 1983 (twice)". By the same logic, yours would be the second printing (for which there is a pub record.) Mine isn't month dated, so I'm not sure what the source for that would be. Maybe Bill can provide further info. MHHutchins 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I just now saw on your user page that you are the Michael Bishop expert among us... Maybe instead of bothering Bill I should have consulted you in the first place :-) Anyway, your logic sounds *very* reasonable, so I'm going to add some notes to the 2nd printing pub (which I hadn't noticed before posting my questions above) and add myself as verifier. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Mike is indeed the first person I'd turn to with a Michael Bishop enquiry. We all seem to have specialities of some sort though, and I hope that I can answer questions on older British paperbacks better than most. Feel free to keep questioning any or all of us, it can only help improve general knowledge. BLongley 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you've made the edits to the second printing - that matches my recollection exactly. (I had both second and third printings, felt no need to keep both though.) BLongley 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the month is from Locus, and has been copied over to the two reprints. These might more accurately be represented as "1983-00-00" but then they would definitely display in the wrong order. (Although keeping them all as "1983-08-00" doesn't guarantee correct sorting either.) BLongley 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't like messing with the date of existing pub records, so 'm going to leave the date for the 2nd printing pub as it is, but I will add an explanatory note. Thanks for all the help, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
We can be pretty sure it's between August 1983 and December 1983, but we haven't figured out a way to indicate such narrow ranges yet. Still, this was a simple case - today I've already seen a publication which went through ten reprints in its first year. We're going to have to add printing number support at some point. BLongley 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tik-Tok

Added notes to this pub. Prompted by Dragoondelight I nowadays add more extensive notes about publication history. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazon Planet

Added: "First paperback publication" on the cover. Cover art is not credited and there is no identifiable signature on the cover. to your verified Ace edition of Amazon Planet. Ahasuerus 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They Walked Like Men

New image and re-arranged notes for [[1]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Chanur's Homecoming (Excerpt)

I would like to rename this title record, which appears in this verified pub of yours, from "Chanur's Homecoming (Excerpt)" to "Chanur's Homecoming (Chapter 12)". This discussion on the help desk page has the details for my motivation. Do you think the proposed change makes sense, or can you suggest a different solution? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Change away, it makes sense to me. BLongley 19:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction: Thirty-two Soothsayers

It's me again. This title record appears in this verified pub of yours (and hopefully soon in one mine). This title record, appearing in most of the other publications of Dangerous Visions has the same title, but without the "Introduction:" prefix. What do you think, could one of these title records be made a variant title of the other? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK by me. I've fixed the capitalisation - should be "Thirty-Two" rather than "Thirty-two". BLongley 19:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I am lazy: I am going to make "our" record the variant because I already have your consent. If it were the other way round I would have to ask 5 other verifiers if they agree... Thanks for the capitalisation fix, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, Dangerous Visions: Book 1

Added notes to this pub verified by you. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Astounding-Analog Reader, Book 1

Added notes to this pub verified by you. Good night, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Analog One

This pub verified by you has a reprint note. Does that note reflect a reprint statement somewhere on the copyright page of your copy of the book? I also have the book, but the copyright page here only has one statement: "Panther edition published 1967". So I *might* have the first printing, but I'm not sure, there's no numberline, and the prices on the back cover have been thoroughly painted over with a marker of the color "utterly black" :-( I could almost cry, but then my wife would laugh at me :-) Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 10:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yours will be the first printing. Mine will be similar but has "Reprinted 1969" added. Panther didn't use a number-line, just added further notes on reprints - sometimes lots of notes. BLongley 18:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but these are nice notes! I wish other publishers would print such notes as well, they allow both the printing and the publication date to be derived accurately. Did Panther stick to their scheme? If yes, I will have to keep this in mind in case I encounter other publications from this publisher. As for "Analog One", thanks for your help, the clone is already in accelerated growth. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Panther did continue the practice, and their successive owners did too: Grafton, Granada, and the strange conglomerate "Triad". However, later printings under the new owners tended to retroactively use the new publisher names for the older printings, so while you can be pretty sure an earlier edition of the book existed, you can't be so sure of the imprint name for the earlier editions. I've left lots of notes on Publisher Wiki pages like this, but until we come to some sort of agreement on "Canonical" Publisher names, or rule a bit more closely on what should be entered, working on such is more effort than it's worth. I favour simplicity, and lots of Wiki links to other imprints and parent publishers, others try to crowd sub-imprint / imprint / publisher into the publisher field. Still, most of my original notes are around and can be resurrected when (if?) we sort this issue out. BLongley 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bug-Eyed Monsters

Added notes to this pub verified by you. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 13:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1937 A.D.!, by John T. Sladek

Could you please check if the short story 1937 A.D.! appears as by "John Sladek" or "John T. Sladek" (note the initial "T.") in this pub that you have verified. In my copy of the book the initial is used everywhere (in the TOC, on the acknowledgments page, and inside the book where the story begins). Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 16:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's with T. Fixed. BLongley 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Scanning covers

I just bought a new HP printer/copier/scanner and was about to begin scanning my SF collection. Yet when I scan a book, it is saved as very large (2.2mb) jpg file. How do I adjust the dpi, or ppi, or whatever so I can upload it here. Sfbooks52 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I use a Lexmark printer/copier/scanner, so I don't know what the equivalent would be for an HP scanner. Is there nothing in the manual about changing the default settings? I set mine to 300 DPI and when I crop the picture in Paintshop Pro and resize to 600 pixels high, the file is always under the 150 Kb recommendation. BLongley 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
If you can't change the scanner settings, then your image editing software should still be able to resize the picture down from 2.2mb. BLongley 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on it. The printer manual is basically setup only. The software help menus mention some resizing output menu tabs to click on, but I cannot seem to locate them. Maybe a call to 1-800-H(el)P would be in order. Thanks Sfbooks52 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Good luck! If you've installed it easily, you're one step ahead of my first problem - the Lexmark installation refused to proceed because I had no space on my C: drive. Not surprising really, my C: drive is an empty SD card-reader slot and the hard drive is actually H: - lazy programmers making unwarranted assumptions. BLongley 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
In many cases, you have to download the scanning/OCR'ing/etc software from the manufacturer's Web page. There are also many free programs that will kindly re-size images for you if that's all you need to do. Ahasuerus 01:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The many names and titles of Herminie Templeton Kavanagh

Thanks for all of those approvals. --MartyD 12:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem: it looks like you'll soon have to oversee such queues in future! BLongley 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rocketing Dutchmen

I think that woulb be a typo in all occurrencies; Contento and my Italian source report: "The Rocketing Dutchman"--ErnestoVeg 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid mine is packed away for the move, checking will have to wait. BLongley 19:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nerilka's Story & The Coelura

Hi Bill, can you take a look here and add your comments / suggestions? It involves your verified Nerilka's Story & The Coelura. Thanks, Willem H. 21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of Short Science Fiction Novels

Hi Bill, I hope your move proceeds as planned. Once you settle in and find some time, could you please have a look at this pub:

  1. Is this really a paperback
  2. Since it is a fifth printing should its publication date not be 0000-00-00?
  3. Is the story "Who Goes There?" credited to Don A. Stuart or John W. Campbell, Jr.?

I'm asking these questions because I have a sixth printing (submission not yet approved) which is a trade paperback with no indication of the publication date, and with a credit to John W. Campbell, Jr. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 13:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely tp, I remember packing it in a box of tps, so I've corrected that. I'll have to check whether it's a fifth printing in the same year as the first or was just my guess based on same price as the first - my verifications from over two years ago are a bit suspect. And I'll also have to find it to check the Stuart or Campbell credit. I have a feeling that was one of the titles where somebody changed the canonical title to the variant at one point, and we might not have completely sorted it out yet... one of the reasons we banned content-level title changes. BLongley 19:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Away & Beyond

Could you have a look at [this] when you have a chance? Absolutely no hurry and can wait until you unpack. ~bill, --Bluesman 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In 2013? ;-) I suppose I could unpack out of order though. And my Dad is convinced that he can reshelve all my books, correctly, in a single day. His correct may not match my correct though. E.g. Putting all the Star Trek books in series order when half are Titan editions and half are Pocket... It will be interesting to see his comments on how we do things here. BLongley 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
However, it may be easier to rearrange than unpack! At least then you don't run across that lone box of anthologies after you had them just perfect...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Clone maps all the same

Morning! This. [2]. I submitted a merge of all the "Clone" now "Wayson Harris" series Steven J. Kent maps as the maps are the same. Note, the series now appears after the novel contents now. This irked me. I just realized I hate naming book series after characters. Apologies. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge approved - you're in a better position to confirm they're the same map than I am. BLongley 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

100 Great Science Fiction Short Short Stories - differences

Morning! This. [3]. Since, you will need to check and you are moving, I did not submit changes, but here are the only differences I have with my copy and your ver. Page 158, Far From Home, author is Walter S. Tevis not Walter Tevis. Page 161, Swords of Ifthan, is not James (middle initial) Sutherland, only James Sutherland. I chased this book down at Loch Croispol Bookshop & Restaurant BA in Durness, Sutherland, UK. The most northern bookshop in the UK, as advertised, but it took the sleigh team so long to get it to me I forgot why I wanted it. LOL. In any case, I am secondary vering and you have all the time you need to check your copy. BTW, I hope your move goes well and I hope you were not 'wetted out' by that one in a thousand year storms the BBC talked about last week. All the best, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You might as well submit the changes if it's definitely the same edition, I'm sure you're more accurate now than I was back in 2007. (Yeesh, I feel ancient in ISFDB terms!) BLongley 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Submitted. Thanks. Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about verified ISBN

I have a copy of your verified [4] with different ISBN than the one you verified. My copy states "First Edition 1967" and is the trade paperback. The copyright page says the ISBN is 0-8-103370-2 while you verified 0-08-303370-X. Is mine a different printing? It looks like it could be a typo.Don Erikson 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're in luck, that's one of the few books I haven't moved yet! Mine has SBN 08 303370 X on the back cover: the copyright page says the "flexicover" is 08 103370 2 and the hardcover is 08 203370 6. So I guess yours is the "flexicover"? BLongley 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The Solaris Book of New Fantasy II

The other day I was submitting some old entries in Fixer's database to clear the backlog from March and I saw you approve The Solaris Book of New Fantasy II before I had a chance to put that batch of submissions on hold. Unfortunately, quite a few early 2009 entries in Fixer's database were based on preliminary reports about publishers' intentions that eventually fell through. It would appear that The Solaris Book of New Fantasy II was one of the victims or at least I don't see it over on solarisbooks.com. The Amazon UK record is still there, but it looks abandoned -- no cover scan and very little biblio data. Would you happen to know of a way to check whether the title has been canceled or merely postponed? TIA! Ahasuerus 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could try UK Directory enquiries and ask George... Oh wait, I haven't got a phone here yet! ;-) (This is my first post from the new house - I'm using the broadband I'll get next Thursday.) BLongley 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you have to pay extra for the time machine or is it included in the rent? :) Ahasuerus 04:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I won't find that out till the first bill. I suspect they charge from when it's officially connected by the engineer, and my unofficial connection with equipment from my old house won't count - but they'll charge me for the old home till then. BLongley 19:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The submission needed a bit of a title fix anyway, and after massage it shows up at Amazon UK and Worldcat, but it does look like it's not published yet. But I'm used to that on future data anyway - between fixer capturing and submitting the date often changes, and the price - but UK prices are a bit weird at present anyway, with the VAT reduction from last year being reversed on 1st January 2010. I can wait a while and see if it turns up, or becomes notable enough for an 8888 date, or we can delete it if you're sure it's cancelled. BLongley 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
An uncommonly high number of announced titles were canceled in 2009 due to the recent economic unpleasantness, but it's hard to be sure what got canceled and what was merely postponed, a common practice in the business. It can take quite some time for a postponed/canceled title to appear -- a Fixer-submitted urban fantasy that I approved earlier today was first announced in 2006 (!) by a different publisher.
In any event, if we decide to keep the pub, we probably need to change the date or else our users will be greatly disappointed when they get up at 2am on 2010-01-04 to be the first in line to buy it :) Ahasuerus 04:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I considered that, but the UK date currently advertised is earlier than the one we have. I'll keep an eye on it, it's something I might buy. BLongley 19:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Destination: Void - two 18th printings?

Morning! This. [5] and this. [6]. I started to merge their art, but then I figured you lost your accounting of this printing or something, especially as this title is more than somewhat confusing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of inadvertent approvals

this one. Change to the notes only.--swfritter 18:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I suspect this is going to happen a lot now, with the recent influx of new Mods. BLongley 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, new moderators take a while to digest, er, I mean indoctrinate. Or is it "assimilate"? :) Ahasuerus 20:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Exsanguinate? ;-) BLongley 20:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Your Verified Pub Analog, September 1986

I made the following changes to your verified put, Analog, September 1986. Almost all are in your don't care category, but the changes were extensive. Added the Vol. No. to the notes, added the editorial and five other departments with series links (minor, except for the Reference Library), added multiple artwork, added missing page number for "Antigravity 2:" and altered the title to "Antigravity II,"and added illustration to same. Changed title of reviewed book from "Memory Bank" to "Memory Blank" and linked title. Removed quotation marks from "Making "Star Trek" Real."--Rkihara 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Still almost entirely "don't care" as I have no idea where my magazines are after the move. BLongley 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapterbook problem

Could you have a look at [this] discussion please. I'm not sure how to fix this. Never came across a publication record that has no title record and I want to get rid of the duplicate content. I get warnings when I tried it so without knowing the consequences decided to chicken out. And of course seek experienced help! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Please check. BLongley 16:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov 's "Season's Greetings"

Can you look at this conversation on Dragoondelight's talk page and let me know if the second "Season's Greetings" did indeed have a "!"? Thanks!. --JLaTondre 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:BLongley/Archives/Archive06&oldid=306964"