User talk:Dragoondelight/Archive02

Jump to navigation Jump to search

= "See Archive 1 for older conversations."


Just a note that User:Bluesman has made the following changes to your verified Baen edition of Sassinak:
  • Pages: 333 changed to 333+[8]
  • Price: 4.95 to $4.95
  • Image: Cover scan uploaded to the Wiki
  • Note: The sentence "Only difference in cover image is the book identification printed to the right of the Baen logo. This is 69863-X(star symbol)$4.95." has been deleted since the scan now matches the cover.

The following changes were made to "The Children's Hour (excerpt) (Man-Kzin Wars II)" in the Contents section:

  • Length: ss changed to sf
  • Page: blank changed to [338]

Ahasuerus 05:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for no note, Harry! Always seem to end up in the "just one more" mode at night and I do forget to leave one once in a while. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Prelude to Foundation

I added the author's note to this verified pub, and changed the number of pages to x+434, to match my copy. I also added a transient verification. Thanks Willem H. 10:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit (Paul Lehr) to your verified Berkley 6th printing of Simak's A CHOICE OF GODS from signature in lower right of cover.Don Erikson 04:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I added the location note. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Eternity Road

Scanned in an image for my first printing HarperPrism of [this]paperback and was going to replace the ZZZZZZZZZZ image from your verified Eos edition when I noticed the note about the cover artist. My copyright page has "Cover illustration © 1997 Joe Danisi". Does yours actually have "Copyright illustration....."? ~bill, --Bluesman 16:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "Assumed cover art because". I believe that was a note left from before. I just removed it and renoted it for clarity. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Born Leader

Found an image [[1]] for [[2]] I think.... It has an Australian price so might be a different cover than the copy you verified. The image is in the DB so if it's correct you could add it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I added image, with note on where price was located, though I could not clearly read due to the slanting, what was in that price block. Otherwise it looked like a good match. I re-ordered the notes also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I had to crop it to get rid of the background and my photo program tends to downsize a tad after editing. The price on the sticker is 4'/ . ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One in Three Hundred/Transposed Man

Scanned in cover images for [[3]]. Fixed the title for the McIntosh (we both missed that the title page spells out 300) and expanded the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of my old time favorites, though no one else seems to want to take a chance of one in 300. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Section G

Somehow the image you added to [[4]] has yet to materialize. Did you contravene some rule of Section G???? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not usually add images to your ver's Bill, as you stated that you liked to scan new ones. My personal hyper-televisor is on permanent loan to Perry Rhodan, a known agent of Section G (Junior Division) ((Alternate Realities)). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Zelazny's The First Chronicles of Amber

I placed a price (from Locus1) on your verified copy of this title, recorded the source in the notes and updated the verifications. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

More Than Human

I'm believe the last bullet point in the notes of this pub falls outside the database's purpose. We can agree that it is speculative fiction, thus its inclusion in the database. Any user of the database might have a different opinion as to what sub-genre it might fall into. You can create a linked wiki-page for such debate, but I don't think it should be part of the database proper. MHHutchins 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, deleted, carry over from discussion. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Tags can be used to indicate sub-genres. Tags are explicitly the opnion of the tagging editor only. -DES Talk 15:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit to your verified Ace 81001 edition of Simak's TIME AND AGAIN from very hard to see signature, even under magnification. Don Erikson 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


I have a couple of questions about your submission that changes this pub from a collection to a novel. Are the individual pieces that make up this work credited at the beginning of each piece, or only in the acknowledgments/copyright page? Or have they just been designated as chapters with no titles? I'm trying to determine whether this should be considered a "fix-up" more than just a collection of related stories. Also is the publisher on the title page given as "Tor / Bluejay", or is that only on the copyright page? I know that when Bluejay Books shut down some of their works-in-progress were later published by Tor, but I'm not sure how they are actually credited in the books. This one acknowledges Bluejay, but this one doesn't mention Bluejay at all. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No short story or essay titles crediting in book.
No copyright crediting to anything but "copyright ©1981, 1984 by Somtow Sucharitkul." under MALLWORLD
Looks like this.
Prologue (with page length line) Somewhere in the vicinity of Saturn
1. (page length line across) Nothing till the story starts
2. thru 7.
Chapters or sections? Dialogue is first person, I, telling story(ies).
The only indicator of 'story elements' is the back cover. Reads thusly;

Mallworld (over) The shopping center the size of a planet! 9and then blurbs not complete here but starting so) -Spend a week (next) -Dine on the (next) -Enjoy the psionically (next) -Play human pinball (next) -Order a custom-designed (next) -Experience the ultimate (etc). None are titles but there is a slight possiblity of matching the backs to elements of the titles given as being the book, but nothing leads back to the 1. thru 7., numbered chapter/section but not titled anywhere creation. It is not frustrating to read, but it is frustrating to try to make it look like a collection, as numbers to titles is a stretch. All it appears to be is seven events in a person's experience. If it retains a 'collection' status, it becomes frustrating as there is nothing to 'hook' into. Truthfully, I can NOT even see the seams I would expect to see in a fix-up. Title removal really lowered barriers. The way the prologue is presented, I would call it a short story giving the setting, if I could parse the rest, otherwise it is a simple prologue to a novel. End first question hopefully. LOL

Tor/Bluejay. Title page and spine say Tor only. Here is the confusion on copyright page. Below as on page
First Tor printing June 1984
A TOR/Bluejay Book
Published by; Tom Doherty Associates, Inc
and by Bluejay Books, Inc. part address
finish address
First Tor printing June 1984
I went with the Byron Preiss get everyone onboard for crediting rule/advisory.
If I entered it fresh, I would as a novel. If I did an add publication we still would be stuck making it appear so. Feel free to ask more questions, etc. and I will continue to describe an elephant with skin but no folds or appendages. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You've presented enough evidence that it was published as a novel. I'm going to approve your edit to this pub, and make the same changes to the first edition as well. Thanks for straightening out the pub (and title). MHHutchins 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the fix. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cigarette ads?

Do we really need to document them? Even in the notes? In some very rare cases I have done so but only because they had implicit page numbers and they were in magazines. Because of the way they are printed, magazines usually have a consistent number of pages (132, 148, etc.) and when they have an oddball page count it is usually a result of a data input error. I documented the ads in the notes because they affected the page numbering. Dick Coulfield in this book and Dick Kohfield in this book. Do we have a pseudonym relationship? Even if we don't do the pseudonym processing I am wondering if we should mention that they are possibly the same artist in the pub notes. Thanks.--swfritter 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(Jumping into the conversation) Cigarette Ads are definitely a 'point' that could be used to identify a particular printing. Possibly not relevant for the example's provided, but elsewhere it might have merit (Couldn't resist the pun). In other instances, by documenting it here, a collector would know that if it is not present, then he has a 'less than complete' copy in his collection. Again, while perhaps less important for these publications, for the more collectible authors pub, it may even be sought after information. Kevin 16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A funny thing happened one day at the park, my book fell apart because someone had ripped those "spine buster" ads out. And yes very occasionally they can show a dating possibility, but mostly they are both what should be completely in the book and what damage may have occurred. I have a 'hate' relationship with them. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been wondering though if the "spine buster" ads had an effect on the printing industry. So far, they are much more numerous among the 'cheaper' or 'mill' titles. Did the small income from the ads assure the printing of 'lesser known' material? Did the ads money become an important resource to the publishers? Did a book ever get printed to meet a cigarette ads quota? I found a few with the ads, doubled, a mistake? or deliberate error for greed? The big one is 'when the ads were pulled, did they affect the industry any? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, I have never been adverse to editors putting in as much data as they want to. If somebody is looking for a used copy this might warn them that it will fall apart. I wonder if in some cases a printing had different types of cigarette ads in different copies. A true collector would have to get copies with each different type of ad. I can see the ads: Will trade two kents for the tareyton edition of Blasters Away.--swfritter 19:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
OOhhhh - I think you just invented a new variant type. Bug Eyed Monsters (Kent); Bug Eyed Monsters (Kool); and Bug Eyed Monsters (Carlton). Kevin 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This makes me wonder if I should record the insurance or home-learning ads in some British paperbacks. Those were often cards that would break the spine if removed entirely, although they usually had a "cut here" line if you just wanted to send off the relevant "postcard" bit for more information. I do laugh at some of the ads at the backs of certain Sphere books that sold book-shelves. They could hold up to 120 books, apparently. Most people I know wouldn't fill such up in a lifetime. But those that do would need dozens of them. I'd need 3 just for my Sphere books, but wouldn't have the wall-space for them given that the walls are covered by six-foot tall bookcases. I wonder if they ever sold any? BLongley 20:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts in Irish Houses

Did you intend to enter only 'Essay' contents to Ghosts in Irish Houses? Kevin 15:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am still confused by the original category for the book. I wanted to change it to collection, instead of non-fiction. If it is a collection, as I believe the writing of local phenomena years past is a fictional history at best, then only the 'introduction' and the 'preface' are essays. The others would then be 'short fiction' and mostly, 'short story'. I therefore entered them as essay to show they were present in a non-novel form. To me these are horror stories, and the only ones which have really grabbed me in years. So, unless you object I would like to change them over and the whole to collection. Any arguements/corrections? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Scope Policy currently excludes "Fairy tales with no known author" but does not mention "folktales". Still if these are accounts of allegedly real occurances, I would not include them as fiction, any more than I would include Robert Graves's The Greek Myths, even though I don't credit the myths as factual. Fiction (in the ISFDB sense at least) must IMO be intended as fiction. In most scases that intent may be presumed, but in the case of traditional folktales I think a little judgement is needed. But you are the one wioth the book in hand. -DES Talk 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I get your point DES and therefore if it does not offend anyone, I would just as soon let them sit there, until there is enough people with the material to make a change decision. It is just a little too 'hair line' for me, though it would be nice if some 'paladin' has a better vision. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Two of the contents items already exist as short fiction published elsewhere. See Weeping Wall and Headless Rider. So at least one professional editor of some sort has declared them to be fiction and included them in a fiction anthology. These appear (to me) to be 'Ghost Stories', and as such in as fiction. Does the introduction try to tell them as 'Scientific Inquiries into ghosts', or 'Ghost stories to frighten you'? (The only reason I didn't change them all to fiction myself when I accepted the submission was to leave the correction to Harry.) Kevin 20:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Kevin. I did know there were two 'shortfiction' entries, but after entering all those titles I failed to connect with them. I will reread a couple tonight and see if it fits the category 'DES' cited. Sorry for being 'wishy washy'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
All right, I changed it to collection to reflect the author wrote the stories and though they have 'kernels' of history, it is the story telling element of the author that dominates. I have heard of some of these stories and his 'version' is not that of others. The 'eerie' senses combined with a feeling that you could experience this, to your regret, brings a horror aspect to a reasoned fictionalization of history. It is a combination of " a go and see adventure" set in an era, which no longer available to us, and the 'looming aura' of location and history. Parts remind me of "MacBeth" and "Frankenstein" and "Transylvania". Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Given that description, this seems like the right way to go in my view. -DES Talk 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Silkie -- added cover artist

New editor JLochhas has added a cover artist to your verified pub The Silkie. He has been adding cover artists to a number of pubs, in many cases withj no cited sources. He has not yet posted on the wiki. In this case I approved the addition, but please check and see if it looks reasonable. -DES Talk 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I pulled it out and reformatted the notation. I can not find a signature for artist, and the most likely spot would require high mag. I have no objection to it 'resting' there until he specifies the general location or maybe more probable an artist crediting. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In at least one case he has cited an author website. I suspect he is working from secondary sources, or perhaps even his own judgement of style. -DES Talk 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I take it then, that we still do not ask for a valid email address. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe we don't. I've tried to head off JLochhas with some Bruce Pennington updates from his official web-site, but I wish JLochhas would just respond. I think it might be time to reject one of his edits with a pointer to his talk page. BLongley 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I can not judge his rate of additions, but if his additions are not book based, and he takes no 'Verification Responsibility" and "Interaction" then some sort of get his attention policy needs to be implemented. It would seem to me that there should be enough verifications with notes to show that the process is no longer simply fill in the blank. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Another argument for a static link on the page that shows the submission HTML pointing to the user's talk page, until we can implement a "you have msgs waiting" on the DB pages for logged in users. -DES Talk 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Serious considerations must be taken that this DB is affecting more and more people. Some contributors are not 'talking here', but obviously they are elsewhere. The more the 'industry' and the 'users' are affected the greater the impact here. I wonder what happens if an RPG or Game oriented groups decides to 'bomb' this site with their input. Not to mention, I fear that someone will mis-represent the interests of an artist, author or editor and creatively disrupt the system. Here I am talking about chaos. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
We have had "vandel-bots" -- scripts programmaticaly inserting spam on the wiki -- active several times, and have managed to deal with them by blocking and page protection. We have had authors inserting what amount to commercials on Biography pages, this is one reason i created {{BioHeader}}. The moderation system makes it hard for anyotn to activly enter spurious data in to the db unless it is done subtly and cleverly, and on the wiki, vandalism is easy to revert (and as small as it currently is, easy to spot on recent changes). I know we have had in the past occasional demands from authors that their entire bibliography (including non-genre and non-fiction) be included. We need to keep an eye out, but I'm not oerly worried. Wikipedia is a much higher profile target, and it manages to keep vandalism mostly under control and avoid chaos. -DES Talk 23:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You think it's not chaos already? :-0 We must give you a glimpse of the Moderator's work sometime. We might be appreciated a little more. :-/ BLongley 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Not requiring (even an unvalidated) email address at user creation is crazy in this day and age. Kevin 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Amen! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pearl of Patmos

Can you double-check the ISBN of your verified copy of this title? It looks like Pinnacle didn't start using the 40000 series until 1977. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I cloned from the fourth printing and missed it. Corrected and re-noted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Instead of editing your two verified printings (#N2230/95¢ & #N300/95¢) of Smith's MASTERS OF THE VORTEX, I'll let you decide how to handle this. Both say on the copyright page that they are 3rd printings but an earlier (#T-2230 75¢) also says it is the 3rd. If you feel this may need a change in the notes maybe you should be the one to do it.Don Erikson 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I will try to adjust the notes, without contributing to the Publisher's/Users confusion. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved the 'presumed clone' of T2230 to the unused T2230 spot, informed moderators. I also added notation. I then added notes to the N2230 and N3000 to establish the printing order. This leaves after acceptance the deletion of the 'presumed clone T2230. Is this what you desired? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Does this [5] do what you wish. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I totally screwed up this cover thing and have now corrected my stupid mistake. It IS actually a Gaughan cover.Don Erikson 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the cover similarities, may have had much to do with the 'printing' problems. I suspect that they were filed under a large "gaughan" file and then underlings were left to sort it out. Once I see your change, I will 're-tune' my notes. No Prob. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chariots of Ra/Earthstrings

Scanned in clear images of [[6]], added both artists from the covers. Left your cover descriptive as was. You can 'point' it as you see fit. There were no existing breaks. I'll look at it after as a referent for future. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. "You can 'point' it as you see fit. There were no existing breaks." If this means it is an older ver and needs refinement, agreed. The Bulmer, Tubb and Lord shelves are all up in the next week to get re-noted, even though I still have 9 shelves not done. The above, BT&L, LOL, have all been pulled for questions so they are ready for review. So give me a week or so. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what I meant. You note features of the cover that I don't (that's what the images can do) and I have noticed you're adding more notes to older edits. Have at it! Cheers! --Bluesman 18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Scanned in cover images for [[7]] to replace a broken link.--Bluesman 04:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good, thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Venturer/Dream Machine

Added the Author's Foreword to the contents of[[8]] Page 1, Koontz half. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have missed a few of those and appreciate the add. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Prism/Crown of Infinity

Scanned in images for [[9]], added the interior art and 'pointed' the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks top notch, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arena of Antares

This is the second time I've noticed it, so I'll point it out rather than just fix it. You're occasionally using mismatched or incorrectly formed list tags. See this pub. No biggy this time - all it does is confuse indents after the notes - but careless HTML can make a pub edit unapproveable and unrejectable too, unless the mod knows the secrets of "hardreject.cgi", and I think not all do. (And having to use it throws away the entire submission anyway, so not good for anyone.) Please be careful with HTML! BLongley 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Knight of Ghosts

Added a cover image and the month (from Locus1) to [[10]] The image has a CDN price on it as well as the US but I can't quite make it out. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Added Can$ pricing and adjusted notes slightly. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Daleth Effect

Added cover image to your verified copy of this title. MHHutchins 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New verification

Don accidentally overwrote your verified copy(with a second printing), so I cloned it and removed the verifications. This is the new record of you 1st edition[11] it just needs a new verification. You also check Tuck as N/A.Thanks!

Thanks, done and no prob. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy of Strangers

Added a cover image to [[12]]--Bluesman 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Sorry for the tardiness, but it was deep shelved. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This Darkening Universe

Added a cover image to [[13]] Not a great one, I'm afraid. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked mine and that cover is PDG. It is just a little abstract for my reality fix. Thanks muchly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Borders of Infinity

Can you take a look at this discussion (and add some comments of course)? It affects your verified edition of Bujold's book. Thanks, Willem H. 11:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited my pub. The result looks good to me. If you can agree with this, please add Borders of Infinity to your pub and remove the one two three entries. I added a note to the story too, but I don't know when it will be approved and visible. If it's ok with you I will then add the contents to the other editions of Borders of Infinity. Thanks, Willem H. 08:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I submitted a deletion for the 'one, etc' mishmash. I then re-noted and added the interstitial story title. I may have clashed the edits. I frankly need to check it after acceptance for clarity. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I approved your edites. i then noted that you had created a second title listing for the short story, so i merged them. i also noted that you had, in effect, listed the short story twice in your pub notes, so i edited them. Please check this pub to be sure it matches your verifeid copy. It does match my memory of my copy (which i need to check the printing of and verify) . -DES Talk 12:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dray Prescot authorship

I am very dubious about showing the ebook editions of the Dray Prescot books with an auhtorship of Kenneth Bulmer & Alan Burt Akers. As I understand it, Akers is a pseudonym of Bulmer. Do the "title pages" of these ebooks really list them as being by both? There is the case of Police Your Planet, but that is quite unusual. -DES Talk 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, DES. I get your point and had a 'defense' ready, but I just checked my #38+ for what is on the title and copyright pages and it through me somewhat. It has only "Alan Burt Akers". I am sending a message to the publisher asking to clarify and explaining the ISFDB method of recording authorship. I can not get a 'look inside' for the others and hope he did not vary his routine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree this is an odd situation, and I did not hold your submissions, although I left them for another mod to approve or not. I see they have been approved. -DES Talk 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how they handled it in the e-book version, but I have the DAW editions and the first 18 were published as by Akers. Starting with volume 19, the spine said "Prescot" and the title page said "Dray Prescot as told to Alan Burt Akers". A few books later "Akers" disappeared entirely. Ahasuerus 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It is Alan Burt Akers only. I will delete the "Kenneth Bulmer" from 2-11. I will input the rest based on this statement from the editor. I would have argued for "KB" if it was like the image with the reasoning that the pen name ABA is entwined even today. No need know. Below is this. How do I utilize it.

You are welcome to use any Mushroom eBooks images from the website or from anywhere else you find them. If you need me to write something more formal, please let me know. Alternatively, I can supply the images for all the covers by email or -- just ask.

All the best,


Martyn Folkes

Mushroom eBooks

other parts deleted. Is this enough for the ISFDB? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is enough. You might forward a copy to the mods mailing list as suggested in the sample permissions request letter. Whether you wnat to take him up on the mass drop that is up to you -- you would still have to upload individually i think. Please update {{Image Host Sites}}. -DES Talk 21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not know the secret of the method used for links there. It twists my mind too much. If I could have found the sample permission letter, I would have used it probably. Mods mailing list? No I do not want a mass drop, I just want the convenience of grabbing an image, if it is not at Amazon. Super tired, muddling thought. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Links there are the same as anywhere on the wiki: [ URL Description ]. The description can be multiple words, the url must not include spaces (use _s instead). See Help:Wikitext examples#Links for more info. The sample letter is at ISFDB:Image linking permissions#Sample request for permission. It suggests that permission emails be copied to isfdb.moderators AT "so that the ISFDB as an organization can preserve a record of it." Hope that helps. -DES Talk 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Reading time" in pub notes

As per this discussion please omit "Reading time" from pub notes or discuss how and why it should be included. I apologize for not calling your attention to this issue sooner. I have Fires of Scorpio on hold pending your reply. -DES Talk 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading time is used by many people to evaluate how long it will take for them to read a ebook. It was created to give readers a 'clue' that picking up the book does not give them. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do look at the Rules & standards discussion linked above. Several people (well three) have taken exception to this being included in the notes, and the one who had no objection agreed that explictly indicating the soruce of this reding time estimate, since it can't be an objective measure, would be reasonable.
BTW, I haven't seen "Reading time" listed on any ebook that i have purchased or downloaded, but that has mostly been Fictionwise, Baen, and PG so I may well have missed soemthing. Is this becomming a multi-publisher standard, or it it unique to Mushroom? Oh i see that fictionwise now seems to list it -- do any other ebook publishers? -DES Talk 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Apologies DES, my eyesight missed 'this discussion' in blue. Sometimes I absolutely hate the WIKI as it sucks up the oxygen. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ace Double D-99

Added a cover image and a Currey note to [this] No doubt you will flesh out the notes when you get back to it. Added the same info to the title notes, so not necessary to keep the Currey note. Your discretion. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the temperature of our Rules/standards debates low

As per ISFDB:Policy:

  • Personal attacks that are not obscene: * 1st offense - a canned warning on the user's Talk page

Please refrain from using terms like "blackmail", "popped me", "baited argument", "jammed me", "stung me", etc. when discussing Rules and Standards. They raise the temperature of the debate and turn it personal, which never helps. Ahasuerus 23:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will NO LONGER participate in such. Understand, I have begged people not do this to me. Check my wiki. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Where is this famous wiki? --Marc Kupper|talk 05:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Check my archive. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I looked but did not see anything other than you take passionately to the subjects of books, databases, and communication, oxygen, and likely more. There are requests that mods just state what an issue is but to not offer solutions and to stick to a Q & A format. I always appreciate input and feedback, including yours, on possible improvements to both ISFDB and the moderator process. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
To me the pattern is very clear. In this case. I asked for input and received it, I entered a sample, stated so, and DES linked it. IMO, any further comment on that format should have been there. I then entered 2-11, and used the cover example (always a mistake), DES went to my portion of the wiki, stated he did not like "Kenneth Bulmer" and "Alan Burt Akers" together as a real and pen-name author. I told him I would check, rather than argue a case for it. The publisher clarified it was only "Alan Burt Akers", told DES, no argument then. Next day, I corrected 2-10, and entered approximately 15 plus others. I then received summons to a "new" topic on crediting reading time. The link was not seen by me, I responded at my site. Next day, I found #29 on hold (DES) and nothing else checked, all I assume because any mistake would have compounded and others wanted it hashed out. I then found the link and went and explained my opinion of crediting a numerical formula used by any who wished and that I did not agree. I told DES, let it go!. IMO opinion he had a full shot at it from the first, that not 'arguing' about 'authors' did not satisfy and he therefore 'pulled' the issue as a 'new topic'. Of all people, he new that 'holds' are apparent and I would react to it. He then wished me to compromise, I did not wish to and did not and had not liked that several people had offered 'solutions' before I could respond, though I did not want to 'join' that discussion at all. At this point it was clear to me that he would not discuss the topic 'where I had started it', found an objection which he desired to 'air' out, which I resolved, both of us knowing that I have great trouble following multiple input wiki messaging, in fact I very rarely understand the conclusions, if any of such, I especially have stated that the one-on-plus is detrimental to my understanding and ability to cope. I also found his changing the venue, deliberate, and felt that both the people who responded and myself were compromised. I found myself feeling 'ordered' to perform on the Rules page, to another's script. We had troubles over editing before, to the point, he had edited things that were not stated into the notes and forced me to retain notes that 'assumed' with no basis and 'stated' relationships that were probable, but as I have seen 4,000 books later not always true. The 'hold' became the intolerable burden as others were not processing my other inputs, though I do not fault them in the least. The 'hold' is and was used on the #29th entry, it was unjustified, but brought me to heel quite nicely. I then could not bare it any longer. If he could not have brought the whole to general attention, I would have folded, by removing the data, not by adding a source to a common data entry. Thus even though I was not going to verify those entries, I did for later ones and would not compromise to promote my personal favorite ebook dealer. Too much, I know, if you can not 'see' it from my part of the wiki, then you may not have experienced this kind of thing. Nevertheless, DES was totally aware of what would happen. Now it will not, as I will fall back on all this as a clear indication that I, the true barbarian, do not follow the rules of orderly discussion. When DES appears, I will depart. So, give the ignorant savage a break. Glad to discuss any topic with anyone else, but not if it has to be 'adversarial' as demanding I attend, knowing I must defend what I did. Just say "bt" bad thing or VBT, very bad thing and feed me raw meat. Too Long again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Loosing service due to DSL provider terminating service for two weeks (apparently arranging for others to assume the service is a no-go, unless maybe the just want some fees}. Unsure as how this affects email, etc. If allowed to return, am going to try to avoid all main wiki 'discussions/digressions', I do not understand much of it anyway, not being a 'technocrat'. Spent my whole life reading about technocracies and when I came to work in one did not recognize it. LOL. Messages not answered due to this. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Above not edited for intelligibility, due to personal problems. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Have no Fear - You are welcome to be contrary to a Mods opinion.

Harry - I had a similar issue after I had been here a short bit. DES's moderation comments often come across as 'This is the correct and right way', and you change, and he comments more, and you change more, and he comments more. He means well, I promise. See "I was trying to help, but it seems that I sounded more dictatorial than I meant to." from DES, and "Since I didn't want to be labeled 'not a team player' and I had already argued my point.... I then found myself conforming to your many suggestions because I was trying to be helpful (I think I will be a little more troublemaker from here on out (grin)) from me. Just remember, if it's correct, doesn't break the database, doesn't erase 'other' correct information, and conforms to the principle of right data, right field, then it's good data. You can say no. That said, I again promise you that DES means well, it's just his writing style, and attention to detail can sometimes combine to generate the wrong impression of what is being said. Kevin 00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I think DES is a great person, but I have wiki full of this kind of thing. If one person gets your 'goat', you tell them, and then they keep it up, you have to draw the line. In 'RL' he can do his thing, and basically I can do mine. I give people opportunities and appreciate the commentary. At the same, getting a 'mandatory' join this conversation call in that you caused, is pushing the 'personal' in to the dirt. In simple, he loves wiki and I hate wiki. I also have spent a life time not letting people make special or new rules on the fly with my life. It all adds up to 'sucking up my oxygen'. I am here to help others. Others can have the glory, but I refuse to let them dunce me. Sorry, it will take days to 'get over it' and I hate that. Funny thing, "Rl" I never get into a fight, except when trying to protect the elderly or children. Go Figure. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ace double M-101

Added the artist, apparently for both covers AND the interior artwork to[this] pub from the ACE Image Library. The notes/contents make no mention of interior art..... slipping, young fellow??? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically I am 15 years old. I am also a Revenant, so what it! LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Added a cover image and Currey note to[[14]]--Bluesman 01:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

eBook Formats

Harry - Just a suggestion, but I like to know what formats are available. Your note for Scorpio Reborn mentions that each ISBN is for a format. Is there any way you could list that extra info? (Heck, sometimes I have been known to just paste the format information straight from fictionwise, see NTRSTLLRNV2005 ) Thanks Kevin 02:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I will do that. I still do not wish to plug "Fictionwise", though it is my primary. I hate to think a smaller vendor can be blasted out by the bigger. I also have seen a great many companies go to the past. Thanks, for the input. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Change submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding series to variant titles

I accepted your submissions putting the later Dray Prescot novels into series, before realizing they were the pseudonymous title records. We have to create variants for Kenneth Bulmer. Those records will become the parent records and will be the ones that will be placed into series. The way that the series function currently is set up, this must be done so that there is no duplication in the series list. So I'm going to remove the series data from the "Alan Burt Akers" records, and place them in the Kenneth Bulmer records (once they've been created). Thanks. MHHutchins 19:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are saying create a 'most used' author record before adding further series titles under pseudonyms. I admit I can see it, but it always seems odd to have lists of titles under an others 'most common' name that he did not use to write those books under. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Planet Savers

Added a cover image to replace a broken link for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Looks good. Too bad the artist did not use more definition. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Foreward or Foreword

Could you check your copy of Enders Shadow to see if the foreword is spelled as foreward or foreword? My paperback, this one definitely has foreword. If yours is the same, I can merge them, otherwise mine will have to be a variant. Thanks Willem H. 20:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, added correct version, and will delete old after acceptance. I appreciate the catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ace Double M-131

Scanned in images for [this], added an artist for one cover (Ace Image Library). ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle for the Stars

Scanned in a cover image for [this] and added notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Worlds of the Wall

Scanned in a new image for [this]. There were two separate "First Printing" notes, deleted one (might have been there previous to verification?) ~bill, --Bluesman 02:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes the formatting shows I left 'previous notation' intact, as instructed at that time. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ace Dbl D-497

Added artists for both covers of [this] courtesy ACE Image Library. --Bluesman 03:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks very good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ACE Dbl D-507

Added second artist, with note, to [this] courtesy ACE Image Library. --Bluesman 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Same for [this] --Bluesman 22:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Defiance by Kenneth Bulmer

Just a note that Bluesman has added a Note, ""No statement of printing on copyright page." - Currey" to your verified Digit edition of the book. Ahasuerus 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement is correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Encounter in Space

The notes for [this] give me a headache.....~Bill, --Bluesman 04:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Very early submission with editing by other. Redid notation. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ace DBL F-104

Added second artist credit for [this] courtesy ACE Image Library. --Bluesman 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ace DBL D-331

Added second artist credit to [this] courtesy ACE Image Library. --Bluesman 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope the DSL will be up and running soon

Once it is, you may want to do something similar to what I have done on my talk page and add an etiquette section with your own preferences. Hope you will be back soon.--swfritter 12:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles of Amber Volume II

I upgraded your upgraded note for Chronicles of Amber Volume II. We had a bit of discussion on my talk page and we think you might have typoed the Gutter code from page 433. We changed it to I51 for the first printing, but you had I31 in the record. Could you please double check your copy when you get back? - Thanks Kevin 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I did err and posted on your discussion page. Appreciate the catch. Moved to third primary. The error was probably eyesight, have since gotten new glasses, though that will do little good. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Star

Added a cover image to [this]--Bluesman 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Venom of Argus

Your verified pub seems identical to the one I have in hand. However on my copy the copyright page says "ISBN 0-449-13586-1", and ISBNDB.COM confirms that this is a valid ISBN for this title. This matches the "catalog number" already listed. also gives august as the month of publication. I would like to add the month, and add a note about the ISBN on the copyright page, and remove the # form the ISBN/Cat No field to indicate that this is in fact an ISBN. Do you have any objections? -DES Talk 04:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections. This was the last book in the series, the first using an ISBN. It also "lost" the series number printed on the other's covers. It establishes the ISBN use for Fawcett as 1976 (?-August) as #3 War Games of Zelos used the old system of catalog numbering with the "First printing date of December 1975 with full number line" while the second number line printing dumped the first printing line date notation, has no printing date (as #4) and does not use the ISBN numbering system. Appreciate the fix. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Record updated, thanks. -DES Talk 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Vallian Cycle

I'm assuming your intent is to make this[15] a pseudonym of Kenneth Bulmer. The way to do this is click on the above title and in "Editing Tools" select "Make This...or Pseudonymous Work" then replace "Author1: Alan Burt Akers" with "Kenneth Bulmer". This will create the title the correct way. Thanks!Kraang

Thank God. I humbly apologize, but I have had 'very real problems' rationalizing the variant author scheme. Please reject and I will straighten out my Alan Burt Akers mess. This is assuming also the method for getting them out of the pen-name bin and back into the main one. Cleaning ABA up now! Five Stars for you. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Martian Rainbow

Hi Harry. I was checking my copy of this pub, and came across New Colonists' Guide to Mars. It is entered as being uncredited, but I think it's safe to assume Robert L. Forward wrote it himself. In the book it's credited to Maury Pickford, governor of Mars, who is obviously not a real person (she's one of the characters in the book). Of course there's the question of what to do. I would rather contribute it to Robert L. Forward with a note about this, but there's the alternative of contributing it to Maury Pickford, and making her a pseudonym of Forward, or deleting the thing and making it part of the novel. What do you think? Willem H. 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Willem. My mistake in that 'Uncredited' is definitely not correct. Marc Kupper and I had a similar discussion when Leigh Bracket took a fan produced map and created a fictional report (on Mars, I think) with the fan's art added. This. [16] . It is the two at the end of the contents. Thus, by example, I think you would be safe to keep it as a separate fictional piece, in case it is printed in some magazine, collection, etc or it is deleted in later printings, but you can attribute it to Robert L. Forward without creating a pseudonym. Maury Pickford, would be good if you found Forward using it in any other separate instance(s) without Forward being obviously credited. He could then be creating a fictional author, which might need to be shown as such under his name, but so far it is doubtful that this might occur.
Having said all this, Do you want me to do it? Thanks for the great catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't find anything else by Maury Pickford, so I assume Forward used the name only once. I made a submission for the namechange and notes for the piece. If it's accepted, take a look to see if you agree, and feel free to add to it. Thanks, Willem H. 10:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks great. Thanks for the great job. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Harry, you had mentioned "Floating cataracts, etc." in a talk thread on my talk page. If you are using FireFox do you know about holding the control key down and rolling the mouse wheel to change the display size? If you use the keyboard most of the time then Control plus either the - or + on the numeric keypad or -= on the standard keyboard also works. Use Control plus 0 to revert to the default size. If you use Internet Explorer then the mouse trick works though that does not have the same range of sizes as FireFox. The keyboard versions don't work in IE other than you could do ALT-V-X and select the size. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Floating Cataracts" is a doctor definition of a couple of a months ago. It involved the news that correction only was 20/40 each eye, with a 20/30 using both eyes. The warning was that the dominant right eye cataracts were growing, i.e. floating, accumulating. The effect is to diffuse the sight like a prism. The day I was writing too you, it suddenly became obvious that the problem was causing secondary problems. I actually was looking at the screen at a 45 degree angle. I had another person check it out and I have actually bent the desk chair leaning and twisting, unknown to me in the last year. The twist was bad enough to twist the neck, back and strain both eyes. The worst effect is the screen brightness, but what helps with one eye strains the other. The dominant floating cataract eye wants to 'shut down' and the new cataract configuration is now a noticeable smudge. Computer use therefore has to now be limited. I already have a plan to get it checked further, but I am leery of further strain, though the first two doctors did not say so, they also did not go into further effects. I devised a check program on my computer and found that I have some 'invisible' areas and that my brain was interpreting words, instead of clearly defining them. During bad periods, Minx becomes miller or mirror and 3,5,6 are becoming interchangeable. The only fix is to limit myself. Game plan is to do/re-do a few books that I need to shelve and then await results. So, I will try to clear my decks and go into 'sheol' mode till the 'system' works it self out. Sorry, to bother you with my problems, but the problem became apparent and I can not keep up with a 'wiki' discussion. My own included. LOL. I am actually delighted that I took steps, got new glasses and pushed my main doctors with my concerns, as the unlikely, but possible is occurring. I went through this process with my aunt and have hopes that it will be as do-able as it was for her. What a world we live in, a totally hopeless situation of a decade ago, has potential for recovery today. Still, my inclination is to minimize the 'eye strains' for now. So I will go into the 'shell'. Wiki note on my start page to follow, but sincere apologies that I can not maintain a conversations sanely under the circumstances, nor even read this drivile for errors. LOL. Again apologies, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I've always found those invisible areas in our vision and also how the eye/brain compensates for what's going on around us to be fascinating. I agree, do everything you can to reduce eye, and brain strain. Good luck with your eyes and the doctors. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Will Do. Just a thing as long as the mind is still functioning. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dragon, the Earl, and the Troll -- changed cover image link

I changed the link on your verified The Dragon, the Earl, and the Troll to this non-LZZZZZZZ link. It matches what the LZZZZZZZ link was currently pointing to, but you might want to check that it actually matches your book -- I don't know if that cover changed over time (although I presume not since your March verification). --MartyD 11:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Looks good. Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Aliens™ Book 1: Earth Hive -- artist name spelling?

I happened to notice your verified Aliens™ Book 1: Earth Hive spells the artist's name "Dennis", with two ens. I suspect it should probably be one, Denis Beauvais. Locus1 reinforces that suspicion, except for the first printing. What say you? --MartyD 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. That is a typo or almost involuntary spelling. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Correction submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

van Vogt's Supermind

This edition was published in February 1979 according to Locus #219 (February 1979). MHHutchins 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Date changed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Frostworld and Dreamfire

According to Locus #220 (April 1979), your verified copy of this title was published in March 1979. MHHutchins 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Note added and date changed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan question

I think you know the Perry Rhodan books fairly well. Can you help answer a question about them that i posted at ISFDB:Verification requests#Perry Rhodan #s 77, 78, and 79? This has nothing to do with any particular entry that you made. -DES Talk 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact I am at fault, but my excuse is that PR can be chaotic and does give me headaches. Bob, Marc and I were trying to untangle it, but in some cases the result is mixed/wrong. I really appreciate that a contributor/editor is taking a look. The whole series needs massaging and I will backstop, if possible. Ackerman, IMO, did a lot to make things obscure, especially with pseudonym creation. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! FYI, Our new contributor is User:Jonschaper. -DES Talk 15:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I read your commentary and hope your encouragement works. I have the complete PR, Ace printing, and will help in any way. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Apostle of Letters: The Life and Works of Lin Carter

I accepted your submission adding this new pub, but am uncertain why Lin Carter would be given credit as author. Looking at the cover it appears that only Servello is credited as editor. Does the title page give Carter co-credit? (He had passed away before this was published.) Thanks. MHHutchins 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am mistaken, but I thought works on authors, was reflected back to that author so that users could find the material? I doubt anyone will research the book, without the goosing. LOL. If this is incorrect, I have no problem removing Lin Carter. No the only crediting is that everything is about him and the reviews done before his death. Screens are still a great bother so say yes or no please, and we can drop it. No offense, I thought I was following a pattern. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand the wish to link associated material to the subject authors, (I feel the same) but currently there's no way to do this in the database, and the wiki would be ineffective to link it to the author's summary page as well. Hopefully, a user would use the title search to find such material, but, unlike this title, not all titles include the subject author's name. Please feel free to make the changes and I'll accept the submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There has been a suggestion of a new "subject" field that would provide such links. But exactly how this would work has not been settled, and when (or if) it might be implemented I have no idea. I think it would be a good thing precisely for cases liek this. -DES Talk 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed from author line and content line. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John Brunner's Polymath

According to Locus #221 (May 1979), your verified edition of this title was published in April, 1979. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Printing date accepted, noted and submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Edmond Hamilton's Doomstar

Your verified copy of this title was published in April, 1979 according to Locus #221 (May 1979). Thanks. MHHutchins

Date accepted, noted and submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Coyote -- duplicate pub?

Your recent submisison for a pub of unknown date of Coyote by Allen Steele seems to me to be an expanded duplicate of this pub. Is it? If it is, info should be merged and one pub deleted. Or is there a difference I am missing? -DES Talk 22:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am holding this, pending your response. -DES Talk 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I Know, it is the one I cloned off of. The one trouble I had with taking it over by 'fiat' was mine is so clearly a 5th printing by line number. I wondered if the 'Cloned from' was without printing sequence or what. I figured there could be several with the ACE fifty year, even long after in some cases, but what if it was not. The way it was written up has left me in doubt, but if you feel better about deleting it or merging then by all means. It is one of those 'careful doubt' moments for me. I also have doubts about this being a Berkley instead of an Ace. [17]. There is also this my copy with a #5 number line and price change is very, most probably not printed in 2003 as the Ace Mass Market edition December 2003. So the Ace anniverserary logo junk is a 'false legacy' tell for dating the book. I also have no idea hom many $6.99 before the #5 I have. So I figured to leave the unknown data alone to hold a place for future fill ins. Sorry for the ramble, but it is a bad 'whtie screen' moment. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I'll deal with the other pub, or leave it. I'll also approve your clone. Thanks. Good luck dealing with white screen problems. -DES Talk 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the Farthest Star

I held this edit several days ago. i thought I had left you a note at the time, but I see that i did not. My apologies. -DES Talk 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit, in addition to adding various notes 9all of which look fine) changed several page numbers to "del". I presume this is a way of indicating that the titles in question should be removed from the pub in a future edit. (if it isn't, then what is it?)

I had thought there were several problems with this, but on looking it over again to write this note I see none that justify holding it. Careful reading of your added notes makes it fairly clear what is going on, with the exception of the "del" indication for the interior art on page 2. But that is a minor matter, and i must trust the person with the book-in-hand.

I am about to approve this edit. Please do return to it so the "del" page number do not remain for too long.

Again I apologize for the delay. -DES Talk 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The resulting pub is here. -DES Talk 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Des, but I think you may forgotten what I assumed was your major objection/problem with this. The del in page numbers has been requested by monitors so they know what I am proposing for deletion. I prefer to go back and do it myself. Back to problem. What probably caught your attention is that I found using ISFDB rules that 'Beyond the Farthest Star' had been renamed 'Adventure on Poloda' on the story title page. Apparently no one else has caught this or this is the first they did it on. When I submitted it, I assumed someone would notice, as you probably did, but having set it aside, it probably dropped from your attention. It is my intention to make the new title a variant. Dels submitted and variant aw rebuttal commentary, if you wish. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was part of what I first spotted, but when i looked through your quite detailed notes I saw what was going on. I did not know, or had forgotten about, the request for the "del" page numbers, now that I know it seems a reasonable idea. Again i apologize for not reviewing this more quickly and thoroughly. -DES Talk 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Green's Wandor's Journey

This was published in May 1979, according to Locus #222 (June, 1979). Thanks. MHHutchins 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Date submitted. Much Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Klein's Starmasters' Gambit

This was published in May 1979, according to Locus #222 (June 1979). Thanks. MHHutchins 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Date submitted, notation made. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

LCCN links

In case you didn't know, one can link to the Library of congress online record number given the LCCN. The general form is "LCCN: <a HREF="">YY-NNNNN</a>" or "LCCN: <a HREF="">YYYYNNNNNN</a>". The number in the URL omits hyphans and spaces, and the part after the year is padded to 6 digits with leading zeros if need be. See Help:How to create a link to a US Library of Congress (Loc) record. -DES Talk 16:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry DES but I do not get it. Sides these white screens are still more a scream than not, if it is not required, then I will probably not do any until I am in a better personal situation. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It is definitely not required. When you enter an LCCN (Library of Congress Control Number) in the notes, there is a simple and reliable way to also add a link to the Library of Congress online record about the book, if you choose to. That is all. -DES Talk 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, long hot day, but are you saying that creating a link in the notes make it easier to research at the Library of Congress? As I said I will not be reading that FAQ for awhile. Or are you saying that you can make a link in their database that will trigger our record? If so that is great, and will I bear it in mind. The more the merrier. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I am saying that a link can be easily added to our notes, which will take a user from the ISFDB to the LoC catalog's record for a specific LCCN. This makes it easier to find what the LoC has to say about the book, usually about the same edition the record is for, but publishers sometimes reuse an LCCN for a later edition (such as using the HC's LCCN for a PB). Such a link may be helpful, but is in no way required. I now routinely add such links when I see an LCCN in pub notes, but not every editor does. -DES Talk 23:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I checked out your LCN hot link and like it. I would add it but my head/sight is not good enough to assure my correctness at this time. Still, I really like the connection and have always felt the LCN had it's place. I think it definitely needs to be added to the form. Even if a person just added it to notes, another could later add it as a hot link. Goes to show that almost any piece of information will help to fill in the puzzle. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

US priced edition of SF Adventures, No. 17

I accepted your submission of this pub and had a question or two. What is the "#16" in the ISBN/Catalog number field and how does it appear in the magazine? Is there a comma before the "Ltd." in the publisher's name on the pub's masthead? The reason I ask is that the UK editions were all entered as "Nova Publications Ltd." without a comma. Also, I'm going to merge the editor record with other Carnell-edited pubs of that year, and merge the content titles as well. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

#16 should be #17 sorry. No comma also. I am fine with merge as I could not clone. I also have a #23 in dollars, but I am know wondering about saying it is American dollars as No. 16 has notes about the Canadian issue of New Worlds Science Fiction and I am know wondering if the North American issue is truly a Canadian one. I will check the result tomorrow. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, magazines are non-clonable, so that's put off the entry of the different versions of magazines of foreign origin. In some cases, it's hard to determine of they're actually new printings. I accepted this because it was priced in US currency, although the only difference appears to be the price on the cover. If it's later decided that it doesn't meet the criteria (of which there are currently none) then we can easily remove it from the database. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have one more, but when I was checking for certain short stories appearing in British magazines with American clones, I found several listed that had same numbers, but differing content as was pointed out by vendors. This seems to occur in later issues, so my thought is that they all need cataloging and noting and then if were careful the answer will be found (in the future). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

SF Adventures No. 18

You dropped the period at the end of "Nova Publications Ltd" and there's no comma. No big deal, but I'm trying to regularize the spelling of the publisher so that the pubs will appear under one record. I also see you put "#18" in the ISBN/Catalog number field. If this is the issue number, that would go into the title field (if the issue is undated) or in the notes field (if the issue is month/season dated.) Some magazine editors choose to use the field for the ISSN, but in the early sixties, the ISSN didn't exist. Magazine entry has its own rules and quirks, that may seem awkward or strange, at first. Even to a veteran editor (of 2 1/2 years!) So I just go along with those who have been doing it day-in and day-out. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the help. I went bleary again at the end and am still definitely off, but thinking back the real recognition of commas versus periods has probably been positional. I try not to miss it, but I did not type the publisher in this time. Though I did not catch it either, but I should have, and will try. As for the period being in others, it is monkey see/do. I hate to say this, and most think on it today, but if the issue # does not go there when it is the only identifier provided by the publisher then I think the "mag" boys need to think back their processes. A numerical order of printing is stil a numbering sequence and I find it hard that they justify it otherwise. If the 'mag' boys really got it right, then I could have cloned. Not blaming just saying that the rules may need review and a better consensus because their is more information available. I scream at trying to use the 'help' screens as they should be divided into these categories, ie. there should be a 'magazine only' edit screen. Still I do not have many, but there is potential I will pursue more in my quest for other writers/stories. Blearing out continues today and I will try to refrain today, other than vers. Appreciate the help comment and please send a 'mag' person to chastise me. Bob and I talked, but that was on/off more than not. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I see your point and can agree with you up to a certain point (when magazines are numbered, instead of dated). If any of the mag guys want to step in now, perhaps they can explain any rationale behind the use of the ISBN/Catalog Number field. And you're right, the "help" isn't that "help"-ful when it comes down to specific entry for magazines. You might consider bringing up a request for a magazine-specific edit/entry screen. It seems like a logical approach, but might be quashed by those who feel a common screen for all pubs would be more user-friendly. Still, you never know... MHHutchins 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I approved a couple of entries with the issue number in the catalog ID field. It actually gave me food for thought. I seem to vaguely remember suggestions that volume and issue numbers be listed in this field and whatever arguments there were against that would probably also apply to issue numbers. In this case though there is a bit of a problem in that the issue number is listed in the title field since there is no prominent month listing and listing it in the Catalog ID field is a bit redundant. I think there is a good argument for listing the month for this issue as January. The reason the publishing date is 1/61 and the copyright date is 1960: the publishing date, commonly the cover date, for magazines is usually the date when the magazine goes off-sale. The magazine was printed and distributed in 1960 which is the reason for the copyright date. Since we have no consistently reliable method to determine when the magazines are actually printed and distributed we use the publishing date for consistencies sake. I think most of the major awards also use this standard.--swfritter 17:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, back when I was a newbie I made the same suggestion myself. Nobody seemed to want to listen to the new kid.--swfritter 19:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
So now when someone writes a history of the ISFDB we will know why ISSN numbers began to be put into the catalog/id field. Since others have questioned doing so, I a have stopped entering ISSN numbers. Harry, I know you don't like getting involved in policy discussions. But the correct way to implement a new policy or standard is to be willing to do so. Considering the amount of data that has been entered I think it is probably too late to start using the catalog/id field for issue numbers or vol/issue numbers.--swfritter 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I would support a feature request for a new field for such numbers, would others? -DES Talk 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Quick, where's my tardis and my volunteer programmer? Before Harry's talk page gets overwhelmed we should probably move any further discussion elsewhere.--swfritter 17:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but my reluctance to engage in these wiki conversations is that my floating cataracts make it like staring into headlights and with their blocking my vision/mind is substatuting works/numbers. In all the more I use it here, the less I have to use later that day. The biggest problem is as the discussion continues, I can not review or check without greater and greater difficulty. So I miss key points and answers. I can not maintain a balanced stand point to discuss things clearly, thus rather than really 'duncing' it up, it is best to refrain. I will desist from putting the number in, though I still think it is reasonable as the 'default' identity indicator. I also do not seem to be able to search by magazine issue title, which also seems strange. I have no real need to add to the form, nor objection, but I checked DES's LCN hot links and definitely think that needs to be a form entry. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Swfritter, I get the intent and know remember Bob dinging me about the last PR issues. I totally understand using an ISBN or printer's catalog number. My personal sense is that a blank space denotes the need to find that 'crucial data' and that a default to the only identifier number makes sense. Now that I get the intent, I will go back and remove the numbers, but still think their lack creates more questions for users. If the ISBN's are not unique to each magazine issue I can see how this would become questionable, but at least it would lead to the series (IMO). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Naked God: Part 2: Faith

I updated the title of your verified pub The Naked God: Part 2: Faith to the correct subtitle mark. Your title had been "The Naked God, Part 2: Faith" and I changed the "," to a ":". Assumed to be a data entry typo that didn't get caught at verification. Thanks Kevin 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I updated the title of your verified pub The Reality Dysfunction: Part 1: Emergence to the correct subtitle mark. Your title had been "The Reality Dysfunction, Part 1: Emergence" and I changed the "," to a ":". Assumed to be a data entry typo that didn't get caught at verification. Thanks Kevin 03:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks greatly. I assume, because of sight problems, I put semi colons instead of colons? Or is that just a comma? Thanks for the correction. I got it know you/they want colon not comma. Weird but the page for reply is easier to make out than the wiki reading page. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It was a coma. You may be able to set your browser type size to make reading easier on all wiki pages. See View|Text Size on IE, or View|Zoom on Firefox. Hope this helps. -DES Talk 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Good thought, but in or out does not help. Think 'Snowblindness' and the more writing there is the more distortion, but changing size smaller or larger increases distortion. Weird, but fairly effective curb on reading. Softer screen backgrounds help some, but most colors also act negatively. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sladek's "Stop Evolution in Its Tracks"

I suspect that the apostrophe in "Stop Evolution in It's Tracks" here is a typo and should be merged with other versions of the title. Cheers Jonschaper 04:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Added aw accept to del. Good Catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I accepted the submission adding the correct title. The old title record was dropped from the pub. I also deleted the orphaned title record and its variant. Thanks. MHHutchins 14:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, greatly Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The British Space Fiction Magazine Vol. 2 No. 3

I was under the impression that when an editorial or other column was credited to "The Editor" we entered "The Editor" as the author. But I'm not as experienced with magazines as some others, so i will neither approve this nor hold it, but leave it for someone who may know better. -DES Talk 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The Editor is a very busy author. If you are very sure of the actual author of the piece you can make The Editor a pseudonym for that person.--swfritter 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will change it to "The Editor" and then make that specific entry a pseudonym of John Russell Fearn, the owner of the pseudonym Vargo Statten. Changed notes, will await acceptance. FYI John Russell Statten, aka, Vargo Statten, notoriously wrote almost everything in his magazines to cover the gaps in material submitted or up to his standards. His total number of pseudonyms is undoubtedly one of the largest in British writing. Missed changing to 'The Editor' but will catch it soon. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim Jones twins by names not deeds

I have input some books of Tim Jones, but mine is born UK living Arkansas and I have a good site for him, plus an occasional conversation. The other is NZ born (found his site also). So I am trying for a split. FYI. Jump the Gun!. The cheek of some people wanting to use their common name. LOL! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Time Jones. Two of them?

I have on hold a couple of updates and a new novel which you want to assign to Tim Jones (UK). How do we know that Tim Jones (UK) is not the same as Tim Jones? The other Tim Jones has a birthplace of UK; New Zealand.--swfritter 13:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposed Tim Jones (UK) is now in Arkansas. [18]. The other Tim Jones in NZ is [19]. Better solution welcome! Thanks, Harry.
Looks like you were way ahead of me. NZ is in the UK also? Is there a more specific birthplace in the UK? I will go ahead and approve and perhaps you can come up with a more specific identifier. Also, you may want to put some brief notes and perhaps internet links on the Bibliographic Comments pages for each author, something I am often too lazy to do.--swfritter 13:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I will work on these in the afternoon or tomorrow. I believe their birth years are the same also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Submitted as best I could do. Fresh ideas always welcome anyone. I stayed with the (UK) because that Jones says he lives in both the UK and Arkansas. The other is New Zealand since age 2. No offense if anyone has better solutions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication date for The British Space Fiction Magazine Vol. 2 No. 3

Although there is no date printed, both MIT Index to the S-F Magazines and Mike Ashley in Transformations give the month for this pub as August. Help allows you to assign a publication date for a magazine if that date is based on research. Totally up to you. I might also note that you can do a search on pub titles by using the ISFDB Publication Search Form in Advanced Search.--swfritter 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Month change submitted. Sorry for all the trouble. Thanks greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Page for British S-F Magazine?

Guess we don't have one. Want me to create one? It looks like it started off as Vargo Statten Science Fiction Magazine, changed to British Science Fiction Magazine and then British Space Fiction Magazine. --swfritter 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I am very confused about the method of DB display for magazines. I also plan on trying to get more. I find I like old style stories more than modern. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Let me know when you need any other magazines to be wiki linked. I've always found it easier to navigate though the magazine page. Just a few point and clicks but I know others prefer using searches. In order to avoid going to the rarely seen ISFDB main page I bookmark this page. I'm going to getting around to reading those Jason Croft novels one of these days. So much wonderful stuff to read!!--swfritter 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Magazines is now linked to from the navbar of most database pages, if that helps you. -DES Talk 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Also I update the dates in this pub so all the contents have the date of the pub. Also added and linked the reviewed book.--swfritter 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Adventures UK and US editions

With the U.S. prices on the covers it looks like there must be U.S. editions. Or possibly Candadian? Interesting. This started out as a U.S. mag which was reprinted in the UK. It continued publishing in UK when the U.S. edition folded and now it looks like some of the UK editions were reprinted in the U.S.--swfritter 13:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The two that I have look like direct reprints except for small changes, price mainly. One though, A British I believe, states an American editor and British editor and the editorial is by the American. The Canadian question comes in from a statement to a reader, and it makes you wonder because at that time the money exchange rate was very small and sometimes in the Canadian favor (kid memory). Unfortunately, after inputting them I can not figure out how to get them into proper spot. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will have to do a little more research.--swfritter 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hamilton

Harry, please don't worry about the "Peter Hamilton, Jr.", "Peter Hamilton" and "Peter F. Hamilton" stuff. Peter F. wasn't even born when the non-F-ed Peters were active. It would be interesting if it turned out one was the father or grand-father of the other, but we have no evidence for such yet. BLongley 23:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Will set it aside, till something turns. It just bugs me that so much is lost or corrupted. I wish their will little flags to put up that the db knows it and is awaiting more data. I hate to misrepresent. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pegasus in Flight

You might want to double check the artist credit for Pegasus in Flight. I have a hardcover in hand with extremely similar cover art that is also very clearly credited (and visibly signed) as by Whelan, not Romas. Just an FYI. Later - Kevin 05:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-did the notes and as it looks the same, I went with Michael Whelan. I also could find no signature. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nebula Science Fiction, July 1958

Looks good. Linked the Simak book review and removed the Chandler title while making the new title addition a pseudonymous variant. Also modified the " Look Here . . . " title with spaces between the ellipsis dots.--swfritter 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Spaces, okay! Will do my last, at this time (LOL), British currency Nebula in afternoon, but I am wondering what is proper for the two with 35 cent prices? This was easier as there were a lot less review books mentioned. Question though, he did parse some of the Simak short stories? I, fervently hope, that it is not necessary to add them. LOL! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
According to Tuck the American editions were "the British edition stamped at 35 cents". The two options are to update the existing British titles and indicate that at far as is known they are identical with the American or add new American titles. The second method would be the more technically correct method but the first method might be OK until someone with the British edition shows up and we can verify. If a UK edition with differences shows up then the current UK editions will be categorized as US editions and new UK editions created.--swfritter 16:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I read something of that at Visco, but please check my "October US" submission of the June 1958 issue. I think I parsed it adequately, but my clarity is never that of others. I believe for this DB purposes their are differences enough. I also dated the contents to the June issue. Oh well! Doing it and thinking it through straight is not my forté. LOL. One more American, No. 39. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit, from signature, for verified [20].Don Erikson 15:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

James Jacque Joseph Tisot

I approved your submisison of a publication of The War of the Worlds with a cover by "James Jacque Joseph Tisot". However, all online searches for further info about this artist give his last name as Tissot with two Ss. Could you please check the publication to see if this is a data entry error, or a printing error by the publishers, or what? Thank you. -DES Talk 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Wikipedia has an image of the painting on file. We can't hot-link to that, but we can download a copy and upload it here if we like. Or is the cover just a section so that image isn't a good one for the purpose? In any case it should help confirm that this is the same artist. -DES Talk 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My error totally, Tissot it is. The image will work fine as the only thing missing is the title overprint. Though, what the hey it has to do with "The Time Machine" is beyond me. Corrected name and added image, sincere apology. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
When I said "we cannot hot-link to it" I meant we cannot use the URL of any image on any of the Wikipedia or Wikimedia servers in our Image URL field. They have a strict rule against that kind of linking, and if they catch us, they could block our domain, which would mean that all our wikipedia links would stop working. If we want an image from Wikiepdea, we must download it locally, and the re-upload it to the ISFDB. I am going to reject this edit, and grab the image myself. See ISFDB:Image linking permissions and Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki for more on this. -DES Talk 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The result is here. Please check it when you have a chance. -DES Talk 22:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks good and thanks. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nebula Science Fiction, October 1958 U.S.

Couple of things for this issue. I put the U.S. designation in brackets as we have done elsewhere. You have various pieces of artwork titled "Nebula Science Fiction, June 1958". Are these illustrations title in any way? If not a better format might be "untitled (Nebula Science Fiction, June 1958)". Artwork on pages 104 and 107. Are these cartoons? Could you check the spelling for the reviewed book "The Centarians". I am assuming the book reviewed is the same as "The Centenarians, A Fable" which I have added from Worldcat data and linked to the review.--swfritter 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Brackets. Changed to untitled, including back cover. Changed and added (Cartoon). The Centenarians is correct. Corrected it at the review, should have del, but almost forgot it. No "A Fable" anywhere. I notice that changing the date must have something to do with when you pull it from the shelves and the trans-Atlantic shipping, four months. Still I think the entry shows what they did to market it and what to compare it to in the British series. Thanks for all the help, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nebula Science Fiction, June 1959 [U.S.]

Looks good. Cartoon titles should be formatted like this: Cartoon: "Watch Out, They're Throwing Things!!" with the caption in quotes. On page 61 you have the entry "Bem (cartoon)". If this is a cartoon with no caption the format should be "Cartoon: no caption". What I sometimes do, and it is not in Help, is to place a description of a non-captioned cartoon in parenthesis. Something like ""Cartoon: no caption (Bem)".--swfritter 14:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I did it, I think? Thanks for doing the other two. LOL! Glad I am out of magazines for awhile. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wollheim's Best Series Four

The ISBN on this pub has come up invalid. A working checksum is "7", but if it shows "1" in the book we have to note it as an invalid ISBN. Thanks. MHHutchins 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Been a while since an invalid ISBN. Do I leave it or delete it, and put it in notes? Only one vendor each for Amazon and Abe for the correct number. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You can get rid of the red warning by placing a pound sign before the number, making it a catalog number instead of an ISBN. It would be a good idea to note that the ISBN is invalid. Also, I looked up the pub in Locus and saw that it was published in December 1980. You can cite the source of the date as Locus #241 (February 1981). MHHutchins 22:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I did both. Appreciate the corrections and input. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope I'm clarifying rather than confusing - but I think the suggestion is to put a "#" in front of the number. That may be a "pound" sign to many (North American?) editors, but as I'm trying to get the true pound sign "£" fixed for price fields the language may confuse. BLongley 23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the formal name of the symbol # (as opposed to any of it's meanings) is "Octothorpe" a term no one but a typesetter or font specialist is likely to know. -DES Talk 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I know you thought you were being funny, but I actually did put the British £, as I use it often enough. As for it being called a pound sign, I hate it, because it does not seem right. Of course, all the telepone recording/directing devices use it, when they are getting you on that fast track to the proper place, usually not a person. I remember it, years back, as the hash symbol. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgive for the confusion. I've been brainwashed by the telephone company into calling it that. When I was younger, it was simply called a number sign. MHHutchins 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Planet of Exile / Mankind Under the Leash

I identified the month of publication for Planet of Exile / Mankind Under the Leash as October based on the information in the third printing of Planet of Exile. Thanks Kevin 04:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good Job! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging excerpts

I'm holding a submission that wants to merge two excerpts from Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar. The first appears in Moorcock's New Worlds magazine in 1967, and the second appears in Volume 3 (1979) of Gunn's The Road to SF series. Do you have a copy of either to compare the text and determine if they're identical? The odds are against two editors choosing the same excerpt, and if they're different, the two records shouldn't be merged. The best way to handle this (if they're different) is to make a note in their respective title records, that they shouldn't be merged. I can't think of another way to disambiguate other than renaming one of them, but then that one would not conform to ISFBD standards about naming excerpts. I'll hold the submission if you wish to research the texts. Thanks. MHHutchins 13:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, trigger finger to fast. I forgot to check for similarities on that one. My deepest apologies. Will try to always look for greater similarities. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wollheim's Best, Series Three

This pub was published in December 1979 according to Locus #229 (January 1980). MHHutchins 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Added notation and date. Thanks, greatly. Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Brothers of Earth by Cherryh

According to Locus #223 (Jul/Aug 1979), this pub was published in June 1979. MHHutchins 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Added date and notation. Thanks, greatly. Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Library of Congress Interim System for card catalog numbers

I noticed your comment about the LCCN looking odd in this pub. I learned recently that between December 1968 and February 1972 the Library of Congress had a different system (the "Interim System") of assigning card catalog numbers (now known as the control number since there are no more cards). The first two numbers that used to refer to the year doesn't apply in those years. Take a look at this link and you'll see that LCCN 78-161120 actually was the number that was assigned to the pub when it was first published by Walker in 1971. (Some paperback reprinters don't re-register titles, although some will and get new LCCNs.) Fortunately, after three years of this strange system, the LOC went back to the old system (with slight modification) of assigning numbers with the first two digits being the year of registration (not necessarily the year of publication) followed by a dash and then the number. After 2000, there is no dash and the first four numbers are the year and the last six are the control number. Hope this helps. In the future, if you want to check a LCCN, go to ''''''. The first two numbers are the two digits before the dash, the last six numbers are the digits after the dash. (Don't enter the dash.) You have to remember to fill in the six digits with leading zeros if the number isn't six digits long. Starting in 2001, enter four digits for the year. MHHutchins 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that explains some of the quirky ones I have put down before. Thanks for the information. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pandora's Genes -- Mattingly credit

Your notes indicate that the cover artist has been identified by 'Signature "©Mattingly 84" '. You have assigned the cover credit to Dave Mattingly. I think that David B. Mattingly or perhaps David Mattingly are better choices when the only source of credit is a sig that includes only the last name.

I have this on hold pending your response. -DES Talk 01:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The copyright page says Dave Mattingly in Italics. No David or David B. Mattingly and I did not enter it that way, but someone else did, so I left it. I told you that the people who put much of the crediting, especially for authors use 'office familiar' names. So you are holding it for an input before my input. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If there was a copyright page credit for Dave Mattingly, then that's what I think we should go with. It wasn't clear to me that there was a printed credit beyond the signature. Thanks for entering this and so many others, and for responding to my queries. I'll approve this. -DES Talk 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Approved. The result is here. Thanks again. -DES Talk 14:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mission to Universe

Corrected a typo in the artist's name for [this] from "Sterbach" to "Sternbach". ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correction. Re-formatted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

DeWitt vs. De Witt

I have your submission making "R. De Witt Miller" a variant of "R. DeWitt Miller". It's become a de facto ISFDB standard to correct the credit of authors with names such as Le Guin, de Camp, del Rey, etc. to the canonical author credit, regardless of how or where the publishers place the space (or not sometimes) in their names. Spelling errors, of course, would generate a variant, but spacing can often be seen as a printer's choice (one that the author in question would groan about, no doubt.) If we created variants for each time it's printed differently, the variants would become unmanageable. I don't even know if this has been codified in the help pages, but it has been the subject of some comments. Perhaps we need to bring it back up again on the Rules and Standards page so that it can become part of the stated rules. I'll hold the submission if you feel further discussion is warranted. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The help currently says "Author names that vary only in capitalization are not tracked as variants." but doesn't say anything about spacing. I agree that it should. I recall when I was entering a review of a book by Ursula K. Le Guin. The review spelled her name as "LeGuin" and i would have made that a variant, but was advised not to. -DES Talk 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point, but obviously you have never been in a feud over the how and why of that spelling. Suffice to say, I can find quotes for thousands of name changes designed to separate names and families. Even the importance of middle names and the four naming system the British tried to establish. I have no real idea of the proper spelling of DeWitt or De Witt or de Witt or de'witt, but I do know absolutely that in the legal sense all are separate and distinct. If I do a computer search on this data base, I will get a different result, so technically the computer decides the issue. Example searches can be shown. Thus the oh so often stressed necessity of the exact name as spelled is as true for this as for any other. If you wish to subsume my entry then DES's argument that partial spellings and misspellings of artist names is also lost in the argument above. Essentially, you are parsing the issue too fine. I have known De Witts and DeWitts and they did not see the similarity. Care to parse de laney or Delaney or de lany or delany? BTL. Do as you please, but remember that the rocky road will always bruise your feet. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is a difference and that the individual author would argue (rightly) that the space is very important. That's why we (in our infinite wisdom, ha!) have determined what we believe to be that author's "authorized" name, making it canonical. That's easy to do for the more popular authors. No one can argue that Le Guin should be LeGuin, just because a printer or editor decides there shouldn't be a space. I would argue though that we can't know if the average database user knows that. Perhaps we can set up a redirect, so that any search for "leguin" would bring up records for "le guin". Not being savvy in such matters, I can't say that's possible. But I don't want to look at Ursula's page and see half of the entries with variants. I'll keep the submission on hold if you wish to bring this discussion to the Rules page. I would also ask that any editors reading this not to respond here, as Harry's and my opinions have been made clear, and any further discussion should take place on a community page. Thanks for the consideration. MHHutchins 20:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I have studied names for years and have real problems with 'Canonical' conventions used by anyone/group. I also have seen the Le Guin LeGuin Leguin combinations. I have little problem with attempting to standardize here though with the first name of Ursula there should be little problem with doing so. I can argue all this every day any day with bloody fist or qoted text. I can not agree to standardizing De Witt, de witt, deWitt or DeWitt. I do not know for absolute certainty the correct spelling, ie. the author's personal preference. My point is that the only thing we really know is that both forms for this person has been used. My guess is he made a personal decision as to what he wanted, but I have nothing to point to in his specific case. All this, said and done, I would have searched for De Witt not DeWitt, of course knowing what I do of names I would eventually get to the other, but then I am not everyone and the sheep fold due to the computer age is actually less knowledgeable than in the past. I therefore do not 'care' that I can not absolutely prove my point, but as I said the slope is very slippery when it comes to people's names. So do as you will, the onus is not on me as I have fallen back on 'reporting what is there, not what I think it should be'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Harry, I'm sorry but I'd forgotten about our earlier conversation regarding the need to keep talk threads easy to parse. While I wrote a lot below please feel free to disregard it. The root issue is a human vs. computer conflict. At present the computer is winning simply as it's "stupid" and can only do so much. Thus while you may see some resistance to your thoughts it's not because of the thoughts themselves but rather we're wresting with ways to get the stupid computer to do what you, and all of us, want. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the things I do after entering a publication is I'll click on the author link(s) to see if perhaps I've hit a pseudonym, typo, etc. Thus if I had entered DeWitt but then saw that page was empty or nearly so I'd hunt around and likely find De Witt. If so, I'll change the name to De Witt and add a note that the publication stated DeWitt.
If I'm dealing with a new or relatively unknown author I'll check the copyright page and other sources to see if I can figure out how to format the name. If possible, I'll ask the author for his or her view while also explaining we are able to document how the author's name is credited separately from specifics of their legal name. Many times authors have written back "My birth certificate says "A", my parents used "B", my siblings use "C" and "D", I prefer "E" now but used "F" and "G" before, and I've seen publishers put me down as "H", "I", and "J", etc. We work out what the canonical name should be. I also write up an explanation that'll go on the author's bibliography page and run it by him or her for permission to post. In one case an author had nearly equal output with and without his middle initial and did not have a preference for one or the other. I made the call based on the title pages of his most recent novels and documented this on the author's Bib: page.
Something I was mulling over long ago, and this will delight Harry, was to propose a field for author records that would state what sort of author record was. Among the types would be "misspelled", "alternate wording or spelling", "disambiguate", etc. We would allow these author records to exist in the db without underlying title records (or link them to an invisible pseudo-title). If someone tried to view this author record it would redirect to the correct name (it may be a pseudonym - the redirect would not always be to the canonical name) and at the top you would see a note such as "xyzy is a common misspelling of xyzzy." It does not need to be a banner as the person likely wants to see xyzzy's bibliography and does not need to be told in blazing big letters "you entered the name wrong." The note is there just in case they really are looking for data about xyzy." The "disambiguate" type exists to offer strong hints on how to resolve that name such as directing to a specific wiki page that explains the saga or if one name is must more likely than the other to go directly to the common author's page but it would have a note that says "You may be seeking ...".
It's all a pipe dream for now. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not disturbed by it, because I do realize the system can not parse the issues any better than most people can. Trying to explain that there is a universe of difference between MacDonald and Macdonald is just an example. The mutability of names is and will continue to be a computer paradox. Worse still, in most/many cases the data will be flawed forever. Still this case seems simple enough, but for others it is a conundrum. Thus, as I said, let the moderator make and live with the decision, IMO at some time it will all have to be resorted anyway. So I really have no personal angst about it, though I cringe at the addition of more rules to quell the problem. As is, I am sure that there are several new rules or redefinitions that I am not aware off. Give people enough cardboard and tape and they will box themselves in. Personally, sight problems with the white screens continue and the only cure is to funk out till it clears some. So early in the day is good, but mixed dialogue requiring rechecking of conversations is to be avoided. I hate to involve myself in discussion and loose the point or argument through inability to maintain the strain. Worse yet, would be to win and not know it. LOL! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord Tyger

I have put your update to Lord Tyger on hold. Any paticular reason you want to use the Amazon image and not the ISFDB hosted image that is already in that record? - Thanks - Kevin 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It did not appear as an image was only real problem with it. Is it fixed now? Though, it is there now. So reject away. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

White Jenna

I have approved your changes to White Jenna and fixed a couple of typos. One thing that I wasn't sure about was whether the cover art is attributed in the book. You write: "Cover art by Dennis Nolan. Signature not found." Does this mean that the artist is not credited elsewhere in the book or were you just commenting on the lack of his signature on the cover? I have added "Credited in the Locus Index" for now, but could you please clarify? TIA! 21:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have adopted a format of listing what the book states on copyright page. If stated elsewhere I do " illustrated by " " cover by" on title page, back cover or elsewhere on book. Then I do a signature check. If I can NOT find it, I do Signature not found. If I do find it I add what it appears to be. If there is no credited then it is , Cover artist not credited in book. So if there is a cover artist and I have 'not credited' and 'signature not found' then I will not know where it comes from. Sorry for the typos. Hope the above helps. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If I am reading your explanation correctly, "Cover art by Dennis Nolan. Signature not found." means that Dennis Nolan is credited on the copyright page, but the cover art is not signed, right? If so, I'll remove the reference to the Locus Index as an attribution source from Notes.
I think my confusion was mostly due to our practice of using signatures primarily as a fallback method of artist identification, so when I saw "Signature not found", my first thought was that there must not have been an attribution on the copyright page. There is certainly nothing wrong with documenting the signature situation even when the artist is explicitly credited on the copyright page, but it might be better to spell these cases out in Notes, e.g. "Cover art attributed to Dennis Nolan on the copyright page, but no signature was found". Just a thought :) Ahasuerus 00:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
My purpose was/is to establish double positive id's, so that people might in the future work on getting the others done. Also signature trumps cover credit. Just a thought. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Adding that signature found gives a future user material to work out other hen scratches, but 'not found' says more work can be done there. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Can see no reason to delete Locus note on artist. It actually gives a second source for crediting a work without a signature. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
My concern is that the verification cycle usually runs something like this:
  1. Skeleton data was originally entered from unattributed sources, sometimes years ago and often by robots, and may include incorrect or misleading information
  2. Secondary sources are subsequently used to verify the record, e.g. "Page count from and may be unreliable", "Binding unknown, but either hc or tp based on OCLC", "Cover art attributed by the Locus Index" or "First edition according to Tuck"
  3. Finally, primary verification occurs, at which point we delete references to secondary sources re: "objectively verifiable" fields like binding and the page count -- there is no reason to state what OCLC or the Locus Index says about the page count once the book has been physically verified.
On the other hand, some information originally entered from secondary sources is retained even after physical verification, typically if the publication is missing some information or if there is reason to believe that some of the stated information is invalid. For example, the Notes field may say "Stated second printing, but actually sixth printing according to the author's Web site" or "Publication date not stated, but 1971 according to Reginald-1".
Based on this cycle, a reference to a secondary source in a verified publication generally means that there is missing or incorrect information in the book, so if we are going to leave references to secondary sources, it's important to clarify the nature of the secondary information. In this case I have added the word "also" to the sentence so that that the line now reads "Cover art by Dennis Nolan (on copyright page). Signature not found. Also credited in the Locus Index."
Hopefully it makes sense :-) Ahasuerus 15:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Barefoot in the Head

Scanned in an image [I know this artist but can't quite put a name to him] and added notes to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. It is Bob Pepper, but has no signature. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

She Only Goes Out at Night . . .

Grabbed my copy of Fantastic Universe and the ellipsis is part of the title. I am going to ask the others who have verified pubs if it is that way in their pubs.--swfritter 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Always nice when something starts the ball rolling. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Made the one with ellipsis the canonical. It looks like somebody must have changed the title in one of the non-verified pubs.--swfritter 13:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Aprreciate the fix. I finally got a reject on the plus side. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whiff of Death

Scanned in an image for [this], and corrected a couple of typos in the notes. [sidewise?¿?¿] ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Legion of Callisto

Added the artist from cover signature to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed and re-noted plus did the same for the third printing. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And verified the artist from cover signature for[this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. Thanks Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

== ACE Dbl F-147 ==--Bluesman 00:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Added second artist courtesy ACE Image Library to [this] ~BIll, --Bluesman 02:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Link is to verification table. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Fixed the link. ~Bill,
In future please one entry with TITLE per block. These additions are confusting. Also please titles not catalog numbers. I store nothing by number. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Added cover credit

I added cover artist credit to your verified [21] from the book THE DEFINITIVE FRAZETTA REFERENCE by James A. Bond.Don Erikson 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Great thanks. I added notation for your source, found signature (hate Frazetta signatures as they are often blurred), and added a cover image. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Your proposed new pub of Re-Birth looks very much like this pub -- the only difference seems to be April -> May. The ISBN is the same, cover artist is the same, price is the same. Your record is more detailed, however. Why not take over the primary verification (User:Mgpb hasn't posted since this feb) and update the existing record? Unless you really think these are different printings or something. Your submisison is on hold, pending your response. -DES Talk 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I cloned from that ver, because I could not be sure of his ver. I also have no 'surety' to do as you say. So back to you. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that if you enter yours as a separate pub, we will have two pubs with no stated or known difference. That doesn't seem to help anyone. I also tend to doubt that there were two printings a month apart -- that is fast even for a very popular book. Based on that I think it is likely -- not proved, but likely -- that you and Mgpb have identical publications. I therefore advise taking over the existing pub, and sending a note to Mgpb. If he really has a different pub, he can make any needed adjustments when he next logs in and sees the msg. That is what I would do. But if, having read my advice, you choose not to follow it, I will approve your clone, as it is at least possible that the two pubs are in fact different. This is a judgment call, not a matter of a "rule" like using an incorrect date format, and you are experienced enough here that I won't just override your judgment. -DES Talk 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
My reply is the same as the first time. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Very well. I have approved your edit, and left a note for User:Mgpb‎. The result of your edit is here. Thanks -DES Talk 14:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Best of Edmond Hamilton

Added a cover image to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Can you re-check the page for the Leo P. Kelley story in this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 23:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction submitted plus 5 typos in notes. Thanks greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Darksword Adventures

I'm holding your submission which wants to merge three records with this title. Two of the records are credited to "Tracy Raye Hickman" and Margaret Weis, and you want to merge them with the one that's only credited to "Tracy Hickman" and Margaret Weis. Those two records are in pubs that you verified as by "Tracy Raye Hickman". If I accept the submission, all three will be credited to "Tracy Hickman". Perhaps you meant to merge the three identical records of this search? MHHutchins 00:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They are identical the "Raye"s, but I was trying to merge to the corrected "Elven Star" which I thought would then also show them all correctly. If I get you, that would have resulted in deleting the 'as by Tracy Raye Hickman' notation. If so, refject it. Blah, all this for an essay advertisement for a game version of the series and to top my ire for this crass commercialism, Weis had already created the novel Darksword Adventures, which I am not sure of in connection to the game. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. MHHutchins 01:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard Reject for Sundog submission

I was forced to do a "hard reject" of your submission updating Sundog, because a previously accepted submission (mine) changed some aspect of the record which caused the system not to fully display the updated submission. This happens when two conflicting submissions are entered near-simultaneously. In this case, I saw your comments on the Help page about Brian Ball, and had merged this record with the UK publications which also were published as by "B. N. Ball". If you recall the changes, please make another submission and there should be no conflict this time. Sorry about the mixup. MHHutchins 17:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry took me some looking to find what the submission was for and I finally opened edit and I remembered. One was page start number and the second was a typo in the note field which was correct when I did this. Did find one more typo and corrected that. Submission made and thank you. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Second War of the Worlds

Afternoon, Harry! Added art notes and interior art to the contents of [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Monolog(ue)" in Riverworld and Other Stories

When you get a chance, could you please double check whether it's "Monolog" or "Monologue" in the first printing of the Berkley edition? The primary verifier, CoachPaul, is not available and you did a transient verification last year, i.e. before we added Primary 2 through Primary5, so I wonder if you have may access to the book. TIA! Ahasuerus 03:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is Monolog and I submitted a change/del and added notation. Left note at Coach Paul, even though he is on sabbatical. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A Roil of Stars

Shouldn't this be under "Don Wismer" rather than "Donald"? BLongley 17:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I re-edited it and then went to the title record and changed that to read Don. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added my cover, which I think is the same as yours but slightly better than the Amazon one. I'm a bit suspicious about the other Donald Wismers too but those can wait for someone that owns them. BLongley 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(I left the 1st Primary Verification slot open for you as you did most of the work.) BLongley 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the courtesy, though my personal drive is to 'detail' books for others and my position in the 'hierarchy' of verification matters little to me. Thus, I would not have begrudged your taking a first here or anywhere else. The more the merrier. The more that check things the fuller the effort. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Go detail away, the more data the better! In an ideal ISFDB world (as I see it) all verifications are basically equal, and we will (hopefully) eventually all be able to verify the same publication as many times as are needed or are wanted. Five primaries is a short-gap solution: it will do us until we develop "verified, but don't want to talk about it" versus "verified, and will talk about it to death, even discussing the ellipsis in the chapter title on page 120" stuff. But we might want to work on "was given this much detail by editor X after it was edited by Editor Y" rather than rely on certain slots in the verification table. BLongley 21:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Million Open Doors

Hi Harry! Expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Forge of God

New image and a minor note for [this]. Congrats on hitting 5,000!! Only 75,000 to go to catch Mike!!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Mike is on super light speed and you are greased lightning, but I admit to setting a goal of 5k (snail pace). Won't get much larger as I am running out of material. LOL! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Radio Planet

I have cross-verified the 1976 Ace edition of The Radio Planet and added Farley's "Author's Foreword" as well as the following notes:

  • Cover art not credited and there is no identifiable signature on the cover. The source of the current attribution to Patrick Woodroffe is unknown.
  • "Science Fiction from the Great Years" on the cover; the page following the title page lists 12 titles in the series.
  • "Author's Foreword" on the page facing the front cover is signed "-R.M.F., 1926"

Ahasuerus 20:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I added that art is wraparound and the interior art on page 1 is signed "Jg" for Jack Gaughan and dated it to the original publication date. I also noticed that the back page has the Ace "Science Fiction from the Great Years" logo and 14 books including this title. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This Publication Record

When you write "First printing June 1993. [This Publication Record]." in publication notes what does the "[This Publication Record]" mean? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In cases where I have several printings with dates I also note them. I adopted "This." as the easiest way to make sure that others would not be confused. "This" was strenuously objected to. [This Publication Record] thus resulted after lengthy oversight. I have since shifted the line to the top of the notation, whenever possible. The first part is "First printing June 1993" or "Third printing by number line" or "#Y4654" is whatever is the most positive identification marker I can find to use for the book. Usually followed by the number line being used or not, date not in book, etc. Recently I was guided to clarify the statement of 'cover artist not in book' 'signature not found' which has resulted in trying to put "Cover artist XXX or not in book" "Signature found "xx" thus xxxxx or not found". Thus, the avoidance of confusion has lead to my efforts being scripted, but at least they are mostly done. I actually tremble at the thought of what will be in a few years. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Harry. I'm still confused by "[This Publication Record]". Under what circumstances don't you use it?
I have been dealing with the "Cover artist XXX or not in book" by using one of
  • The cover artist is not credited nor is a signature visible.
  • The copyright page credits "Cover art by Don Brautigam". A signature is not visible.
  • The copyright page credits "Cover art by Ken W. Kelly" and his signature is visible in the lower-right corner.
Sometimes I'll have a "not credited, no sig" publication but the ISFDB record already credits someone. In that case I leave the credit in place and add this as a separate bullet.
  • Prior to verification this ISFDB publication record credited "Don Brautigam." The source for this is unknown but is assumed to be accurate.
Sometimes I run across a record where the cover artist conflicts with the credited artist. If so, I'll look around for possible sources of the credit and will add something like.
  • Prior to verification this ISFDB publication record credited "Don Brautigam." The source for this is unknown but it is inaccurate as the publication credits Ken W. Kelly.
The goal there is if someone runs across a source for the cover art credit that they would be encouraged to update the note with details of where the credit was found rather than, for example, just removing the "not credited, no sig" note and adding the artist credit. There have also been cases where a book was issued with two or more different covers and so this note will help catch that when someone comes along with a copy of the other publication(s). I make an assumption that data in ISFDB is accurate and so when I run across a conflict I note the old information just in case it is valid. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Heck now I am getting confused. Sorry but the 'no cred, sig not found' is a double negative. It does say that the sig was looked for, which is not required to verify. Also when the sig, is found and it's location provided, it allows 'futurists' something to work with to compile a signature verified art base. I have had hopes that someday not only 'rancid' pictures of aging people we would document examples of the signatures. By 'rancid' I mean old age pictures seem to predominate, while four to six through the persons writing life are much friendlier. I am also stating that examples of artwork are the 'artists' faces' and there signatures a 'variant face' of that. I also work hard to locate the credit, even to the point of stating and crediting a hard identification as using the same character in an earlier cover, which was not credited at all.
Reminds me, "Valor's Choice" is still open. My copy says "Jody Lee", but you have still got "Luis Royo". Sorry, have been looking at a way to re-open this and others. The message is system is actually a drag as it is much to easy to lose topics. Needs to have some 'dead check box' so the wiki owner can check it to show topic closed, or another can uncheck it to show topic still open or re-opened.
In the scenario I am envisioning. No credit in book = no need to check. "cover credited to x on copyright page" = book states, then no sig found = sig looked for, not impossible but not promising, sig found = example found here, possible source for extraction for later comparison, Sig found, not same = assumed most positive identification., etc. I see it this way, because I worked in a negative, negative, positive, etc check for veracity system. One thing never seems like enough! I use to spend more time making sure someone checking behind me knew what source criteria I used that I will die checking boxes, blood leaking out = check, lungs stopped = checked, vision gone = check, brain stop = check, can't kick that guy in frustration = check, St. Peter's pass = what the hey? LOL Apologies.
It all adds up to 'focusing devices' for others attention, some work on some, some on others, and hopefully they work to reduce confusion, but I foresee that no matter what I/we do that the 'futurists' will either toss everything or pick/choice from what we live. Definitely this system will allow 'others' to change almost everything. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I know try to always use {This Publication Record}, even if it is a catalog number or the worst case is "No printing date, printing number line, printing, edition, catalog number or other identifier" [This Publication Record]. All negatives! and then I would know add a 'Cover artist not credited in bookSignature not found'. Very much Perry Rhodan 119-136, which left only a date and publisher. But negatives are important as 'follow up' by 'futurists' are left to develop other ways/means of adding information. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually foresee the day will come when someone will be 'allowed' to credit artists by locating and grouping book catalog/series numbers and showing that Powers did X1324 through 1328 even though there is no other positive identifiers. That check sheet will await the person who delves into the hard files of Lancer/Playboy/Ace etc and finds the contract or into the personal Powers papers as archived somewhere/when and shows that he was credited or NOT, in that actually 'Dic Dumbunny' actually did all the detail work form '62 to 71' and needs co- to complete crediting for that art. Sicky wicket, I am most sure! LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Confused still, I am sorry, but this method is beyond my ability to 'nail' anything to the wall and be sure of being 'understood', thus my hatred of it and the frustration I derive and compound. H. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "The cover artist is not credited nor is a signature visible." Hmm, you are right in that is unclear. I'm trying to say "A cover artist credit or cover art copyright is not stated in the publication. The king's finest then scrutinized the cover artwork and were unable to spot a signature."
"It does say that the sig was looked for, which is not required to verify." True but I like to credit the artist and to document the signature if possible.
"Valor's Choice" is still lost but not forgotten. I had what in computing is called a "stack overflow" though in my case it was stacks of books. I dealt with the problem by dumping all of the books into boxes without recording what I put in each box and shelving those in the garage. I've been slowly unpacking boxes. Hence, there are a few thousand lost books. Something I've thought of doing is to just scan though and inventory the boxes so that I can process these verification requests. Wikipedia has a couple of checkboxes that we could adopt. See wikipedia:User:Marc Kupper/Wikipedia#Talk page templates. However, I suspect attempting to bring closure to anything on ISFB is a lost cause.
Something I try to keep in mind when writing the notes is that the publication record will most likely be read by someone who found the page via Google. Thus I try to write things so that they make sense to someone chancing on the page rather than a future bibliophile scanning through hundreds or thousands of records and thus becoming familiar with nomenclature. I'll develop a replacement for "The cover artist is not credited nor is a signature visible."
I'm afraid I'm still confused by "[This Publication Record]". The first time I saw it I was thinking "I'm already looking at an ISFDB publication record and it seems redundant that it'll say '[This Publication Record]' in the notes." I believe you are saying you put it next to the item that you believe is the thing that distinguishes it from other publications. If so, then I'm thinking that 99% of the time the distinguishing characteristics are self evident meaning it's redundant. If distinguishing characteristics are not self evident then they would get their own notes/explanation. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is redundant, but I try to 'fly with' the 'good for the goose, good for the gander' and once the point was pressed to me, I adopted what was required of me for every instance. Sorry, busy day, must go, if more is needed please continue. I tried the boxing system ten years ago and it is marginal at best. At this time, I took a spare bedroom wall and made a wall block sitting on 2 inch thick boards 18 inches wide shelving. It works for about 3,500 and it requires space for movement checks. Books are stacked pbs only. Trouble is some letters are overwhelming and now I have to pull authors or series and regroup to the secondary shelving. Still it works fairly well. Boxes seem to eat books up. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have felt 'compelled' to do as directed and then once something is adopted and goes through then I do not change it. I actually, would hate to change it because I do not need or want the trauma of the process recurring. Yes, it will be changed by some 'futurist' but I am driven to get the information inputed and that is often the best that can be done by myself. I do not wish to change, simply because the 'furor' is a drag and so 'well meant' advise and change, just seems to mean wait till the next wants that changed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of John Scalzi's The Last Colony

There are currently three records for the same edition of this title. One is verified by Kevin, but it has the price, date and ISBN of the trade edition (based on info from the SFBC website which gives the ISBN and date of trade editions). Two is verified by Harry, but is undated and has the price of the trade edition. I've taken the notes from both records, added more info from the listing in Locus #558 (July 2007) and created this third record. Would you consider moving your verification over to this last record and deleting your original record? (This has been cc'd to Kevin and Harry.) Thanks. MHHutchins 18:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob! Moved to secondary on joint. Up to Kevin to adjust further. Tried to delete vers on mine but did not seem to take. Removed vers again. Anything to consolidate records. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the verification. I've deleted the original pub record so the verifications go with it. One down, one to go! Thanks. MHHutchins 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Anytime. I appreciate your finding the problem. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Avengers of Carrig

[This] record has the title with (rev'd 1969) appended. Think it should be removed for the following reason: while the text is revised from the 1962 edition, the title was changed with the first revised edition (Dell) in 1969. If the title had not changed I can see adding the (rev'd...) but don't think it's quite correctly added in this case. Your thoughts? I did add a note to the Title data page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1) I could not find the (rev'd 1969). Did someone clip it already? 2) IMHO the rewrite should constitute a new book. 3) I did not create the 'rev'd 1969', I just let it sit there. If you want an example of a book that should have (rev'd date), then Skylark of Space had a massive rewrite that mostly was idiomatic and 'politically correct'. Here is the note. [The Lee Hawkins Garby credit was retained for the serialization in Amazing, as well as the first few editions of the book in 1946-1950. The text was revised by Smith for the 1958 Pyramid reprint, omitting most of Garby's contributions, and her name was dropped from that point on.] Thus I think the printings should be (SER) for the serial reprints, nothing for 46-50 and (Rev) for the greater majority. BTW the so-called 'Garby" portions removal is not clearly established, it appears to be more of an urban legend. It is known that the book was rewritten previous to publication also.
Summary. Revised/rewrite need should be for 'same title'. If it is large change with a new title I think it is a new book, with crediting to portions. Why is the book not an expanded version, as "Path of the Furty" changed to "In Fury Born"? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't remove it from the pub record, but did submit for a removal from the title record. If I follow your train then I agree that substantial re-writes ARE a new book, which in this case it is. Just thought the (rev'd '69) addition a redundancy. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Castaways'/Rites Ohe

Added second cover artist courtesy ACE Image Library to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Added cover artist

I added cover credit for verified [22] from the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank and made a note of it.Don Erikson 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Serpent's Reach

Expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lovers: 2075

FYI: Tuck (the Nuetzel entry) and Clute/Nicholls agree that Charles English is a pseudonym used by Charles Nuetzel, so I submitted some changes that affect your verified pub. Thanks Willem H. 10:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I could not see a direct change, unless it is to make CE a pseudonym of CN, which I think is great. Shame on you for reading such provocative material. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Enigma From Tantalus / The Repairmen of Cyclops

We seem to have verified this to death now. I'd like to see both covers at once rather than show one and link to the other, so I've uploaded this. Would you mind if I replaced the current image with that one? BLongley 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer dual image, but Blindsman is doing the separate images. I leave the resolution to you guys. I do appreciate the work in getting those images. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"Blindsman"¿¿¿??? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry vision problems. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Steel Brother

Scanned in a new image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 11:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DAW Retrospective

Just received my copy of [this], added my V to the record and in looking through the book came across, on the very last page, an interior barcode with the date beside it of 20 August 2009 (the date I ordered the book). Therefore I think it's only a mild leap to saying it's a print-on-demand pub. At least now it is. Just an FYI. Didn't bother to add that to the notes. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, A lot of Amazon books are 'pod' these days, especially if they are smaller publishers. It might behoove the group to add this to the 'how-two' instructions as an advisory. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Lost Destiny title instances

I was investigating the apparent duplicate Lost Destiny titles 3919 and 972342, and it looks like the duplication comes from your verified LSDY1995, which lists both in the contents, the former with a "del" page number. I'm not sure what's going on with that. Wanna take a look and remove/merge/variant-ify as appropriate? --MartyD 10:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly the del does not appear when trying to remove, but both records appear as ver the same date. I just tried to del the other not del title, but I have no idea why the record twinned. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit for verified [23] from the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank and made a note of it.Don Erikson 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Added artist 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 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Tama of the Light Country

Scanned in an image and added notes to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Day of the Triffids

You verified The Day of the Triffids with the note "No edition, printing, printing date or printing number line in book."

I believe I have the same edition and my copy states "Sixth Fawcett Crest printing, April 1970" near the bottom of the copyright page.

I went ahead with the update but it's something you may want to double check. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No cigar. My copyright page consists of (top to bottom) "all of the characters" (over) "A Fawcett Crest Book reprinted by arrangement,etc" (over) "copyright 1951" (over) "copyright 1951" (over) "All rights" (over) "A condensed version, etc" (over) "Printed in the United States of America". Therefore, I removed my verification and cloned your 'sixth printing' and corrected that to my original entry. Please note I messed up the price and the correct price is 75¢. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It turned out I was not paying attention either. Mine's also 75¢. I've scanned a cover to Image:THDFTHTRFH0000.jpg for you to look at/compare with yours. I uploaded the copyright page to Image:THDFTHTRFH0000-copyright.JPG. You will need to click on the Full resolution image link as I did not scale this down. Here's a side-by-side of the copyright pages
Dragoondelight Marc Kupper
This book contains the complete text of the
original hardcover edition.
all of the characters all of the characters
A Fawcett Crest Book reprinted by arrangement,etc A Fawcett Crest Book reprinted by arrangement,etc
copyright 1951 copyright 1951
copyright 1951 copyright 1951
All rights All rights
A condensed version, etc. A condensed version, etc.
Sixth Fawcett Crest printing, April 1970
Published by Fawcett World Library
67 West 44th Street, New York, New York 10036
Printed in the United States of America Printed in the United States of America
My copy has ads for Sunday the Rabbi Stayed Home T1384 75¢ on down to Couples P1252 $1.25. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
These are the Fawcett printings sorted by price:
  • 50¢ - d741 - verified - no printing stated
  • 75¢ - T1322 - This is your copy
  • 75¢ - T1322 - This is the 6th printing, April 1970 - this is the one I have
  • $1.50 - Q2720 - ISBN is stated as "044902720" which is one digit too short. ISBNs 0449202720 and 0449027201 are other titles.
  • $1.95 - 0-449-23721-4 - Undated 18th printing
  • $2.50 - 0-449-20324-7 - Dated 1983
  • $2.50 - 0-449-20324-7 - Undated 20th printing
--Marc Kupper|talk 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My image is (centered) Fawcett (over) bracketed Crest (over) T1322*75¢. The blurb/title/by author are all centered below the above. The Title is in purple and the by John Wyndham is in deep black.
My last page (opposite to back cover) is "From the Master of Science Fiction Isaac Asimov" followed by titles, all of 75¢. T1659, T1541, T1401, T1619, T1453, T1606, T1486, T1632, and T1567. Followed by Fawcett World Library (over) Wherever paperback books are sold (over) If your bookdealer, etc.
I also have the d741 printing, verified by Swfritter, which probably needs combining with d741, tuck verified for 1964. Note left, but possibly dropped of the burner as "jury duty" "RL" interfered.
I found a "look inside" cover image on Amazon UK of my printing and just added it to my ver. The striping on the left, spine side is some type of clear tape added to hold cover onto spine, otherwise the image is correct. BTW, this image was 'difficult' to find.
Too bad there is not a way to document that Fawcett Crest T printings may have multiple versions with little or none of the usual cues we use. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you have a 7th printing or later. The clues are
  • The advertising page in the 6th printing covers T1322 to M1399 with nothing in the 1400s or higher. Fawcett allocated the numbers sequentially. The letter is a price code.
  • I found the cover for the 95¢ edition on amazon. It has the logo centered like yours, but more important is that the cropping of the image is the same as yours. With the 6th printing it's zoomed in and thus crops off quite a bit that's visible in your copy and the 95¢ edition. See Publisher:Fawcett Gold Medal#Catalog numbers and price coding where I wrote up some stuff about the numbering. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

An alternative way of changing contents

I accepted your submission to change the titles of two stories in this anthology and will await the next three submissions to bring it into shape. (Dropping the titles from the pub, and deleting each of the two orphaned title records.) But there is an alternative method to changing contents as spelled out in the help pages which require only one submission. If there is one (AND ONLY ONE) publication that contains the story you can make a direct edit of either the pub record or the title record. This procedure isn't pushed on new editors because they need to learn the add and drop method, but as a veteran I trust that you can determine which method to use. It saves quite a lot of time, as you'll learn. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The House on the Borderland

I believe I have the same edtition of you verified pub The House on the Borderland. However, mine has the year of the second edition as 1996 and I wanted to verify with you before I submitted a change. Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 12:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding my error. I corrected, re-formatted and added to the notation. Please check and add anything you desire. Sincere thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Interiorart credit for The Far Way in PR #77

Yours is only a transient verification, but the notes smack of your attention to detail.... Could the artist credit for 898355 in Perry Rhodan #77 perhaps be a misspelling of M. Marchioni? See 872092 which is from Amazing Stories, which spurred the question. --MartyD 01:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I came behind Bob Hall on that one. I added notes to match the others and obviously did not recheck in depth. I am transient on most PR's because I heard a comment that someone made that if I did them they would not bother, but Perry Rhodan is full of mistakes, Ackerman quirks and pure bad magazine editing that I leave the primary open to encourage people to check them. I do have every number and most other printings and will happily check anytime. Correction, I do not have many of the British reprints. LOL
Full explanation Bob did the illustration separation detail in accordance with the magazine criteria, which is a pain. Ackerman credited helter skelter and did typos routinely. In this case he gave crediting to the author/copyright on copyright page, but omitted the illustrator there. On the story title page he did a (Illustrated by Marchoni) typo, but the signature is "Marchioni". It is probable that he did not bother to send him a check for his work, since he has previously detailed illustrator credits with mentions of paying them something. He may have misspelled the name from the first and could not locate him, though he had more connections than Houdini in the STF world.
End result I noted the whole thing and submitted a correction/deletion. I also rechecked my notes and corrected errors, yetch.
Very good catch, do not hesitate to point them out, especially in the PR series, I hope this works for everyone. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but it looks like you changed the title to The Far Away from The Far Way on the interiorart.... Picky, picky, picky, I know. --MartyD 17:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, submitted title change. Overall, my mistake does point out how Ackerman changed things helter-skelter. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Black Tower: Foreward or Foreword

Can you check this verified pub again, to see if the foreword is spelled foreward or foreword? My edition has foreword. If yours is the same, I can change the title record, if not yours will be the variant, since mine is the first printing. Thanks, Willem H. 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to change the title of the foreword anyway from 'Foreward (Phillip José Farmer's The Dungeon, Vol. I: The Black Tower)' to Forewo(a?)rd (The Black Tower) to match the forewords in the other parts of the Dungeon series. Last (but not least), I changed the title of my edition to 'Phillip José Farmer’s The Dungeon, Book 1: The Black Tower' because that's how it's written on the title page of the novel. Thanks again, Willem H. 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
When you're busy anyway, your edition of book 3 in the series The Valley of Thunder also has a Foreward. My copy has a Foreword again. Willem H. 20:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a difficulty with 'Foreward' and Foreword, also some computer problems at this time, so please change any variation you find to Foreword. Apologies, but I am in safe mode till I figure this out, and that is flaky, thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I submitted corrections at title level for both to "Foreword". Apologies as this is a mind to eye problem, which I know I have, and am trying to correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I have a bit of the same problem, so I always check if what I just wrote is the same thing that I thought I wrote. I was just wondering... I'll take a look at the results when they are approved. Thanks Willem H. 12:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit for verified [25] from the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank and made a note of it.Don Erikson 22:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit for verified [26] [27]from the book THE ART OF RICHARD POWERS by Jane Frank and made a note of it.Don Erikson 05:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Exploring other Worlds

Added a cover image to [this] I also replaced "cent symbol" with ¢. I did this on two other pubs, assuming that's what you would have put if doing so on a PC didn't involve so many hoops to jump through. Let me know if you'd rather have the spelled version left. I run across lots of your edits and it's a simple change with the MAC (option 4). ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

¢ changes fine with me. It took a huge learning curve to find and make a cheat sheet for those special codes. Appreciate the help. Thanks for the cover and help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Human Zero

Added a cover image and a couple of ¢s to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dread Companion

Scanned in a new image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Time Search

Scanned in a cover image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)]

Looks good, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Preface to "Flatland"

Hi, should the author for the preface here be changed to Edwin A. Abbott? Thanks Jonschaper 02:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No. First reason is that it reads thus, "Preface to the Second and Revised Edition, 1884. By the Editor". Technically it should have been the "Editor" then use the "Make this title a Variant or Pseudonymous Work" and changing "Editor" to Edwin A. Abbott. All this I did not know how to do at the time. There is a "but", a big "BUT" actually. When reading it you can see (I believe) that Abbott wrote it but he added this note on page 28 (my copy)"1The Author desires me to add, that the misconception of some of his critics on this matter has induced him to insert in his dialogue with the Sphere, certain remarks which have a bearing on the point in question, and which he had previously omitted as being tedious and unnecessary." In crediting it I came to the conclusion that Abbott was showing that he split himself intellectually into two persona to write the new preface. In fact, he was in disagreement with himself in doing it. My clumsy solution in attempting to show this struggle was "Editor (Edwin A. Abbott)". Marc cloned of my entry. In short, I could not 100% say that it was Edwin A. Abbott, as the author himself separated his identity into two separate persona. So in a book which discusses the perceptions of reality of one kind relevant to another, my crude entry tries to show he did much the same thing in the "Preface".
I realize that others may have greater surety, but I have not. If you wish, change it as you would with no bad feelings from myself. I think Marc cloned mine and did not change it because he could not get that 100% clarity. (Which I believe was the "Author/Editor" intent). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the history. I'm no more certain than you, so I'll leave it. I'll let you know if I ever wind up coming across more info. Cheers Jonschaper 23:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Skeleton Lord's Key

I've started a discussion here about whether the author's name or pseudonym should be used for the later books in this series, which includes your verified pub. Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Man Without a Planet / Time to Live

I added this cover scan to this verified pub to replace a broken Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Intruder & Other Stories / Falcons of Narabedla

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Planet in Peril

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A Life for Kregen

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 19:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks fantastic. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Planet

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 10:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Space Treason

I added this cover scan to this verified pub to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 11:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Great improvement. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 15:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks super, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey Ship

I replaced this Fantastic Fiction image with this scan in this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 20:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, anything that looks better is great! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Overlords of War

The Overlords of War - Artist uncredited? Morning! This. [8]. I seem to have the same copy, but my copyright page has "Cover art by Karel Thole" and the illustration opposite the title page has "Jg" at bottom right. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticed the above on Marc's page. The first printing, which I have, has a Thole cover [thus]. This cover is quite different, which Marc noted in the record. I can see the 'signature' but the resolution isn't good enough to decipher it. It was, unfortunately, less than rare that DAW reprinted the contents 'as is' yet sported a different cover. FYI Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Genius Unlimited

Added the month, courtesy of Mr. Jaffery, and an artist note to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Price disparity

When I went to clone this verified entry [28] you have a price of $2.95 entered but in the notes you meantion the price as $2.25. I was cloning your 13th printing to a 14th which has a price of $2.25 so I figured this is probably the correct price your verified entry also.Don Erikson 20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for finding the error. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bloody Sun

I added this cover scan to this verified pub to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 13:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Very, very good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Other end of Time

Scanned in an image, added a couple of minor notes to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

World at the End of Time

Scanned in a new image and added notes to [this] ~bill, --Bluesman 23:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tanar of Pellucidar

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 14:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Trader to the Stars

I added this cover scan to this verified pub to replace a broken Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 15:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Image of the Beast

In this verified pub I replaced this cover scan with this one. Thanks Willem H. 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Killer Pine

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks very Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alas, Babylon

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks ~Ron --Rtrace 03:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks Good. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of Phaze

You may want to take over Primary verification on this copy of Out of Phaze, I'm putting mine up for swapping now I have a British version. BLongley 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 11:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I took it over. I am in a rut! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Journey to Apriloth

In this verified pub I replaced this cover scan with this one. Thanks, Willem H. 13:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely beautiful. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Circus of Dr Lao

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 14:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Castledown by Gregorian

You submitted an update to Castledown. This includes the phrase "Assumed to be integral to the original publication as some of it has written explanations." as part of the note:

"Decorations by the author" on copyright page. "With decorations by the author" under author on title page. Assumed that page of maps preceding pagination is also by the author. No signatures found. Assumed to be integral to the original publication as some of it has written explanations.

It is not clear to me what is "assumed to be integral to the original publication" and what is meant by "written explanations". Could you clarify this please?

I have this submisison on hold. -DES Talk 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a game board displayed bp which has a page of explanation written on it. The whole is integral to the story. The display seems to be 'decoration', but with a distinct purpose as is the map, and is assumed to facilitate the telling of the story of the story as she is the 'claimed' artist. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Air Trust by England

Your submission updating this pub record had an XML PARSE ERROR, so I was afraid to accept it. (Don't ask me what that means or what may have caused it.) I took the raw data as it appeared in the visible parts of the submission and created a new submission updating the pub. Can you look at the record and see if it matches what you submitted? I don't know if there could have been some data that wasn't visible in the bad submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You got it all! I too have no idea what the error was. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Time Gate

Afternoon, Harry! Found [this image] for [this pub]. Didn't add it to the record ('cause it's kind of crappy) but if it's the correct one then the artist credit can be filled in as Don Brautigam and that note from DWE erased. The original artwork is in Ian Summers' Tomorrow and Beyond. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Task of the Temponaut" in PR #33 and in Ackermanthology

You made yourself a transient verifier on Perry Rhodan #33. Do you by any chance still have access to it? I'm trying to confirm how the authorship of Task of the Temponaut is credited. In your verified Ackemanthology is the same title, credited to Novotny and Van Del Rio (which matches how Locus credits it). Seems like a variant or merge is in order, depending on the answer. Thanks. --MartyD 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If I ver, I should have it, barring temporal displacements. The PR #33 only has Novotny credited plus (author of "The Eagle has Landed") on story title page. Ackermanthology has the dual crediting plus (authors of "The Eagle has Landed") on story title page. Ackermanthology has both credited, last names only, copyright © 1973 by Ace Books. PR#33 was printed November 1973 and thus the 1973 copyright to Ace Books should be that used in Ackermanthology. Plus the authors and story are credited as being represented by the Ackerman Agency in Ackermanthology. Thus Ackermanthology could be considered a correction of PR #33.
Story differences? Last word, next to last paragraph "Mankind" in PR# 33 versus "humans" in Ackermanthology. First world last sentence/paragraph "Its" in PR# 33 versus "Their" in Ackermanthology. Otherwise, I believe they are identical. The spectre therefore is that the PR#33 version was a first submission/draft, later corrected for omissions, etc in Akermanthology. Hope this helps, but it seems very typical of how Ackerman did things. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll make one a variant of the other. Thanks for checking. I wonder if someone else had primary on PR #33 and took it away....? --MartyD 10:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault. Since I have all the PR's, and they can be complex, I did not primary ver them to encourage others to take a look and hopefully correct mistakes. I definitely missed things. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Galactic Medal of Honor

Evening Harry! Changed the note regarding the artist for [this] Can see DiFate's signature in the image just above "Publication" on the cover. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pleased and gratified that you did so. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The State of the Art

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 13:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of Richard K. Morgan's Broken Angels

I've updated the pub record of your verified copy of this title, adding the date and price as provided by Locus1, with a note about the source. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stations of the Nightmare

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 20:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks, Good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Siege of Faltara

I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Super Goodness! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 13:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I time portalled this one. Found it, and of course you did a beautiful job that truly enhanced the artwork, in fact so much so it was like a different piece of art. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

cover image replaced

I replaced the broken url for the cover image of with this scanned uploaded image: [29]-- MikeP 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Greatly! Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Square Root of Man

Perhaps you have an opinion on page numbers for this pub. The page number are off by two as compared to the table of contents. They have been given the page number where the text of the story begins rather than the single page which contains only the title. To my mind it would be more consistent to use the title page; to my mind it is part of the story. Since the toc also uses the title page number it would seem to indicate the publisher's intent.--swfritter 16:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but my mind sticks to the text not the title being the start point. If you wish change it, but I can not break the habit, it is definitely ingrained. Titles can be changed, but mostly the text is supposed to be the story. I can defend it further in that in using titles which are separated from the text you add to the 'apparent length' of a story. Also in many collections and anthologyies, the title starts and then to my discomfort a synopsis, observation or commentary is stuck between the actual story and title. Sorry, I know my position seems idiotic but there it is. I expect others to differ and so have at it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Scott Latham is the primary verifier and I assume he is the one who entered it that way. He hasn't been responding so I just wanted a second opinion. Not that big a deal.--swfritter 17:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably changed it, but like I said if it makes better sense to you go ahead and 'make it right for you'. Like I said I am torn. I am prone to take liberties, when editors are long gone. In a couple of cases, I am sure he had forgotten to enter contents in collections. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
As I go through my anthologies, I note that even the publishers of anthologies are inconsistent about what they put in the toc. Some put the page of the text and some put the page of the extraneous material. Even if an editor is gone it's probably a good idea to put a note on their page so we know who made the change. Soon now we will have put notes on five pages if there is a change to be made to a pub. Hope we don't go up to ten verifiers!!!--swfritter 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I do like multiple verifiers, but at some point, there will be so many rules that 'who squeezed the cat' will cause multiple debates. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lord Darcy Omnibus

You submitted two new pubs of Lord Darcy, both published by the SFBC. I don't see any obvious difference from the existing pub, except that you seem to have added a different set of short stories in each case. That should probably be done by editing the existing pub, not by cloning, I would think. Did you intend to edit rather than clone? If you did intend to close, I am under the impression that we don't normally record multiple printings of SFBC books, unlike other books.

I have these two submissions on hold, pending your response. -DES Talk 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I exported the contents from two different pubs, which caused each to 'create' or clone a new pub, which was not my intent. Thus, I have learned that "Export" contents clones instead of exporting. Please delete them or release them and I will delete them. I thought something went wrong when the exported product did not retain anything from the "exported to" object. The second one confirmed something was wrong, though it was possible it was not showing the other items. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, neither Import nor Export is good for adding contents from more than one pub together in a third. It can be done with Import, but you get all the contents from each pub imported, including two copies of any item in both source pubs, which must then be removed again. Exporting to a pub with no contents works pretty well.
I will reject the submisisons, so they will in effect have never happened.
Thanks for all your work, sorry this was a problem. -DES Talk 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I just tried import and it says "new pub" so is it or is it my paranoia? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
When I go to a pub display and click import, it asks me for the tag or record number of another pub. If I enter a valid tag or record no, i get a screen which is headed "Publication editor". The pub metadata is greyed out. The contents from the source pub are shown. They are also greyed out except for the page number fields, much as with a clone operation. The msg between the metadata and the contents is the same as when doing a clone (which this obviously copied some code from). You can add additional content at this point. If you click submit data and the submisison is approved, the result is that all contents from the source pub have been copied to the destination pub. You can then remove some of them, or edit in any further way. if that doesn't describe what you see, then there may be a bug. -DES Talk 15:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It worked for the first one, and now the next. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to transient verified pub Time Probe

this pub. The Little Black Bag is actually credited to Cyril Kornbluth.--swfritter 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for the correction. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Undefeated

In this verified pub the cover art is credited to Bob Pepper (explained in the notes). If I look at the signature closeley however, I see Berkey (is John Berkey). Can you agree with that? Thanks, Willem H. 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is Berkey. Very good catch. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I submitted the change. Also changed the credit here. Thanks, Willem H. 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Spell of the Witch World - content pages

Hi. I am writing this on your talk page because I think that you own this edition of "Spell of the Witch World" (you have written about it on my talk page a few months ago). I have checked the page numbers that were added to the pub's content during my 2 years' absence, and I believe that for the 2 novellas and the short story they are not correct. The numbers recorded in ISFDB refer to the page where each story text begins, but they should instead refer to the title page of each story. So instead of 7, 85 and 104, the correct page numbers in my opinion are 5, 83 and 103. If you agree with me, could you please verify that 5, 83 and 103 are indeed the proper page numbers? If you reply here I will do the actual edit. Thanks. Herzbube 00:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Please revert the page numbers to the scheme you are comfortable with. I apologize for changing them. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Can it be that I gave you the impression that I try to take back "my" verified publications? If so, it is my turn to apologize, it was in no way my intention to appear overbearing or overly assertive. I hope to blame the fact that I am not a native English speaker for any wrong overtones in my writing... I don't mind at all if someone else adds information to publications that I have verified. I have, however, a sometimes worrying tendency for excessive correctness. This is why I double-check everything after 2 years of absence and comment on notes that are over a year old and long forgotten (see my talk page). Herzbube 21:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Everything is up for additional information, but sometimes that is interpretive. I have no objection to reverting the page numbers, because it works for you. It can not be called an inconvenience for me. As for verifications, they are yours, until you remove them. I would rather you did not do so though. Modify it to your taste and most probably reach better conclusions than I did. When we add verifiers, it means hopefully the material has been checked again, but if the original verifier does not participate, then we have a little less of a complete view of what the book consisted of. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is my explanation of why I use text not titles. Often, especially in collections and anthologies, editors, etc. have taken to writing commentary between the title and the start of the story text. This use of that space for interstitial material disturbs me. So I developed the habit of showing the start of a story at text start not title. This was not the case here, but I generally do things in perceived patterns. As for the story starting at title, I do not think so. In fact, I am frequently at a loss as to where a story really starts. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Although I see your point, this is indeed different from how I would judge where the beginning of a story is. I am not a seasoned editor, though, and would gladly adopt any policy, guideline or accepted best practice among other editors. I have checked but didn't find anything helpful on the EditPub help page... Herzbube 21:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not misunderstand, but I am more the rogue, than the dedicated editor. Often, the rules seem unworkable or obscure. Therefore, I worked to do what was accepted, but which hopefully did not make the process worse. BTW, Swfritter also agrees with your method of stating the start page of the story. So change it. Since, I have been here many rules have been changed and altered and it is very hard to keep up. Especially since multiple entry wiki conversations tend to fry my brain. The point is when you verify an item, then you must hold to your vision. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have changed the page numbers. Herzbube 07:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for not checking your wiki, but I usually do not go back more than once, but if I go back later I try to check for commentary on past wiki conversations. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There was, of course, no need for you to check my long deserted talk page. That's why I carried the conversation here when I had a real question. Herzbube 21:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right to do so, but my apology is more that the wiki has limitations that make it hard to keep up with everything a person does. Since, everyone is operating to a different tune, most frequently messages are not responded to in any timely manner. This is not anyone's fault. Cooperative chaos is probably the best description, especially as the more books you do the more you find that the 'trade' made and broke all the rules possible, including stealing writer's material. My personal goal in this db is to make the visitor see the material, so he can evaluate it's worth. Others find other solutions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
As for being 'terse' versus 'verbose'. I chose verbose under the assumption that the real end line user needs as much material as possible and can not rely that a verifier can be available to help them. Hence, I put way too much data in. If an editor is not responsive for a some time, I tend to 'overstate or take over' that ver. When I know an editor is actively maintaining or working on the site, I am trying to 'curb' my inclination to 'overdue'. After all, what I see as important is probably not to others. On the other hand, over stating does draw some commentary and discussion to resolve the accuracy of some material. Sorry if I have disturbed you. Please do not let me negatively affect your continued contributions. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, you didn't disturb me at all, to the contrary! When I wrote the maybe flippant sounding "note to self" on my talk page, I was genuinely unsure about things that had changed while I was gone. As long as it is correct, I agree that more information is usually better. Herzbube 21:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Things have changed, sometimes to my regret. There is a move to more rules and regulations. Many older editors were comfortable just stating a book existed, but even then there were clues that more comprehensive detailing was becoming important. The adding of, but not creating data, can lead to better definition of what book it is and when it was printed. The artists are beginning to take on reality, this may become important in other ways. For instance, they often read the material and created their art for the piece, this can add to the flavor of the writer's work. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Rules and regulations usually become necessary if a project starts to attract many new contributors who do not know the implicit rules and best practices shared among the original core people. Also for a project like ISFDB, whose goal is gathering data, I believe it makes sense to formulate rules about the gathering process, otherwise the database will end up being just so many bits and bytes without much meaning. Personally, as a newcomer who tries hard to blend into the establishment, I am always glad when I find policies, rules, howtos etc. that spell out what's good (and what's not). The only problem I may have is if the rules don't make sense to me, or if there are too many of them. In the case of ISFDB, I have been quite happy so far. Herzbube 07:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please understand secondary, etc verifications are not taking over another person's ver. It mostly an attempt to make sure that other users get more data, even if they do not have the book itself to cross check. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Retief: Diplomat at Arms

Hi Harry, I believe we have the same printing of Retief: Diplomat at Arms, only it's entered with a price of $2.50. My copy is $2.75, but claims to be the first printing. Can you check the price of your copy? Thanks, Willem H. 14:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) ps, the notes say Rowenna Morrill. The cover credit is correct (Rowena Morrill) Willem H. 14:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Catch. Corrected price and reformatted notes. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verifed pub Thirteen French Science-Fiction Stories

This pub. The Devil's Goddaughter instead of The Devil's God-daughter.--swfritter 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Eureka! I found it! I appreciate the catch. Thanks very much, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub My Best Science Fiction Story

this pub. Almost Human is credited to Bloch rather than the Fiske pseudonym.--swfritter 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. How did I miss it? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyteen: The Betrayal - Please take over as primary verifier

I am going to give away this book soon, therefore I have changed my status from "primary verifier" to "primary (transient) verifier" (see this help desk question). If you find the time, please take over as the primary verifier of the pub. Thanks. Herzbube 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a good way to go if you no longer have the book. Thanks, Harry.

Change to verified pub The Vortex Blasters

this pub. The Vortex Blasters by Edward E. Smith, Ph.D. instead of The Vortex Blaster Edward E. Smith.--swfritter 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind Pool [2]

Evening, Harry! Scanned in a new image and added the introduction to the contents of [this] (somehow we both missed it!). I won't tell if you don't! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dray Prescott / Alan Burt Akers covers

Hi Harry. I started replacing some of the Fantastic Fiction links to Dray Prescott / Alan Burt Akers covers with my own scans. I'll add them here, so you can review them. Thanks, Willem H. 18:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In A Sword for Kregen I replaced this cover scan with this one.
In Fires of Scorpio I replaced this cover scan with this one.
In Allies of the Antares I replaced this cover scan with this one.
In Savage Scorpio I replaced this cover scan with this one.
In Krozair of Kregen I replaced this cover scan with this one.
In Captive Scorpio I replaced this cover scan with this one.

Super Great! As a loyal Dray Prescot subject I am delighted. Do you belong to the Yahoo Group "Kregen" with other loyal fanatics? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that fanatic. I did collect the series however. There was a time I loved reading short novels with lots of action (E.C.Tubb's Dumarest series was another), but lost interest in the 1980's (I lived in interesting times then). This is it for now. More to come. Willem H. 19:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Awaiting Gratefully! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some more:
In Bladesman of Antares I replaced this cover scan with this one.
In Avenger of Antares I replaced this cover scan with this one.
That's it for the Fantastic Fiction links. I'll notify you when I start on the Amazon links. Thanks, Willem H. 07:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Eagerly awaiting more. Your scans are much better. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Date of "Shadow of the Sword" in Science Fiction Adventures No. 6

Shadow of the Sword has a date of 1959 from your verified Science Fiction Adventures No. 6. Any chance that date could be 1958, matching 851014 from Fantastic Universe? --MartyD 01:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. This from some Brunner copyright data. Apparently authors either made dual submissions at exactly the same time or nearly so OR Science Fiction Adventures and Fantastic Universe shared a common pool of submissions. Problem is this early in the morning, I can not cogitate the solution exactly. Is it to make the 59 a variant of the 58 so that one continues to show the author with N. and the other does not?. Good catch, should be more in that pond! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the 1958 pub really has 213781, with the "N." and 1958. It is a variant of the N-less parent cited above, also with the 1958 date. I was considering merging the two N-less ones, but for the question of the date. The N-ful one would remain a variant of the merged result. --MartyD 19:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
My pardon, merge away. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Merged. Or away. Keeping the 1958. Thanks. --MartyD 01:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Allies of (the) Antares

Morning(?) Harry. Our verified Allies of Antares had the wrong title (Allies of the Antares). I changed this to the right one (Allies of Antares). Thanks, Willem H. 07:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I did those very early on, and went through a lot of flak due to double and triple entries, etc. So you should be able to find more. Good Catch, and I really appreciate the effort. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I caught that one when Willem added the cover. :-) BLongley 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Harry, if you ever want a list of your early verifications to double-check, just ask me, I can generate such lists from the weekly backups. Or if you used "Primary (Transient)" during the period we didn't have the other Primary 2-5 options, I can generate that sort of list for you. A lot of us like to go back and look at our earlier work before someone else gets to review it again. Although I can say that I for one have been impressed by your improvement, and you're one of our most active editors still, so well done! BLongley 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I will keep that in mind. I do plan on a recheck and I was able to recover my Book List, so I have a fair idea, but at some point, I must have botched some of my data. Still have a couple of hundred inputs. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we all did botch something early on, and such mistakes do come back to haunt us (only today Herzbube pointed out an error in "Survival Kit" I made over two years ago), so many people like to go back and revisit early changes after a bit more experience. No obligation, and no criticism of past edits implied, but if it helps, the offer to help you find such early edits is there. We'll probably make it a feature of the software at some point. BLongley 20:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Earth's Last Citadel

In this verified pub I replaced this cover scan with this one. Thanks, Willem H. 08:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the new scans. I do have something for you to think on. This. [30]. Forgive me, but while you are doing cover scans, can you get some decent 'signature scans'. I just found the above, but if that could be added to and linked to the artist's pages then you might give some ammunition for future users. Of course, I did not check with the creator of the above list, and am asking for something well beyond my abilities and you need not do anything I suggest. Just thought I would through it out for 'mulling' over. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, found and do not really understand this also. [31]. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I know about this (I did the Don Brautigam signature), but you are right, I don't always think about it while scanning (6000 scans take a lot of time). I can probably find some interesting signatures on the scans I did so far. Let me think about this, I'll let you know. Willem H. 14:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Do not disturb yourself unduly. You already have a huge feat ahead. It was the "Allies of Antares" that triggered the thought process. Take care, do not overdue, have fun and be happy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The Artist Signature Images library sort of started on the Verifications page soon after Wiki Image Uploading was enabled, as it became clear people were using it to upload "Unknown" signatures for other people to identify. Often successfully, which is why a central record of such identifications became desirable. DES has created Wiki templates that make it a lot easier for such uploads to be found again, without people having to upload another example to look at (although if it's a better, or even a worse, example, another image is helpful too). It's by no means perfect - ideally we want the same image to be findable by what it looks like as well as what it should be - e.g. it may look like C. W. Celly but really is "Ken W. Kelly", and the same image should be findable both ways. And we can probably improve the templates a bit to allow them to show that an example had both a signature and a cover-artist credit that prove they go together. There's a few Wiki problems - not being able to copy or rename an uploaded image easily, for instance - but the library is obviously becoming more and more useful. See this example for a recent request. BLongley 20:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought it would be useful as some artist change there signatures. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely useful. I did dozens of improvements after I discovered what "F" or "PAJ" meant. BLongley 20:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A Yoke of Magic

Can you verify whether there's a period after Proctor's first name on the title page of this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 17:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Checked and changes submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Another title by Proctor: The Texas Run. Is it credited to "Geo." or "Geo"? Thanks. MHHutchins 21:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Checked and changes submitted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. MHHutchins 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover scans October 26

I added this cover scan to Police Your Planet to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this cover scan to The Jesus Incident to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this cover scan to A Victory for Kregen to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this cover scan to Rebel of Antares to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this cover scan to Mazes of Scorpio to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this cover scan to Legions of Antares to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this cover scan to A Fortune for Kregen to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this cover scan to Delia of Vallia to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I added this cover scan to Beasts of Antares to replace this Amazon link. Thanks, Willem H. 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's it for today (different time zones). Have fun with them. Cheers, Willem H. 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Most Beeeeuuutiful, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dragon Masters cover

I added an OCLC number and a cover image to replace the broken image URL on your verifed pub. -DES Talk 04:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Man in the High Castle

This verified pub seems very similar to the copy I own, but there are a few differences that lead me to believe that my copy is a different printing. For starters, the price is different ($12.95), but there are also minor differences that might be typos in the pub records' notes (my copy has "Christopher Dick" vs. your pub record notes "Chirstopher Dick", and more distinct "G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, in 1962" vs. pub record "G. P. Putnam & Sons in 1963"). What I find most interesting, though, is your manufacturing note that contains the string "C9876". In my copy the string is "C9". To me this looks suspicously like a numberline in disguise! Or is this just a coincidence, what dou you think? I don't have experience with the publisher Vintage Books and how they handle numberlines, so I really need a second opinion. Thanks. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the look at. Good catches all. Christopher and 1962 corrected. Resubmitted the entry with "Sixth printing by number line". You caught the number line trick. I am used to letter or more often double letter prefixed number lines. According to Marc Kupper the letters are coding to allow distributors to pick-up partial lots of mixed books. We do not record it as such. This is the first time I can remember the letter directly next to numbers. Some four number sequences are used as in-house catalog numbers, so it was easy to make the mistake, except I should have seen the $10.00 entry, if it was there. (Not to mentions the 9876) LOL. Truthfully, I would miss c9 for much the same reason. Shucks I forgot to 0000-00-00 and will catch that next go round. I do not have much Vintage material, but now you and I know they connect letters to number line. Personally, I prefer publishers to be a little more omniscient and by 98 have added 121110 or so. That would cue better, but often the copyright producers are lazy. Especially with artist names. Occasionally number lines are not decreased and price or sales pages in back are the only real indicator of publication differences. Once again, great thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Normally I would give no notice at all to something obscure like "C9", or even "C9876" - it simply does not register on my pattern recognition radar :-) The only reason why it caught my eye this time is because I compared two information sets and was actually on the lookout for clues that would indicate two different printings. This case demonstrates how valuable your practice of putting a lot of information into pub notes really is. I haven't reached your level of detail yet, but I am getting better :-) And now, adding my 9th printing... Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 13:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed Totally. I admit new/different data is common and when people do not make 'rich' notes, then you can not compare. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Coverart merges

I notice that you are doing a great many merges of cover art. There is no easy way for a moderator to check that the art is actually the same in these cases. Please note that it is possible, if rare, for the same artist to do two or more different covers for the same book. Please be sure that when doing these merges the actual art is the same in all cases. I am going to assume you have made such checks.

Note also that since the "Fiction titles" search was implemented not long ago, cover art records are not as much of a problem in searches as they once were, reducing the urgency of such merges. -DES Talk 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To all members, I am matching art to visual art matches. Therefore the above is not needed. Exceptions, rare, are when previous merges were made, mostly I skip those few. I am also requesting deletion where no connection between the art file and book is present. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. -DES Talk 19:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a similar assumption that Harry is trusted enough to make such merges, after a painful few hours doing such checks, but agree moderating such when we need to make checks from a less-trusted editor is a pain. We can fairly easily add links to the titles being merged and a moderator can drill down to the publications with actual art on, but it might be worth a bit more programming effort to display thumbnails of all the covers of all the pubs affected. BLongley 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Harry, I'm answering here to make sure you see it, but this probably needs to be taken up on a "Feature Request" basis for mods, or at least a general notice that we trust YOU for such edits. I don't want to discourage good editing of any kind, but sometimes the mod tools are a bit behind the editor tools. :-( BLongley

My merging was a test to see it's feasibility and the result. I like the result, but do think that there should be an advisory that 'artist merges' should be visual and to not merge just by name. The one plus of doing 'visual merges' is that if we lose the art after the merge there is some continuity. --Dragoondelight 21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you're doing nothing wrong, whether it's necessary or worth the effort is another matter. There are going to be borderline cases: like should we merge the cover for this with that. How much art needs to be in common is open to discussion. But the covers are stored at publication level, and the title-level data is a bit disconnected, so there's little harm on some regularisation. BLongley 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I did notice that there had been 'name' merges and found they do not meet the same appreciation as the 'visual' does. I also think some de-merges are in order, also I think 'tag-ends' without book should be totally deleted --Dragoondelight 21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If you mean totally stray titles with no publication, yes. A lot of editors leave these around after they have "removed contents from this pub", and they can only confuse. BLongley 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
and I only found one art that definitely did not match the book, which I deleted and left a note to the verifier (I think someone else did it and of course a book mismatch addition of that type would be hard to find by the person doing it). I did find one artist who did three separate cover arts for the same title and created merges only to that art and that looked real good afterword.
I think this is the main reason not to do "name" merges blindly. If you do spot such, then it might be worth adding notes to the COVERART title to explain why they should not be merged? BLongley 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I also acquired a 'biographical dictionary' that may help the 'artist segment' of the db. I gave the data in my reply to a Don Erikson query below. BLongley 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've acquired a few similar titles myself, and I see people using them. So long as the source is credited it's fine by me. (You may have seen some books where I've credited "In the Garden of Unearthly Delights"?) BLongley 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I leave the proper method of addressing the issues of db tools and edits to others. I too discourage merge edits, unless the editor has a specific plan. It suddenly occurs to me that a 'note' should be added on adding art and notifying verifiers in the 'how to section'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there's lots of room for improvement still. Keep challenging, we'll figure it out eventually. BLongley 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I seem to fall into these pitfalls, but hopefully the community can learn from it. I do not envy the moderators as I foresee many future attempts to add art by the 'should be' method in the future. Most new editors will not understand that some books may have almost everything similar, but an additional crediting or change in art. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Power Lines by Anne McCaffrey and Elizabeth Ann Scarborough

You have submitted a new pub of this novel. Your notes say:

  • First mass market edition July 1994. [This Publication Record].
  • First printing per number line.
  • A Del Rey Book.
  • Copyright © 1994 by Anne McCaffrey and Elizabeth Ann Scarborough.
  • LCC# 94-6631.
  • First Hardcover edition July 1994.
  • "Cover art by Rowena" on back cover. Signature "Rowena" at bottom right front cover. This is Rowena Morrill.
  • Power Play (excerpt) is dated to the publication date of it's novel.
  • Manufactured in the United States.
  • Canadian price of C$6.99 on spine and back cover.

However, you have dated the pub "1995-07-00" which conflicts with the first note. Also, it is unusual (although not impossible) for the first hardcover and first mass-market edition to be in the same month. Also, there is an existing Derl Rey pb record dated July 1995.

It looks to me as if you cloned PWRLNSKWKM1995, but did not alter the date field. Please double check your pub, and let me know what the correct dates and notes should be. I have this submission on hold, and can approve it and edit if the changes are small. -DES Talk 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another mod approved this, but please review the pub and make any needed corrections. -DES Talk 20:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I will catch it in my go around tomorrow. Yes, I do make errors, but why repeat the whole note field? What you did not catch was this "manufactured in the United States" while the cloned from example was "printed in Canada". As for the notefield date error that was because the hardcover edition and the mass market edition dates are printed above each other and my eye jumped up. Will correct upon review. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I repeated the entire notes above so that if there were reason to re-submit, you would have them available for copying -- remember I thought it would be on hold. Also in case any element was useful to you in identifying the pub in question, and because it was easier to copy the whole thing than to decied which sections would be most useful. I'll try to be more selective in future. -DES Talk 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it is time for you to 'recuse' yourself from doing edits of my work. I am perceiving that once again, I am feeling put upon. The 'hold' remark bites. The last 'hold' you made on me, you did not bother for three days to tell me about. Then, you told me I cloned, but I have since found out that the 'export' function reads as a clone, but it may not be doing that, but in any case your suggestion that you were putting 'hold' on the last, when accepting and requesting clarification would have been a more 'companionable' way to act. I am requesting you 'recuse' yourself, because obviously we have a history and I am in not in 'command' of the situation, I am the acted upon, even if it is erroneous. Let others adjust my work, make comments to them about how to do it, etc., but 'discontinue' a process that has led to me being chastised, unless this is the real object of your discourse. Enough is enough, as you have stated previously you have more than enough moderators that you do not need the likes of myself. In any case, from this point forward, you put it on hold, you had best get a copy, because I am no longer going to let the situation become this distasteful. You 'hold' it, you own it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry you are feeling put out. I saw what seemed to me an inconsistency. I notified you of it, at once, so that the correct data could be recorded. We all make mistakes, including myself. I had and have no intent to "chastise" you, or anyone else. The main reason for holding edits about which there is some question, rather than accepting them and then modifying them, is that while the edit is held, it is possible to see exactly what changes are involved. Also in some cases, going back can be tricky. In other cases it isn't an issue. This is the standard procedure, used by every moderator with every editor, not something I invented. I don't recall saying that we have enough moderators, or that your contributions are not wanted, in any capacity. If you wish to be a moderator, say so, and the other editors can comment on the matter. -DES Talk 00:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Harry, you're a valuable contributor, as is DES. Your style of editing is a bit unusual compared with other editors, and DES is a bit unusual too. You're both wanted though. If you don't get on, that's OK - DES can recuse himself from reviewing your edits and other moderators will fill in. If, for instance, you don't like ME moderating your submissions, that's OK too. But if you find all moderators are avoiding you, then the problem might be with you. If all editors want to avoid DES moderating, then the problem is with him. As we grow, there will be more and more personality clashes or misunderstandings over "plain" statements that aren't "plain" to the other side - but underneath, I think you two, and I, and everyone else here, are really pushing in the same direction. BLongley 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Harry, I have no desire to fight with you, or with anyone else here. I apologize if my comments have seemed hostile or chastising in any way, please believe that such was not my intent. I do value your contributions, as Bill has just said others do. My only desire is to help the ISFDB grow, and help myself and others use and contribute to it. I do not wish to make you, or anyone else, uncomfortable. I think I do more detail checks on submissions I moderate than some people do -- perhaps this seems picky. It is only intended to help find problems, as others have found plenty of problems in my submissions and verified pubs. -DES Talk 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's face it, folks: the main reason we are all here is that we are, in one shape or another, book collectors, list compilers, obsessive compulsive perfectionists and other varieties of what is usually lovingly referred to as "nerds". There is nothing wrong with that and it can be a great deal of fun (not to mention much safer and more remunerative than it was a few centuries ago), but nerds typically do not make great communicators. Add the fact that the internet is a challenging medium and you can see the potential for misunderstanding and conflict. Two people with the very best of intentions but totally different posting styles can easily completely misunderstand each other and things will rapidly deteriorate from there.
As far as putting submissions "on hold" goes, it's a standard procedure while researching non-trivial submissions. The issue that DES ran into was that our software has a hole in it so that, depending on the exact sequence of events, another moderator may approve or reject a submission without realizing that it is being "held". I was hoping to address this issue after implementing foreign language support, but since it's getting to be a nuisance, I will try to do it in the next 24-48 hours. Ahasuerus 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)Apologies. There are two issues, DES and I have interacted too long, both of us are defensive in our approaches. Our methods of response have been antagonistic and will continue to be. That is why I ask he recuse himself. In answering his 'moderator' level actions, I find that I expect him to be totally correct and I know that I do not have the ability to communicate my viewpoint to either of our satisfaction. Thus avoidance makes sense. I must also admit that 'authoritarian' statements set me off. I see 'hold' as a 'this will destroy records' situation, not a housekeeping, record straightening problem. I know I make mistakes, I have adopted the attitude that I should/am grateful when they are pointed out, but putting small mistakes on 'hold' is most irksome. I assume I am alone in this, but Hold and Reject in conversations for things less than DB shaking is threatening. I am going to hate the terms, but short, simple statements that I just set off a recording problem is easier to take. I must know what I did, an the moderator needs to be very correct, otherwise it comes of as unnecessary scolding/commentary. Unfortunately extended explanation can also grate. Thus I am still unsure of the 'export creating clones' explanation, the chiding for artist merges (which were visual matches to consolidate the same art), and then a follow-up on cloning a Canadian printing to establish the U.S. printing. In all cases, when corrected, I am irritated with myself, but the 'moderator' must be correct. If he misses being correct then he loses the respect he must maintain. When a 'misconstrued' commentary is immediately followed by 'hold' on submissions, then I will think the process has become diverted and if my 'participation' is going to revert to that kind of 'time consuming' exercise it is a 'no win' for all. I am cognizant that my 'participation' is 'somewhat exotic', but I am also sure that some of it has value. I am also sure that some of it will be 'modified or exorcised', but that is the nature of the beast. If I my 'badly tuned notation' creates a better rationalized methodology it is then worthwhile. Thus I try to put the ball into play, and expect that others will do it better or not. So the summary, is that I wish to continue, but would like to avoid a personal character fault of defensiveness. My suggestion is that DES, quietly moderate and tell someone else if he finds needful changes, that person and I then would have no 'history of conflict' and can resolve almost any issue. I have always been the difficult child since the second grade. DES and I have evolved our conversation on my personal contributions into a devisive program, where I can only see conflict. Now we need drop this, further beating of this 'rug' has stretched everyone's forebearance. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish I were able to be always correct, unfortunately i can't manage it -- i make mistakes far more often than i would wish. I suspect I tend to explain too much, but only in an attempt to be clear and helpful rather than authoritarian. I could go into details about the various incidents you refer to, but i will refrain, lest I seem, or be, defensive. But please Harry, don't take a "Hold" as threatening. As I understand it, a "Hold" simply means "there is a question about this submission, wait while it is looked into or a question is asked and answered."
At your request, i will, if I moderate any of your submissions and find what seems to me a problem, pass them off to another moderator and ask that person to interact with you and deal with the issue. I hope this will avoid future friction. I do agree that your contributions have value, and have never thought otherwise. i apologize for coming across as "authoritarian" and threatening. Please trust that I had no wish to so appear, and have no desire to threaten anyone here, or to play dictator. -DES Talk 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's right, 'put on HOLD' is something that any moderator can do to avoid collisions with other moderators and duplication of effort. If a submission requires additional research, the HOLD lasts for as long as it takes to do the research, which can be as little as a couple of minutes. Most of the time it's perfectly innocuous and the submitting editor is never notified since no additional actio is required. Sometimes the approving moderator needs to ask the submitting editor a question, in which case the submission may stay on hold for a day or two, and in certain cases it may be held even longer, e.g. if the submitting editor doesn't check his Talk page for a while or if the submission raises complex policy questions.
The problem that DES ran into has to do with the way hold works. Depending on the timing, a moderator may not see the HOLD warning and approve the submission while another moderator is researching it. I am in the process of fixing it and hope to have the patch installed tomorrow. It's not a difficult change to make, just a time consuming one, with more than 20 programs involved. Ahasuerus 00:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It is true that I have sometimes in the past applied a hold intending to do needed research or followups later, and then let later get much too late. This is unfortunate, and a poor practice, but sometimes there seems no way to avoid it. -DES Talk 01:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Waterdeep by Awlinson (Denning)

I've replaced the incorrect amazon cover scan with a a new one for your verified pub and deleted the note explaining where the old scan was incorrect. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, As you could see my original was the 'art', but yours is the reality. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A gutter code question

In your verification of [32] you give a gutter code of "H36" while my copy has a code of "E36". Yours is probably a reprint but could you check your copy? Don Erikson 22:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your code is correct. I submitted a correction. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I consider you the art guru. I just acquired "Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary" by Jane Frank. 978-0-7864-3423-7. [33]. It was offered by a 'pulp' advocate and I found it at Amazon. Your art additions for Powers sparked the connection. It is much too expensive, pretty cover without dj. The bulk of the book is artist, biography with "Published Work" section. The "Published Work" section is "title" (publisher, year). It looks like it could serve as a general reference for artist, but you probably could best judge this. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Death at Dragonheart

You're submitting a new pub "Death at Dragonheart" but the cover clearly says "Death at Dragonthroat"? BLongley 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize, I did the same on the next one and I can read it. Will correct. Apologies and thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, we all go word-blind at times. I've let them through so you can make your own corrections (I know you hate "HOLD"). Congratulations on finding a new author, I always get warm and fuzzy when I find something or someone ISFDB has missed before! BLongley 20:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Corrections submitted, though I did one at contents. Will check in the morning. I have two more by Teel but need to re-configure my desk to make them easier to do. I do not hate 'holds' for cause. Even a quick note of "I need to do some checking" is fine. Things like that take seconds. I find that a hold rarely solves anything itself. I understand holds for potential db conflicts or breaking content rules, etc, but not for editing notes. Feel free to bang me on the head, a mistake I understand is never a problem, a misunderstanding is a little harder, but I suspect that is so for everyone. As for the new author, I have yet to evaluate him, but he did a NF on Fighting scenes that has caught my interest. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Corrections approved. Evaluation of the new author is unnecessary unless it turns out it's not Speculative Fiction at all. BLongley 23:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I meant a personal evaluation of how much I like/dislike the author's work. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Harry, I suspect you underestimate the amount of effort a "HOLD" may (but not always) can take. I agree a quick note of "I need to do some checking" is desirable, but when a moderator discovers you can't UNHOLD it, and the note changes are because (for instance) there's an obscure rule about adding reprints of SFBC editions to one publication rather than adding another edition, one submission that looks like it needs a minute or two more to check can get a moderator twisted up in all sorts of research that's out of their area of expertise. When we can UNHOLD, or change the HOLD for another Moderator with that sort of expertise, or just add notes to the reasons for a HOLD, then things will flow better. I hope you can be patient with us while we improve moderating capabilities, some editors are far ahead of most moderators in their own areas and it's unrealistic to expect all moderators to know every rule for all types of submission. The current design mostly assumes that a moderator knows everything, and frankly, we don't. We'll get that sorted, eventually, by software changes and policy changes and all sorts of other stuff - please bear with us in the meantime. BLongley 23:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no argument with 'hold for research, db integrity, etc", but I have trouble with a hold to explain, with more than a dash of moderator speculations on what I am doing wrong. When a moderator speculates that there is a problem and it is not technical, then there that moderator is 'severely frustrating' the moderated. Even the flowery excuses and please do not feel offended stimulate negatively. QA is more practical and productive. Definition of moderator reasoning. Refraining from 'of and about' the hold, which reflects back on the 'teacher saying, I am going to swat you'. Putting a submission on hold that creates a new document without a technical fault does NOT make sense. Let the submission go through, ask for explanation with a quick, zippy explanation of what the moderator thinks the problem is. Long winded explanation or digressions on what the moderator thinks is very bad, unless the moderator is right. Even then, the shorter the better, for the simple reason is that a moderator is dealing with adults who often enough have developed the 'please let me not suffer from foolishness'. This is not the same as explaining in depth a technical result of 'why not or why to do' something. Of course, 'the data base will not do that or will change everything else' is a good focal point to start the explanation. To be avoided is trying to 'outthink' the editor's intent. Ask what he wanted to do, guessing wrong by a moderator and getting 'detailed about what the moderator thought wrong' is extremely frustrating. One of the best things, if a moderator thinks there is problem is to ask what did you (editor) mean? Never jump from an "all points admonishment for something (but you did no technical fault)" to which the editor replies that it was not what the moderator assumed. A few minutes latter jump back an show 'authority to hold' on an item that could be let go and fixed after. Holds are great to stop cascade actions, but they do NOT teach anything do the fact the editor can not physically see the perceived problem, while letting a thing happen, pointing out the mistake is the better approach. But NEVER should a moderator cascade a conflict with a "I see" and then do 'speculative trouble shooting with hold threats'. If you are going to hold, hold it immediately, do not digress to ping the editor. If another editor is conflicting, then if there was/is no technical damage, stop an perform a teaching function, but still the 'moderator' has to focus on actual problem (in my case a one digit mis-fingering' which anyone has/can/does do). Never use the hold as a threat or let it be perceived as a threat. "I am going to hold any further" is not going to accomplish much more than cause an editor to leave. Before the two above, there was of course, the classic hold for three days in which the moderator finally announced that the 'exports' created clones. Yet, my confidence in that moderator is forever shaken after I performed the recommended 'import' and it appeared on the 'pending record' sheet as a 'new pub'. The panic response was to bring up a message on the moderator board what had occurred with questioning of what/why. The explanation that it always appeared so was satisfying, but it will always make it doubtful that the original 'three day hold' was correct. Above is why I asked for a specific moderator recusal. One strike for leaving severe doubt a correct appraisal in export functions, second strike for a not needful rebuke advisory, and third strike for an immediate 'threat to hold, but another moderator?'. History is history and I actually think the moderator quite capable, but historically we have rarely had a 'meeting of minds' when I am under the onus of rebuke. Even when I am right, the continued conversation, leads invariably to attempts a compromise and revision of how I do it. I have told that moderator many times to not ever do that to me. So you can imagine why I have re-pointed all the above, it is simple the moderator is still moderating my submissions. What is thinking on his part? Does he think my frustration will decrease when he finally does find another fault? I am trying to preclude conflict, but I admit I am again irritated. Apologies, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"UNHOLD" is available as of last night (isn't technology wonderful?), so if a moderator finds that he is out of his depth, he can remove the HOLD and let other moderators take a shot at it. Ahasuerus 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover scans November 1

Hi Harry, I'm doing the last set of Alan Burt Akers/Dray Prescott scans today. Not all of them have your primary verification, but I thought you'd like to know anyway.

I added this cover scan to Warrior of Scorpio to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Transit to Scorpio to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to The Tides of Kregen to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to The Suns of Scorpio to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Secret Scorpio to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Renegade of Kregen to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Prince of Scorpio to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Manhounds of Antares to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Golden Scorpio to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Fliers of Antares to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Armada of Antares to replace this Amazon link.
I added this cover scan to Arena of Antares to replace this Amazon link.
That's it. Enjoy, Willem H. 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I am awed! They are much better than any I have seen. Thanks Greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reed Crandall's data

born "near Jasper, Indiana, USA"? Wikipedia says Winslow, Indiana. In any case, if there is another source do we need the "near"?--swfritter 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"born in a log cabin on a farm near Jasper, Indiana" Sources: from interviews with the Crandall Family survivors. I read the Wikipedia also, and wondered if Winslow, Indiana took over the farm? Possibly Winslow also claims him for the fame. If you wish I will remove it. Thanks for questioning as there are some conflicts and I have been siding with what seems most reasonable. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

legal name for Ned Dameron

You entered as Edward Palfrey IV. I changed to Palfrey IV, Edward.--swfritter 15:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was 'determined' to get that one wrong. Roman numeral stumped me and I forgot everything else. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Are such ordinal numbers really part of the legal name in the US? BLongley 18:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes they are used on birth certificates, other times they are not. There is much more on their use and misuse on this page. We generally record them in the Legal name field, but they are quite mutable and many people drop "Jr." X years after their father dies. Oh well, we do what we can... Ahasuerus 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Eberle

After approving the Joseph Eberle update, I changed the IMDB link from Alex Ebel to Joseph Eberle. Ahasuerus 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have had it in the copy memory. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ring Around the Sun

I uploaded this cover scan for your verified pub. I also expanded the note about the SFBC ad to indicate that it does not appear in all copies. It is not in mine and nothing appears to be torn our between the pages you mention. I didn't think that it was enough of a variation to warrant a different publication record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct! The cigarette and book adds can/are often torn out with no indication they were there. I have been trying to restrict their mention therefore to printings which have no or conflicting printing dates. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gods of Riverworld

Scanned in an image and expanded the notes considerably for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Coverart Merges Again

Are you still checking that covers by the same artist are actually the same art? As I just noticed your merge for The Changeling seems to have two very different covers involved. (And the latter is art I've seen on other books, I'm sure.) BLongley 20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have, but I admit I am flabbergasted by the two images. Not only are they different, but I am positive the 1969 image was combined under another artist, today or yesterday. I must have hit the same cover hot link twice. Apologies, I will try not to do it again. I wish I could think of who got the previous art credit, but the old man's head is distinctive. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I can check the backups tonight unless Bill does it first. Ahasuerus 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for breaking the link. I have noticed before that late sixties and early seventies images were used on different titles. This will bug me until I see it again. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
See ODDBALSS1973, CMNGOS1961, THCHNGLNGG1969. Pointer supplied by this page, which suggests we might have a wrong cover for this too. BLongley 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The first one is the one I mixed up visually with "The Changeling". The Pointer is not matching what Frank says. Frank gives "The Oddballs" as Manor, 73. "The Changeling" MacFadden, 67. Frank does not list "The Mind Traders" under Faragasso, but the cover and Tuck agree on catalog number (visual/entry to Tuck). "The Mind Traders" has a 74 listing at this DB under Manor, which we have no confirmation on (Amazon/Fantastic Fiction no Manor cover, again no Frank). The pointer said 1961 for "The Oddballs" but that was a 1973 (no Tuck ref). I tuck ver the 67 "The Changeling". Frank lists almost a full page of covers for Faragasso and the years may be off by a year or so. Super thanks for pulling this up! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that pointer is wrong for "The Mind Traders", I've got that. But I got sidetracked by this other cover for The Changeling, which again is a cover I've seen elsewhere. BLongley 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for confusion. This. [34] is my Manor candidate to be by Faragasso?, but I could not make any match. The one above, which I vered, is Frank confirmed as Bruce Pennington, 1976. Last "bad" thought is that we have no 'good' means of cross identifying actual art with different titles. Notes will never catch attention. Sorry, am called away. Shutting down for the night, but thanks again for the 'catch' and the 'pointer'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The 1974 Manor edition didn't have artwork, according to icshi. BLongley 18:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I meant "The Mind Traders" [35], but of course got lost in the multiple site searches. I have seen the 74 Changleing or something with the same look before. Though this [36] is supposedly it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked for "Mind Traders" cover reuse, but I did find the Pennington reuse for Changeling here and here. And I'm sure there's more than that... BLongley 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you meant use other than that Pennington cover on that title. It does seem familiar. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Luckily, most of the submissions have been of the tp/hc, hc/SFBC, and multiple reprint with same isbn variety none of which I have found to have significantly different covers - unless the scans are wrong.--swfritter 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Though the process can/is tedious of opening and looking and often rechecking as many have either been scanned differently or the publishers have used differing techniques to sometimes not too subtly change the look of the art. Still if you as a user are looking at matched art then you hopefully get your money's worth, but it is not a primary purpose of the DB. In cross checking the Frank data on individual book titles assigned to author's and even the Faragasso site, I have become aware that much of their data is written with no actual visual cross check. In time, this will shake itself out, but I predict that if this DB stays up, then it will become one of or the primary research resource in the future. Already Wikipedia uses ISFDB as a baseline reference in many of their articles, while this DB present method is to 'point' to other sources for the written and therefore more subjective data. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jones vs Peter Andrew Jones

Sorry. Same person, but maybe the bio should be under "PAJ"? Jones's are very tough. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Trojan Orbit

Just a note that I have added Jim Bean's one page essay "A Message to the Reader" to your verified Trojan Orbit. Ahasuerus 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Map of Compact Space

I would like to merge several title records which I believe refer to the same piece of interior art, entitled "Map of Compact Space", that is included in some of C. J. Cherryh's Chanur novels. You are one of the verifiers whose pub records (this and this) would be affected by the change. Before making the merge I need to make sure that all titles refer to the same piece of art. A scan of the map can be found here (link points to my personal website; once the issue has been resolved I will remove the scan so that no copyright is violated). Unless you think my proposal is a bad idea in the first place, could you please verify whether the scan matches the map you have in your publication? You may wish to read the help desk discussion leading up to this request. Thanks for your time, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! Rarely are maps redrawn even when used under different novel titles. IMO, the most reasonable method is to rename them to one title and merge. That will give users more to work with. In this case you do have a clear map title, many do not have a clear title, and a merge is in order. You will find others like this and most often my title (map) is used because I do not like maps as named objects, because they are not always clearly so named. Feel free to change title and merge. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is a case where a titled 'afterword' is identical in several books by one novel author. I had to lump them like this. [37]. I have two more to add to it, but though it looks somewhat odd, it precludes the idea he (essay author) did new work in several books. So, merging cuts down false leads. Good work BTW. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice! I'm going to add this to my list of exemplary edits that I consult when I encounter a difficult situation and need enlightenment. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 07:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover art merge for I am Legend

Both pubs are using the same cover image including the First Printing - a $0.25 pub linking to a $0.35 cover stating second printing on cover. Since the pubs appear to have been printed in rapid succession in the same year it is probable the same art was used but there is visual proof, the price, that one of the covers is not from the correct pub. I guess the note in the pub about Canadian printing is good enough to justify merging them?--swfritter 16:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the correct image, deleted the 35¢ image and replaced it. I also found the 1954 image, the same as with correct catalog number and added it, added Meltzoff. As Tuck does not list the 57 printings, I made one of them n/a , the other was done previously. The fixes I believe you desired. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
My reasoning was same art and artist, and I did not notice and was not terribly worried that it was a clone image. I did see the note about Canadian pricing. But since you mentioned, and it was fairly easy (huh) to do, I tried to correct the situation. An exercise in what to expect, when I find time to go back and do matches of her data to the data base. BTW Frank's data matched 54, but the art we had was 57, without Tuck. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am looking forward to getting all 57 printings into the database.--swfritter 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but what can you do but chip, chip, chip! Tuck is not much help as there seems to be quite a few gaps in that title reference. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Interface -- cover art

I added this image to your transient-verified Interface. --MartyD 14:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I do like you work!. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rolind of Meru

Hello Harry. I added the cover artist (Ken Barr) and adapted the notes for your verified pub. My copy shows a bit more of the painting, Barr's signature is visible in the lower right corner. I'll add a better coverscan one of these days. Thanks, Willem H. 15:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust your judgment/sight on this as my copy at the bottom is a morass of black. I just figured out there was a guy sprawled on the steps. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Day of Wrath

Added a cover image to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also to [Days of Glory] ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Both cover correct. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wallace Smith (artist)

I'm holding an edit to The Shining Pyramid that would change the cover artist from "Wallace Smith (artist)" to plain Wallace Smith. I suspect that the "artist" suffix is to distinguish the writer from the artist, do you have some evidence that they're actually the same person after all? BLongley 21:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually added the artist credit without (artist) and then found it (without artist) connected to two short stories written after 1952. Since the artist I was entering was dead in 1937, this made it unlikely to my feeble reasoning. So I re-submitted 'William Wallace' on "The Shining Pyramid" as Wallace Smith (artist) to separate. I then rechecked the two short stories and found this "Vol 1, No 1. All of the stories are probably by Walter Gibson or Ed Burkholder but there is no authoritative source to determine exact authorship. "They Die on Mars" is listed as starting on page 32 in the table of contents. "Adventures in Time and Space" is listed as "Adventure in Time and Space" in the book review column. "STF Book Review" is not listed in the table of contents." in the note field. I then reread the artist entry on Wallace Smith and found both stories attributed to him as being published posthumously in 'Franks dictionary'. I then went to each story title and added this note "published 'posthumously' according to Jane Frank's "Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary" on page 429, rt col middle. Dragoondelight". After that I dialed up 'Wallace Smith (artist) and deleted the (artist) to try to recombine the two stories and the cover art crediting. Doltishly, I had trouble realizing the dead get published well after their demise. You caught it at the last de-edit! Consider me most humbled by the written word. Sorry my one track mind had trouble digesting short stories after death with cover art done before death. My mind just went one train track at a time, till I could tie the whole together. I hope you do not become confused by this abomination. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Checking my Weinberg, it seems Wallace Smith the artist did become a writer, probably this guy. No mention of the specific titles we have, but close enough for me. BLongley 19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That is he. She has the movie credits, but they threw me, after those she had the line on the two short stories. Of course, Frank's dates are a little off, and this happens. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover art record unmerge

I approved it but wasn't sure what was your intention in unmerging this record from the other cover art record for Man from Mundania. Just wondering. Also, when it was unmerged, the system dropped the "Cover:" preface from the record, leaving it simply "Man from Mundania", possibly a bug. I've never unmerged cover art records before, so I wasn't familiar with this particular behavior. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see now that it's different artwork. It's not like Sweet at all, in fact, looking rather amateurish. I'd bet that it's incorrectly credited. MHHutchins 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It was not the same art, so I wished to remove it from the others. It is signed "DKS" at bottom center under "Earth" in the blurb and is pretty clear if you check the Fantastic Fiction example [38]. It looks odd and my bet is that it was not going to be used and then someone liked it so he colorized it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks like some high-school kid did it. Oh, well. Thanks for the explanation. Now I've got to report the bug that changed the title. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is off (jarred me), but Sweet is noted for trying for perfection and I assume that he may have done several different view point sketches to roughs to templates for this book and that may account for a 'lesser effort', though the man is noted for trying to make the art try to sell the book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill Terry - Canonical name W. E. Terry

Shouldn't the author data go under the canonical name W. E. Terry? I am also curious about where you are getting the data. Maybe it's a source I should have in my collection.--swfritter 15:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I had difficuties with "W.E" and "Bill" and after going down many false, baffling leads on the net, I probably forgot my usual process, which is to go with a canonical name. It is headed as "William E. Terry" in my source, which did not do overmuch (approx. 1 col) on him. It did supply his actual birth name, no evidence that he legally changed it. The source states he used "William" professionally (whatever that means) and "Bill" informally, to distinguish himself from his namesakes. ????thinking or source thinking???? Since his name is Willis E. Terry, I checked all that I could, but I think I boggled it somewhat. I never found that he used W. E. Terry, so after numerous checks, I fixated on "Bill", probably because he used it often under the W. E. So my Solomon type decision was to go for the "Bill" as a total toss-up. As you can see I am still confused as to who he really is/was. I can not remember if I even found a secondary source, so if you wish to null out my odd choice, you might pull a source to the W. E. Miller site. Still muddled as to what the reality was of using Bill and William instead of Willis. Thanks, ruefully, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Source is Jane Frank's "Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary" [39], which is based heavily on Robert Weinberg's "A Biographical Dictionary of Science Fiction and Fantasy Artist" [40]. Frank did serious updating, the 'meat' of the book is anywhere from 'three to six years' out of date on current bios. Overall, she did quite an expansion on most bios and published works sections. I have yet to determine her accuracy score yet, especially as she does not source where she got the data on the titles from. I am tentatively thinking she is + or - 1 year on book dates, but current on month/year for magazine credits, with no specific story title or cover credit on magazines. Frank does show quirks on some bios. Often she is no better than anyone else on 'true birth' names and once she listed the birthplace at the very end of the bio. Willem H. also has a copy and I suggest you ask him, as I do like my copy a lot. My opinion is that the current Frank is much better than the Weinberg, but the prices for both are much too high. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have tinkered with the idea of making a template page for the magazine artists (on their biographical page) with the contents as stated from Frank, so someone at some time could check between what we have and what she states. In any event, if she ever updates her book, I think the ISFDB will be used by her. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have the Weinberg book, but even though I paid far less than the $106.95 they're currently quoting on Amazon US (and in fact, I got it at less than list price) it's been rather underused for the amount I paid. I guess I'm not that overly interested in the artists it covers - I've been far more excited at finally deciphering the "F" and "PE" and "PAJ" sigils on many British books, for instance, which is why I encourage more entries for our sig library. "Cover Pelmanism" is a nice side-track at times when I don't actually want to go find books or type a lot, and may lead to more attributions, or just a bit of fun. (If anyone finds such cover reuse interesting, we might want to formalise it a bit more.) BLongley 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have place the data entered by Harry with W. E. Terry's author data. Harry, if you could enter the the appropriate data in his biography page. Thanks.--swfritter 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Biographical statement added. Bibliographical statement added also [41]. Commentary, changes, suggestions now open. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover credit for Allan Gutierrez

Hi, as per this discussion please check the spelling on the cover credit for "Allan Gutierrez" here Thanks Jonschaper 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Double LL Allan. I have misspelled it before. Sorry, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Herman Vestal

Holding a submission for the above author. You put in his legal name as "Vestal, Herman Vestal". Isn't that one too many "Vestals"? Or is his middle and last name the same? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Should have been Beesom. Please reject and I will re-do. Good catch! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you keep the date data? 1916-03-27 ; 2007-09-16 ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, still have that, but I will do another search for data. Too bad, too little on this one. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Captive Universe

You report for 1972 edition of Captive Universe the ID # 43478, but the author (usually very accurate) site recits: London: Sphere, March 1972, 85pp., ISBN: 0-7221-4348-6, pbk. Reprinted March 1973 (ISBN: 0-7221-4347-8, Cover: Peter Elson); November 1978 (ISBN: 0-7221-4423-7). Also British Library reports for 1972 edition 4348-6.--ErnestoVeg 16:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Afternoon, Ernesto! So? All data as listed. Still no cover found, but ABE under search criteria Title:Captive Universe, Publisher: Sphere gives a small 27kb pic [42] by one vendor. Only used for this discussion ( no permission to hot link). That is pic. Further down N&A Smiles cites a 72 edition (illustrator: Patrick Woodruffe) with this cute line "Sphere Books 43486 1972 First Sphere Paperback Printing (Second Version) ISBN 0-7221-43498-6, 1972." Smiles is usually very precise and is inferring that there is two versions (one without ISBN, one with (the second)and possibly a price difference or price location difference). Still if I was a betting man, I would guess that the ISBN's are switched as 4747-8 is lower than 4348-6. Though mine has no full ISBN. Also, Jane Frank does not list this printing under Elson or Woodruffe (not surprising as her data would be compiled from others and not everything is clearly shown). I do see the cover on the Harrison site. Cannot see an artist signature on my cover. BTW my cover on his site is without the "Sphere Science Fiction" line on bottom of cover. I just know this did not really help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Iron Sunrise

Morning, Harry! Scanned in a non-ZZZZZZZZ image and expanded the notes for [this ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)]

Looks fine. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The World of Theda

I added a cover to The World of Theda. It looks like there might be an artist signature on the bottom left of the cover - "Pao" or "Rao"? BLongley 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First Lensman

I replaced a broken cover image for your verified pub, First Lensman. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Job, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sturgeon in Orbit

Scanned in an image and expanded the notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Deathdate for George Gross

Entered as 2003-02-023. When approved it was recognized as 23 February 2003. Correct?--swfritter 14:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry typo. 23 Feb 2003 correct. good Catch! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Covers: Shudder Again

Both of your edits to these covers don't change anything. Mel Odom (artist) is already there. Am I missing something? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you be looking at a stale submission queue, Bill? I approved them -- they did change from "Mel Odom" to "Mel Odom (artist)". Maybe you're seeing the comparison of the proposed-but-approved change to the modified result? --MartyD 22:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't think so. The submission still read open and the (artist) appendage showed on both sides. That's why I asked. If the submission was accepted then that nasty red banner would have popped up, I think.... different set of gremlins on this side of the submission fence???? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Try a refresh or something. They're not in the list when I look (I dealt with them several hours ago now). --MartyD 22:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
One hour six minutes before the last timestamp here, four minutes before I posted above. I always come at the queue from 'outside' each time as submissions disappear in a hurry these days (about time the older generation let some of the kids play, eh??..... wait a minute, I am the older generation!!). Who knows? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The submission review page can be refreshed/viewed even after submission approval. It's only when you try to re-approve it that you get that red error message. Ahasuerus 02:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the times the edits were approved I would imagine 'Billy blu' was on an older list. Maybe the moderators need the capacity to grab edits in blocks so they will not over lap? In time with enough 'active' moderators this will probably be needed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"Billy Blu"? I think other Bill prefers "Master Bluesman". I can live with "Lord Longley" as he suggested, but will settle for anything above "Oi! Mod!" . ;-) BLongley 20:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Done and done! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edmund J. Sullivan

I approved the changes to Edmund J. Sullivan, but I wondered about the "(E.J.)" suffix that you proposed to add to the end of his legal name. According to Wikipedia, Sullivan was often referred to as "E. J. Sullivan", so I got curious as to whether we were perhaps crediting his interior art incorrectly. I checked one of the publications, McClure's, December 1905, which referenced I then searched the text of the magazine for "Sullivan" and found that the illustrator was credited as "Edmund J. Sullivan" on page 208. Ditto McClure's, October 1906, which credits him twice, both times using "Edmund J. Sullivan".

Overall, it looks like "Edmund J. Sullivan" is right, but if we ever come across the "E. J. Sullivan" form of his name, we can set it up as a pseudonym. Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I hit people called him "E.J." so many times and there were several other Edmond/Edmund Sullivans, that I thought it might appear somewhere else on something. Overall doing Illustrator biography connections was daunting, but they were so important. I had not realized that illustrators were supplanted by television, but that their work was often of such note that it was important to the common man of past eras. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewel of Jarhen

Morning, Harry! New image and expanded notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat irked by the 'Cap Kennedy' printings of DAW. What was Wollheim's thinking? Since, he did not number them, and I am pretty sure some of them predate the 'official numbering' of DAW science fiction, I feel like we are missing things. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cyteen Vindication

Afternoon Harry! Approved [this] and then found an image without the seal. Added that and removed the note pertaining to it. Appears to be the same cover. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks greatly. Apparently I am 'clutching' when I have other things to do outside. I looked for a better cover, but the only one I found without the seal was 'blued out'. By that I mean the scan was way too blue, and my copy is very nice in comparison. Of course, I am a little irked that there has to be more printings that the db is not showing also, since mine does not use the 'seal'. Vagrant thoughts, are jamming me up some. Of course, I am trying to get my routine working again! LOL Thanks, for all the help. Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the 'blued' image is the one I used. Uploaded it to my computer first and played with it until I could get the colors a bit better and sharper (best I could do but then it was an Amazon image). ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It is much appreciated. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Harry! Have held a submission to overwrite [this] verified pub record. Had you intended to overwrite the stub record immediately above this one? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, took awhile to 'think my error' out. I wanted to clone and hit edit instead. So kill it, I have the second printing January 2006, but got more than a little lost as the cover has added blurbs (3) and a Baen symbol. It's terrible that once they have a commercial picture, they use that and leave out their own printer differences. Good catch, especially as I missed putting a new date in. Thanks, Harry.
The 'one above' looks to be a dupe for the Dsorgen ver. My second printing confirms his as a first printing, but unfortunately he was doing that in the age of 'confirming without the extras'. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's why I thought maybe you had intended overwriting it as then there wouldn't be another stub hanging around.

(Unindent) Experiment: apparently the new feature of being able to delete your own edits is even supposed to work if there's a hold on. Could you try this on this one and see if that really works? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got bumped off (logged off) and it took some time before I was looking around again. Got the pre-Turkey lazes. If I had done it though, they would have noticed. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Swords Trilogy

I used one of your verified pubs as the base for a clone (you always have great notes), and I noticed that the order of the contents is not the same as in my edition. The Knight of the Swords usually comes first in the trilogy with The King of the Swords coming last. I suspect you may have them reversed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Very good catch! I appreciate the 'clue'. BTW, I am glad you are up for and going to be a moderator, I thought you more than had the 'right stuff' from the first time you crossed my path. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Away & Beyond

Since Lord Longley is either moving or unpacking, and likely WIFIing edits all the way I have this question for you on [this] pub. I have the same cover and my printing statement has "Reprinted 1968, 1970, 1973 (twice)" making it a fifth. There are no notes in the existing record. I will drop a note for Bill as there ought to be a second record for 1973 anyway, just whether to create for the fourth or fifth printing. Thanks! ~Bill,

Well, I goofed that one. I also have the fifth printing. First is 1963 followed by Reprinted 1968, 1970, 1973 (twice). Price is 35p £0.35. With a beautiful 586 02437 0 (over) 2 on bottom left front cover, bottom spine, and bottom center back cover. The 2 is the extra clue to second printing, I think. You also have a beautiful F at the bottom right front cover and I have the book listed under Christopher Foss for 1973, pg 215 lt col under title (1973), Frank's Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary. So after cloning, I will second verify. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hang on on the clone Harry until Bill Longley chimes in. This may already be the fifth printing and we'll need to create a stub for the fourth. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I may find it this weekend. ("Van Vogt" should be near the top of one of the piles.) Although I might save it for my Dad the week after, to see if he can find it and organise it as fast as he claims. If not - just assume mine is the other one and get your one(s) right. I'm used to my two-year-old verifications being unclear by current standards, it gives me an excuse to revisit them though. BLongley 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Made the clone. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Added the Frank credit. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jade Green Eyes

New image and notes for [The Girl With Jade Green Eyes] You need to Archive again... many picoseconds from top to bottom.... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thankfully, I had to check for a Boucher also. B is going to have to break up again. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wave and the Flame

Identified the cover artist (R. Courtney) for this verified pub and added a note about this. A partial signature is visible on the backcover, left of the ISBN-box. Thanks, Willem H. 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Cloned "Clone" maps

I assume, since you have the books that the maps are all the same. Just curious why you chose the one from the second book as the 'canonical'. If I remember correctly, merging these will drop the other titles? Or is that what you intended? ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill, merging always keeps the oldest entry (the lowest ID) and brings all of the "to keep" values from the other titles into it. Just FYI. --MartyD 17:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What happens to the other titles, though? In this case four (identical) maps and four separate titles? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Lord Longley is correct I opted the second button in the merge title set. Mostly, it was over being irked by the series title choice, which I had not noticed before. I lost definition in my planning, because I could not see using 'Character names for series' as being very useful. After that it went down hill, when the first book was merged it was under map (title) and though I know that that does not matter, I hit the second box (reflex). The series map should have a series map title but that makes no sense when the series is named after a character. So now you have prove that the gears grind in my head, but not effectively. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe go to the title of the interior art and create a decent name with a note. "Clone Space" or something. That would regularize the entries? Just a thought. You could always create a new series that has a better title and move the pubs there? gets those gears just smokin'!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell's Pavement

On my copy of this pub the signature of the artist (John Berkey) is clearly visible. I uploaded this coverscan, added the artist and adapted the notes. Thanks, Willem H. 11:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Better state than mine is in. LOL. You also have a Frank confirmation of that credit on page 107 bottom lt. col. Good Catch! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A Reasonable World

I expanded the notes a bit for this pub (printing statement, LCCN). Feel free to add your own. Thanks, Willem H. 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Also added this cover scan. Thanks, Willem H. 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
That's some scan! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Prologue" in The Metal Monster

Despite being signed, isn't this really part of the novel? It was a common convention at the time the novel was published to have a fake "prologue" in order to make the story seem more factaual. If we follow this pattern we will have to also do most of ERB and other writers of that era in the same way. The PG version has the same "Prologue" plus probably every other edition of this novel.--swfritter 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you noticed, I will relent. But there is a point for keeping such, in order to identify, what/which/when the authors did this trick. It was considered, quite the thing to imitate and have in your author's repitoire. LOL I also had a thought that it would be interesting to list all the 'told the authors' and which were used as characters in their stories. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Lord's Pink Ocean

New image and slightly expanded notes for ttp:// this ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr Orpheus

Does Ms. Frank credit [this cover] to Paul Lehr? Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes page 317, bottom lt. col., (Berkley, 1968). This one is probably from someone's list of when he got the art contract. She does not get them all, but she did snare a lot on some artists. Next? No problem with checks. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Harry! Added the credit and note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Metal Giants - interiorart

This pub. Multiple pieces of artwork should have brackets, like this - [2] rather than parens. Although there is no standard for reprinted artwork most people have been appending (reprint) to the the title. This title, for instance should probably be "The Comet Doom (reprint)". The information about captioning might also belong in the title record. It might be better to document the original magazine in the title record of the artwork - the title entry here looks a little busy. It would really be a pain to try and merge the interior art with the originals. I can't afford to buy the originals to match the artwork. Should this be two interior art entries? I think the idea of listing the number of illustrations in the title is kind of interesting but it is non-standard. The letter column entries seem OK. Knowing you penchant for detail you could even credit each individual letter if you wanted to. Not necessary and I probably would have done it the same way. Good job on a complicated pub.--swfritter 17:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a pain and the next is Capt. Future vol 1, but it will wait till I slog through this. LOL. Should give the new moderators useful information, but this errata the editor added is most compelling. If you do not mind, I will answer and then get what works best and then redo.
[] for numbers no problem. Though I believe one is a secondary printing and will no longer need that.
Choice of titling was most difficult. I chose to confine it to the most direct relationship to the topic book. Incidentally, some of these illustrations, maybe all are reductions, thus a little harder to work with. Only one time was the captioning approximately less than 12 words, often it was better than three lines written here. Would "Across Space: Weird Tales (reprint)" work better? Or should it be "Across Space: Weird Tales, September 1926 (reprint)"
(captioning) clarification area. "Across Space: Weird Tales, September 1926, "As I whirled around, my eyes met a sight that froze the words on my lips in sheer surprize(spelled as shown)and terror."(reprint). I actually do like that, but am afraid of length.
"Across Space (reprint)". If all the caption does is identify the story that is illustrated you do not need nothing more in the title. "Weird Tales, September 1926" can go in the notes of the title record for the illustration. That would also be the appropriate place for the caption - if you feel it is really necessary to enter data in that level of detail.
Changed all to (reprint).
the title entry here looks a little busy.? Sorry, I missed the point.
Just another way of saying all you normally need is the title of the story being illustrated.
Should be two interior art entries? The two with (2 illustrations) have nothing directly to either piece of art. Possibly? "The Comet Doom by Edmond Hamilton, Author of The Space Beings, The Horror in the Telescope, etc.: Tales of Wonder, Autumn 1939." There is also this at the top of the page above illustrations: Creatures of Metal, Born of a Cosmic Wanderer, Planned A Gigantic Conspiracy to Steal a World . . . and Earth Tottered on the Brink of Doom! . or "Creatures etc. as written above: The Comet Doom by, etc as written above. ? In either case the (2 illustrations) drops out with the use of the magazine, dating added to title.
I am not sure what appears in the pub but each piece of art should have a single entry.
Both pieces were lackluster by our standards and reproduction method, and someone lifted them and put them together with commentary, so it was either 'lifted' to make a compilation by advertisers or by the book editor. I read his acknowledgments and it and most of it were pulled from storage files where the materials of the estate are stored, so they may have missed something in doing it. I settled for (reprint compilation), though I could not understand the why of their selections, unless it was an advertisement of the type of work of the artists? I could separate, but then the printed commentary becomes questionable. The dialogue is generic to the story, not to the illustrations, and they are very small, either originally or by reduction to fit the compilation.
'Letter column entries' are a case of not misrepresenting them. They may have been edited several times, but they are chronological and I was hoping that my treatment left the DB user with the idea it was an essay, and therefore suited the writer's criteria (Edmond Hamilton's involvement), and not necessarily was the total of replies of any date. Should I credit it to the editor? in absentia? using the "edited by Stephen Haffner on title page? I feel the effect of these compilations is his.
I think the way you have them is fine.
The Editorial Correspondence are total letters, though very short, and always to Hamilton. They are interesting mostly as a series, rather than individually, so I tried to show it as an essay rather than an appendix. ?
Fine, also. Pretty much the way I would do them.
Will await replies, take your time, as I will, to avoid confusions, ha! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems fine with me to modify the title of reproduced cover art with "(cover)".--swfritter 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Changed as suggested.
Apologies, but would you please check again for further problems? I will need to perk before starting the 'captian future'. Though it will be easier, cross fingers. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Approved. I think this much easier on the user's eyes. "The Time-Raider [2] (reprint)" is perhaps better than "The Time-Raider (reprint)[2]". Not because one method is better but because that is the way it has been most commonly done up until now. You can leave it the way it is now. There will probably be a clean-up and it is not for sure which method we will end up with.--swfritter 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fool's War

In this edition of Fool's War you write in note: "First printing April 1977." but the book was published, according with Locus, April 1997"--ErnestoVeg 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for catching my error, I submitted a correction. I am prone to typos, my apologies. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bow Down to Nul/Dark Destroyers

New image and cover artists, both from the ACE Image Library) for [this]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks muchly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW Frank agrees with both artists, she probably got it from your source. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


The changes to the titles of the interior art pieces for [this] have me scratching my head. Enlightenment, please? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Harry, didn't see the posting above. Since you and Swfritter initiated this I'll leave it for him. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I did remove the last note about the pre-release data from Dissembler as by it's positioning at the end it made it look like your notes were the pre-release data! If Dissembler was that detailed we'd all be out of a job!! lol! Any time there's a book-in-hand that 'pre-release' stuff can be deleted, it's just left there in the first place so editors know the data is suspect and free to be changed. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to pump-up Dissembler's feelings. He's a great guy, but a little dull. Ordinarily, I would not have changed it in contents, but as I am the only source, so far, it works easier in this case. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Collected Captain Future, Volume One: Captain Future and the Space Emperor

I have approved The Collected Captain Future, Volume One: Captain Future and the Space Emperor (nice job!), but, unfortunately, our software doesn't know how to handle numerals with dashes in them. That's why page numbers "670-1", "680-1", "692-3" and "704-5" are not sorted properly and are displayed between Roman and Arabic numerals. For now, we have to use the first page of the illustration if the Title is to appear in the proper part of the Publication. Ahasuerus 23:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew it would not, but could not remember how it failed. I will correct them and I submit you for a medal in tackling it! Just caught the title bungle. Will correct. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

image link on The Stars Down Under

I removed the "_SL500_." from the Amazon link on the cover image for your newly submitted The Stars Down Under. It looks like it was not causing a white border, and as far as I can tell the two links result in exactly the same image, but as I noted to someone else the other day, consistency makes me happy. --MartyD 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but it was the result of the clone and my failure to replace the image. I just submitted a replacement, which changes the cover. I forgot to double check the old image, but I did know I forgot and was waiting for it to process. Good catch though. I am ashamed for missing the first chance to change that image. Worse yet, Slanted Jack's image has no Baen image. Amazon is relying too much on the same images. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Escape Orbit

New image, cover artist (from ACE Image Library), slightly expanded notes for [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks, good. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rules of Engagement

I added a date to: Rules of Engagement--ErnestoVeg 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)