User talk:Hauck/Archive2

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Maybe it should be called Pagewipe! lol!! Scanned in a new image and added a note about the artist to [this]. Glad the process went well. One thing to remember, is that if there are any active threads in any of the posts and someone adds to that post, the "You Have Messages" icky yellow colour bar won't activate if the thread is archived. I usually leave the current month on the main talk page. I'm sure there is a way to know if someone leaves a note on an archived page, but I don't know exactly what it would be. Think maybe clicking "Watch This Page" from the archived page would let you know...? --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

iBooks edition of Zelazny's Last Defender of Camelot

Can you please verify that this edition has the same stories as those of the Pocket edition. According to the OCLC record, the iBooks edition has substantially different contents. If so, we need to unmerge this pub and create a new title record. Also, please verify whether the title is Last Defender of Camelot or The Last Defender of Camelot. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I did have noticed this at the time but didn't know exactly what to do about it. I've corrected it now (or so I hope). Hauck 07:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I've added notes to the title records of the two collections so that no future editor attempts to merge them again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Empire of the Atom

Found a signature on [this] cover. About 1cm up from the bottom right, along the edge of the purple colouring running from bottom up. Very tiny, very faint. My eyes think it's Faragasso. You will need some magnification...!--~ Bill, Bluesman 05:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Even with my magnifying glass, I only see a vague black blot. Hauck 07:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The black dot is above and a hair to the left of the signature. It's just a shade darker than the background overlaid on the purple [?] at the edge of the artwork. I'll try and take a good scan. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice scan On my physical copy the name is absolutely not readable at all. Hauck 19:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Mission to the Stars

Two printings, that seem identical. [1] and [2]. Distinctions are in the notes. Not sure which one you have, just an FYI! Santé! --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The ANC one Hauck 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Fuller Memorandum

Expanded the notes and scanned in an image [left the old one in the log] for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Expanded the notes for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Adamoff and Adamov

You've verified a number of publications with cover art by Philippe Adamoff and a couple with cover art by Philippe Adamov. Do you have any way of telling whether these are two variant spellings of the same name? The styles are similar and all the covers date from around the same time, so I imagine it's one person, but I don't know enough to be sure. Most websites that mention the name are in French, and my French is too rusty to be much help. Thanks, BrendanMoody 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in fact the same illustrator who have seen his name variously spelled (you'll sometimes find Adamov only). I'm going to merge them, with Adamov being the pseudo and Adamoff the legal name (even if the latter is the least used of the two). Hauck 13:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Singularity's Ring

Expanded the notes for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Twisted Metal

Is the page count for [this] correct? Both OCLC and BLIC have 370. Could be a leftover from the original [likely] Amazon pre-release record? Thanks. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it's 371 (last numbered page is 370 + 1 unumbered), corrected. Hauck 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Chandler's When the Dream Dies

Do you know what the source of the month of publication could be for this publication. I verified the book several years back, and don't recall this being monthly dated. There's nothing in the book itself that dates it to August, only the year stated on the copyright page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It comes probably from the GCP bibliography of Chandler here which gives this date. Hauck 10:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Holy Machine

Locus has the date for [this] pub as 2009-04, added that to the notes, but didn't change the field. Your call. No mention by Locus if this is a POD, though the earlier TP by Wildside was. Santé! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And same source has December 2008 for [this], again, added a note; also no mention of it being a POD. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Publisher of Asimov's Flûte, Flûte et Flûtes

Can you check the publisher credited in this record? It appears to be an error from the cloning of the original publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, done. Hauck 17:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Entry standards for Interzone

Another editor (Stonecreek) has started verifying issues of Interzone in the middle of the run. I'm afraid he's using a different standard for the title, among other practices (e.g.: recording the subject in the title of Nick Lowe's reviews, the editorial and letters). I'm personally opposed to this as it seems to be against ISFDB standards, but another moderator has been accepting his submissions. It would be nice if the two of you could get together to create a common set of standards concerning Interzone which is how other magazine titles were handled in the past by other editors. For an example, see how entry standards for Analog were established. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

True Names . . . and Other Dangers

I added the author's introductions to this verified pub. Also reworked the notes a bit. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Interzone essay by Kin (?) Newman and Jack Yeovil

Is the author credit correct for this title record? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Corrected. Hauck 08:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

German spelling

I've just saw in your verified Le Livre d'Or de la Science-Fiction: Science-Fiction Allemande Etrangers à Utopolis that Kurd Lasswitz was spelled Kurd Laswitz, Helmut Wenske was spelled Helmut Venske and Paul Scheerbart was spelled Paul Scheebart. Is this correct? Rudam 21:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

For the first it's in fact Laszwitz (so it created another author), the second is not in the collection, and the third is indeed Scheerbart. Hauck 06:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It is true the second is not in the collection but he is the cover artist. Rudam 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
For Venske/Wenske the two different spellings are in the book. Hauck 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your informations! Rudam 21:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As Wenske is the real name, wouldn't it be sensible to change 'Venske' to that (since both spellings appear - where do they appear two times, anyway?). Or should Venske be regarded as a pseudonym? Stonecreek 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, the two spellings (one on back cover the otehr on copyright page) are probably a misprint. Hauck 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Stonecreek 19:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


Hello, I have begun to verify the copies of IZ I have and have heard from Mhhutchins that you are into that task. I have verified #126-133 (Dec.'97-July '98) and would like you to take a look if they are up to your standard: especially the occasional letter I have included or the regular columns are questionable. The cataloguing follows the standard "Interzone, Month Year" without the issue number, or ain't it so? (Then '134' would have to be deleted from the August 1998 issue?) Stonecreek 13:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I started form #1 (and hope to end with #231) as you started from a later issue. So our ways were fated to intersect. As usual in such a collaborative endeavour, evereybody has its own standards for entering the same data. From this discussion here, it seems that we got a general agreement to use Interzone #X in the title. For recurring features with always the same title (Interaction, Interface, Mutant Popcorn, Tube Corn, Books Received) I tend to favor the presentation "XXXXX (Interzone #X)" (try a search with "Overseas Books") which permit the user to choose one of the similarly titled columns. For the letters, it seems that you're not in concordance with the general policy of the ISFDB (see here) but as another moderator than me accepted your submission, I'm not inclined to go against his/her advice.Hauck 17:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the features to your defined standard in IZ #126-#134. Better to avoid any confusion for the users. Stonecreek 18:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hauck 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
MartyD mentioned the possibility to make the 'Books Received' etc. series into a title series: See his idea. On the other hand the 'Ansible Link' column has been installed for at least all 1998 issues in the form 'Ansible Link (1998 issues)', but I have no idea if that's different. What do you think? Stonecreek 17:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I did this (adding the magazine #) for the "Overseas Books Received" because they have strictly the same title but I didn't use this option for the "UK Books Received" because there was already the date in the title which is (IMHO) discriminating enough. Feel free to add the # to them. For the Ansible column the form you mention seems wrong to me. Hauck 18:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The merging of the "Ansible Link" titles by year seems to be generally considered a mistake, as it removes the option of more details being added to any particular edition of the column. "Mutant Popcorn" seems to have avoided this problem, but some still need disambiguating - I quite like those to include the names of the movies being reviewed, but that's technically against current standards. If you do want to standardise those by issue, please preserve the details of what's being reviewed in the title's notes. They won't be as searchable, but at least you won't be removing data. BLongley 19:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the established standard by you, Hauck, seems fitting to me. So, I will proceed as before. Stonecreek 15:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just corrected a slip of my own, when I shortly afterwards came upon one of yours, I think. I just admired the work of SMS. Watch this: It should be better made into interior art. Nobody's perfect and surely I am not. Stonecreek 14:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Corrected. Hauck 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And I wondered if there is a reason for not mentioning the publisher and the format. I have entered David Pringle as publisher and A4 as format for the 1997 and 1998 issues of IZ. I know it's not exactly A4 but only an inch or so away from it, so that I decided that'd be okay. Do you agree? Stonecreek 18:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

For the publisher (the organization that publishes the magazine), its shifting identity (a collective, a foundation, a lone individual, a private firm, etc.) is the cause of my not mentionning it. For the format, due to the variations you probably know well (particumarly in later times), I'm not very keen to put something as it should be more precise than simply A4 or bedsheet (something on the lines of X cm x Y cm). Hauck 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The binding field has also been troublesome for me. One thing I'm certain about is that it should not strictly reflect the dimensions (even though the basic differences between "pb" and "tp" are dimensions, nothing else). If "A4" has a strict definition and Interzone doesn't follow that definition, then it shouldn't be used. Personally, I have no idea what "A4" means. According to Wikipedia, it's 8.3 × 11.7 sheet of paper. Why it's used to designate "binding" is a puzzle to me. Locus uses the word "quarto" which means the size of the standard US sheet of paper (8 1/2 inches by 11 inches). I know the UK has different paper standards, so I've gone along with the "A4" designation since it's a UK publication. I detest the term "bedsheet" and can only wonder why it's still being used in the 21st century. Binding should refer to how the publication is bound (glued, sewn, stapled) and how it's covered (cloth, boards, paper). Dimensions are a horse of a different color. Mhhutchins 20:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Here (in France, perhaps in Europe) A4 is the standard paper format (21 cm x 29.7 cm) for correpondance or all manner of professional documents. For example, as it's very common (it's even the main format used in college or high school), it's one of the most used format in fanzine publications (my own zines were A4). You'll also find A5 (an A4 divided in two) and the bigger A3 (twice the A4) it goes all the way to A0. I agree that it's not a size but the help seems to consider it a valid "binding" data (perhaps this shows the need for a split of this field).Hauck 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Mike that A4 is not really a "binding" but it is a size. And many UK fanzines were printed on A4 paper - sometimes folded to make A5 size booklets. Although some older ones were on "foolscap" size. Frankly, I've given up on entering uncommon sizes for Magazines - I'll either stick with Locus's designation or leave them blank. The only one that matters to me is tp versus pb - and I'm frankly getting annoyed with some British publishers that go from tp to a smaller tp and never get to pb. (In UK terms - "C Format" to "B Format" without ever getting an "A Format" release.) BLongley 22:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, the size should perhaps be given in length units (SI units = meters), but it will entail a lot of work. Hauck 06:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, A4 is a size (standard at least in Western and Middle Europe, i.e. the continent), but I think it kind of fits with magazines. Along with the number of pages it gives an impression of the 'feel' of a pub. This said, it still would be better to have an exact format (inches or cm) for magazines. I get the impression that it's not off the mark to give those issues of IZ a format of A4. At least, it seems that is the nearest we got to the actual format. Stonecreek 14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Engineering Infinity

Just purchased [this] last week and the copyright page, plus the way the contents now display 2010 dates in the record, just didn't seem right. Sent an e-mail to Solaris and received a reply this morning:

Thanks for your email.

Apologies for the confusion. This is the first edition.

It’s a Jan 2011 book, but for distribution purposes the first on sale date in the USA is always at the end of the previous month for mass market format books – which unfortunately in this case slipped it back into 2010. It’s a rather annoying part of physical book distribution and you are correct that most stores receive the books at the start of Jan and for all publication, review and award purposes this is a 2011 book.

This explains so much about why Amazon's dates always seem a little off. Think the record can be amended to a 2011 date? With note about the "First published..." statement? --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the book have been send to me on the 29th of december 2010, so it's (for me) a 2010 book. To be more precise, I tend to view the publication date as the date when the book is physically produced regardless of all the marketing subtleties. But it's just my opinion. Hauck 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I just don't buy that. My opinion only. If that scenario were adopted then every one of the entries in the multiple French series would be wrong, as the date recorded is the date 'received', not manufactured. Hell, 99% of the dates recorded in the DB would be "wrong". There still remains the conundrum of copyright dates being later than the "published" date, and the publisher's explicit statement that the only reason for the "2010" date on the copyright page is, as you note it, a "marketing subtlety". --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact and for the french series this is exactly what I do ;-), when I use the AI (which means Achevé d'Imprimer = date of printing), I'm more on the "physical" side as it's normally the date when the book is manufactured than when I use by default the "Dépôt Légal" which is generally a later date used for copyright reasons. In this case, I put 2010 to be coherent with what I see as the "main" data (the "published in 2010" line). If you think that 2011 is more suitable, go ahead as in this matter everybody has sometimes a different interpretation. Hauck 06:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I just don't think the stories should have that date as all the copyrights are 2011. Wonder how that works, anyway, does Solaris not file for the © on the stories until 2011??? --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps in hope to gain one year of copryright's duration ? Hauck 18:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
We try to stick to "Publication date" rather than "printing date" - a book with massive first edition print runs like a Harry Potter book will be printed over several weeks before actual release. Copyright dates don't come into it. They're just confusing mostly - "filing for copyright" isn't something Solaris would need to do in the UK. I always wonder how Project Gutenberg copes with all the changes in US laws over the years. BLongley 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies

I have been working on the Publication Series Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies, adding books where necessary, and assigning those that we already had to that series, where appropriate. In the process, I have thus updated verified records of yours for: Queer Universes, Science Fiction and Empires, and Utopian and Science Fiction by Women. (You, me, and Harry were the only members who had verified books in this series, mostly from you.) Chavey 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact I have other titles in this excellent series (at least a dozen) but I have not yet entered all my reference books. Hauck 08:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ain't it the truth. I'm still trying to enter my fiction, but I take a break every once in a while to do something different. I'm going to try to complete this publication series today, adding missing printings, etc. I just added a publication month to your verified The Angle Between Two Walls: The Fiction of J. G. Ballard, using data from Amazon UK, and will probably add months to some of your other verified pubs in this series during the day. Chavey 17:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
And while doing that, I noticed that your verified Visions and Revisions: (Re)constructing Science Fiction has a publication date of Jan., 2006. The Liverpool series site claims a publication date of Oct., 2005. Can you take a look at your copy and see if there's justification to leave the date as it is? Chavey 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably a leftover from the initial set of data (my modifications like identifying the cover seem to have been erased). The only mention on the book is (as usual) "Published in 2005" so Oct 2005 is largely plausible. Hauck 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done the update. Chavey 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Chavey has submitted several updates with additional pricing and/or dating information derived from pages viewed via the Wayback Machine. I've left the ones against your primary verifications in the queue for you to look over. --MartyD 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures at an Exhibition by Irvine

Can you recheck how the author is credited on the title page of this collection? OCLC gives it only as "Alexander Irvine" without the middle initial, regardless of how it is credited on the front cover. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that, in this case, OCLC is wrong (it's effectively Alexander C. Irvine). Hauck 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Great. It's harder changing the credits for a collection than for a novel, especially if it published under a non-canonical name. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 20:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tor Books merged into Tor

Please see this message when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Lifecycle of Software Objects by Chiang

Can you determine whether the word count of the text in this book would constitute a novella instead of a novel? I just added the Fall 2010 issue of Subterranean Online that contained a novella length version of this same title. I estimated the word count to be around 30,000. I want to determine whether we should make the book into a chapterbook containing the same novella or if the book is an expansion of the novella. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't estimate the length with a sufficient precision. After giving a quick look to the online version vs my copy, the text looks the same to me. Hauck 18:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Stephen Fritter has a spreadsheet on Google docs that can be used to calculate word count, and it's pretty effective. He may have to authorize you to access it. Check it out when you get a chance. Mhhutchins 19:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've converted your pub into a chapterbook and added the novella record as a content. Mhhutchins 06:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK for me. Hauck 15:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nebula Showcase 2008

Can you check the co-author credit for the poem "The Tin Man" in this pub? His real name is David Kopaska-Merkel (without an "n"). Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, corrected. Hauck 10:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Klien or Klein in Le Pont Sur les Etoiles

Hi. Would you check whether "Klien" is actually "Klein" in your verified Le Pont Sur les Etoiles LPNTSRLSTL1975 and LPNTSRLSTL1979? Thanks. --MartyD 14:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Hauck 15:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Vance's Star King

I added the price to this record based on info from Tuck. If there's a price on the book itself, please remove the note. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's effectively on the book. Note removed. Hauck 06:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Demon Prince by Rawlins

I have added notes and content essays to your verified record of this title, using Reginald's BP 300 as the source. Mhhutchins 22:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As everything in the book was by the same author, I usually do not list the entire TOC for NONFICTION titles, but it's perhaps a worthwhile addition. Hauck 06:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I do the same as well. In this case, because I was using BP 300 as the source, I tried to remain consistent in how each of the pubs were entered. But ordinarily, I wouldn't bother with individual essays unless it's an actual collection of previously published essays, like The Language of Night, A Reverie for Mister Ray, The Jewel-Hinged Jaw, and The Engines of the Night. Mhhutchins 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction to verified publication

In the thrice verified Once by you) 1973 Annual World's Best SF by Wollheim, Vernor Vinge's "Long Shot" is listed as being on p. 9. It isn't. My copy pretty clearly has it on p. 239, while everything else is on the same pages as listed. I have submitted a correction to this page number. Chavey 03:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch. (It means that eight eyes are better than six). Hauck 06:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

cover artist for The Darfsteller and Other Stories

See this submission. Google turns up nothing confirming the attribution, so I think a look at the cover is required. I have cross-posted to PV BLongley as well. --MartyD 11:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I approved the sub as there's effectively the typical "PAJ" on bottom right of the cover (even if the attribution is not in Jane Frank's book). Hauck 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The only question I had was whether to make the artist Peter Andrew Jones, Peter A. Jones, or Peter Jones. His website suggests he likes the fullest version though. BLongley 19:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's probably a good idea to merge the three. Hauck 19:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bisson's Planet of Mystery

I added the missing title record for this pub record. It was probably created before the system automatically made a matching chapterbook title record. Mhhutchins 02:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hauck 06:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Olaf Stapledon: Speaking for the Future

According to WorldCat, your verified publication has a forward by Brian Aldiss. That seemed worth noting, so I added to the contents listing there. (Presuming, of course, that WorldCat is correct.) Chavey 02:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I added the page number and corrected the title ("Foreword" instead of "Forward"). I confess to have skip it because it's a very "light" text (just more than 2 pages overall) for a very boring book.Hauck 06:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, I was using a variety of interesting spellings of "Foreword" yesterday :-) It's too bad that was a boring book -- it would seem like Stapledon should be a good person to write interesting stuff about. Nabakov once said that someone who was translating a book has to be at least as good a writer as the person who wrote it in the first place, and maybe that applies to someone writing about another writer. Chavey 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the fault is perhaps not on the book but on the personality of Stapledon who seems to have been a not very likable human being (IMHO of course). Hauck 16:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Deconstructing the Starships

Your verified edition of Deconstructing the Starships, by Gwyneth Jones, claims that the cover artist is "Clare Allen". Locus1 claims that it's "Clive Allen". Can you check to see which one is correct? (And I understand now why the book on Stapledon could have been tedious. I guess I knew that about him, even if his stories are great.) Chavey 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact we were both wrong, it's "Clare Allan" on the back cover of the book (credited as designer) even if the illustration is not signed. Hauck 06:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you corrected your verified version. I corrected the other editions. Chavey 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Afterword checking

Hello, Hervé. I just wanted to check if this afterword is in your verified pub by Foster. Do you still own it and could check it? Thanks. Stonecreek 13:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I still own it (normal for a collector ^_~). The "afterword" is present (logical as the book is a clone of the DAW edition) but is not at all differentiated form the rest of the novel (not in TOC, no page break) so I tend to view it as a prt of it and not a separate text. Hauck 15:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Deconstructing the Starships (Gwyneth Jones) & Liverpool Studies Series

I added the content list to your verified publicaiton. Chavey 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And to your verified Speaking Science Fiction. Chavey 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
And to your verified Learning from Other Worlds. I also added a month of publication (from Locus1) to this. Chavey 21:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Hauck 09:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Luckett of the Moon by Slater LeMaster from Bleiler's Science-Fiction: The Early Years

The serial currently as by Slater LeMaster Luckett of the Moon has notes on the individual installments that the data came from Bleiler's Science Fiction: The Early Years for which you are one of the two editors who has a verified copy. Other references to this author and even this serial (Tuck, Clute/Nicholls) have the author's name as "Slater La Master" so I'm pretty certain we currently have the name wrong. Could you check the Bleiler book to see if the mistake is his or ours. I'll happily make the changes and add notes if appropriate. Also cross posting to Swfritter's talk as he has the other verified copy. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bleiler gives the author's name as "LaMASTER, SLATER" with the case respected (note the absence of space between La & MASTER). Hauck 16:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I'm going to include the space in his name, as all the other references mention it. I'll note that Bleiler does not include it. Thanks again. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

IZ dimensions

Hello, Hervé. Some problem arose about the dimensions of Interzone (from 1999 to 2004). See this discussion. The sizes of those issues were given at least for the 2002/03 issues, so I used them for the earlier issues too. Your opinion on the matter would be most welcome. Stonecreek 16:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification Preferences

I left a note on my notification page to your comment about updating an issue of Interzone for which I was the primary verifier, but I wasn't sure if you would notice it. If you're going to do a second primary verification for a record that I'd already verified, please feel free to update the linked image to a better one. I would prefer though, that if you find any entry errors that you leave a message on my regular talk page and not the notification page. I don't look at that page too often and might miss anything that may be urgent or important. All of this is stated in the Notification Preferences which is posted at the top of my talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, let me assure you that I didn't plan to tuck away in your non-regular page important or urgent things. It was to be along the lines of the addition of an "-" or of a # before an issue number. The rest (if the case arises) was slated to go on your main page. Hauck 16:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Interzone #230

I added Andy Hedgecock as editor of this issue, changed the credit for the reviewer of "Silversand" (dropped the middle initial), removed the editors of the Fritz Leiber collection (per ISFDB policy), changed the credit of the reviewer of "How to Live..." from Michael Cobley to Mike Cobley (p. 47), and added the untitled Nick Lowe mini-appreciations on pages 58 and 59. Mhhutchins 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeds of Change contents dates

Is there a reason why the stories in this pub do not have the same dates as the pub?--swfritter 15:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. IIRC I only verified the pub and its content (which were already present) without going to the title data, perhaps the book was initially entered with a 2008-00-00 pub date. Hauck 17:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Harvest the Fire cover image

I replaced the Amazon UK cover image with an actual cover scan image for your verified Harvest the Fire, and added some notes while I was doing that. AndonSage 05:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Interzone 160-162

I see you've skipped these issues. Would you like me to update and verify the current records using my copies? Mhhutchins 02:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just (yesterday evening) arrived at #159 of my stack, normally they're the next ones. Hauck 06:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I missed that. I'll let you and Stonecreek finish your verifications before starting mine. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to change the date of those double issues from the last phase of David Pringle's editorship into the latter of the two months. They all received the double-month treatment from time slippage, so that's seems a reasonable exception from the rule. What do you think? Stonecreek 10:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Please proceed, IIRC I received those effectively quite late. Hauck 17:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

S&J's Best of John W. Campbell

Does this credit the author as John W. Campbell, Jr. or "John W. Campbell" (or is this just on the cover?) Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact it's quite unclear what the name of the author is supposed to be as he's nowhere explicitely mentioned (except in the title). As Blish speaks about "John W. Campbell, Jr." in his Foreword, I sticked to the canonical name. Hauck 07:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

British mags. THANK YOU!

Great to get Interzone and more done right.--swfritter 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation, my next big task will be the physically large "Science Fiction Monthly". Hauck 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


According to current ISFDB standards, this publication should only be credited to "Anonymous" if that is the actual credit. Otherwise, it should be credited to that very prolific author known as "uncredited". :-) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, one more for him/her/it. Hauck 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. You missed the pub's title record so I changed it to "uncredited" too. Mhhutchins 17:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you, I confess that I tend to forget the title data. Hauck 09:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Altered Carbon

I've changed publisher in this verified pub to Imprint / Publisher format. Thanks! P-Brane 01:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

And this one as well. P-Brane 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC).


I've edited the following publication Genesis by Poul Anderson. I have changed the notes to be a little cleaner and to have a little more information. Thanks! WeAreGray 13:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I was on it, I've replaced the amazon scan. Hauck 14:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Human Voices by Gunn

Can you verify that the contents of this pub (for the most part) are credited to James E. Gunn, although the book is credited to James Gunn? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite unclear as, for example, the copyright of the book is to James Gunn but the LOC part states James E. Gunn, idem for the stories' copyright page where there's a mix of the two possibilities. Note that IIRC I didn't enter the list of the stories. IMHO it will be best (easier = one story to change and clearer = less vts) to align everything under the canonical name. Hauck 21:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The ISFDB standard is to credit contents to the author credited on the title page if they are not individually credited on the stories' title pages, which is the case in 99.9% of all collections. Eventually we'll be able to correct the error that was made when the database was created: James E. Gunn should not have been made the canonical name. Just look at his page and you'll see what I mean by that. I hope eventually there'll be an easier way to reverse pseudonyms with canonical names. It would take a week to correct that page now. Mhhutchins 22:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's clear. Perhaps a cloning of the whole, an inversion and a direct update via a SQL request can do (partially) the job but my days of SQL requesting are long gone. Hauck 06:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review Index, Volume 20, 1989

I added the month of publication and price for this record based on data from BP 300, and noted the source. Mhhutchins 03:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New Worlds Science Fiction

Thanks for tackling New Worlds, we've needed a Primary Verifier on those for some time. One thing - you might want to add a note to this issue as your cover scan shows yet another different spelling for "The Under Privileged" which doesn't match what you have in the contents. BLongley 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alas I'm at the end of my collection of NW. Hauck 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Modern Masters of Science Fiction

I was looking at "Walter Gillings" with a view to create a "Modern Masters of Science Fiction" Series of Essays, but the numbering doesn't look quite right. Can you check the number 8s and see if one should be a number 6? BLongley 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, corrected. For the series making, there are more to come, so perhaps it's better for you to wait after I've finished the whole run of the magazine (probably in the middle of next week). Hauck 05:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Winds of Marble Arch by Willis

It appears from the cover image (and the OCLC record) that this book has "and Other Stories" appended to the collection's title. Can you confirm that? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd add that title page reads like this (typical Willis) "The Winds of Marble Arch / and Other Stories / A Connie Willis Compendium / In Which May be Found Personal Correspondance, Travel Guides, References to Royalty, Weather Reports, Parking Fines, and Other Violations, including Masters of Life and Death (and Afterwards), an Epiphany or Two, and an Appendix." Hauck 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a title from the 19th century! Mhhutchins 17:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Miles Vorkosigan/Naismith: His Universe and Times

It seems to me that there is a problem with the accreditation status for this in-universe essay, which appears at the end of many Lois McMaster Bujold novels. Based on verifications, the correct person to ask would seem to be Dana Carson, but Dana doesn't seem to be very active (at least lately). You would appear to be the second most knowledgeable verifier on the question, and I was hoping you could look at my question on Dana's talk page. Chavey 18:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that your analysis is right. After a quick scan of my Bujold Books, this essay is generally never credited, neither on copyright page nor on essay's title page (that's probably why it's attributed to Bujold). The only credits are those in _Dreamweaver's Dilemmna_ and in the _Bujold Companion_ where Suford Lewis is clearly indicated as the author (on copyright, TOC and title pages). As all this texts are globaly the same (same words except for actualization as the series progresses), it's quite clear that they are mainly Lewis'. This said, I don't know if it's ISFDB policy to credit an author on such grounds. Hope this helps. Hervé Hauck 19:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The way others have explained the "policy" on this is that the original works should be left as uncredited, then we "Make this title a variant title or pseudonym" of the actual author. (And I think you've convinced me that we know who the actual author is.) For example, this was the solution recommended to me for the "Binary Star" series, edited by Jim Frenkel. Those books don't officially list the editor anywhere, but the last two volumes have introductions written by Jim that clearly tell us that he was the editor. This policy allows us to preserve the "official" uncredited status, but still get the item listed under the true author's bibliography. I'll follow up on this approach with the "Time Line" essays. Chavey 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Baxter's "Barrier"

As you have verified both this pub and this pub, I was wondering if you would mind checking whether the poems The Barrier and Barrier are variants (i.e. are they same poem and is the absence/presence of the "The" correct. Thanks. --JLaTondre 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are "quite" the same ;-), in fact there is at last (after a quick comparative) one phrase changed near the end of the story. So I suppose it's quite safe to said that they are vts (BTW it's what's said on copyright page). Hauck 17:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
A variant should be created because of a change of title, not a change in text. If the titles are the same with only a slight change, they should be merged with the change noted in the title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Some times it's hard to convince people of this. :-/ I still don't like what Marc Kupper did with this and that. BLongley 16:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Page counts for New Worlds issues

A new editor (Dirk Broer) was entering issues of Science Fantasy and was correcting the page counts. When I explained the method we used to determine page count, he began adjusting several other titles, including issues of New Worlds which you had verified, adding four pages to each record. Can you see if the following issues are correct? #82, #85, #86, and #91. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ISFDB-wise, he's right, meaning that there are indeed : 2(front cover) + 128 (numbered) + 2 (back cover) pages.Hauck 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I hear a tone of reluctance to use the ISFDB method, and I completely understand. If it were up to me, and if it had been brought before the group to discuss before thousands of issues were already updated accordingly, I would have pushed for the Miller/Contento method: "128pp" means that only the interior pages are counted and "128pp+" means that the covers are included in the issue's pagination but that there are only 128 interior pages. Our method means that we hardly ever match up with Tymn/Ashley or Miller/Contento. :( Mhhutchins 15:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You hear my tone perfectly ;-). Hauck 16:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Even the Miller/Contento method isn't perfect - I've seen magazines where page 1 is the inside front cover, and the back cover is numbered, so we only need to add 1 page to make it ISFDB standard. I hate having to add notes when we could have adopted a standard like [2]+128+[2] (for those New Worlds) or [1]+31 (for my example). BLongley 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-HTML use of a carat an angle bracket in the notes field

Tonight the new cleanup scripts were added to the moderator page, so I had some fun figuring out how each of them worked and what errors they would find. In the script to find potential HTML problems, one of the recurring problems was the non-HTML use of a carat. Although technically not an error, the dozen or so pubs that contained this usage appeared on the list. I cleaned up all but one so that you could see what I'm talking about. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Shame on me, I don't even know what's a carat (^ ?). Hauck 14:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I've always thought of them as opening (<) or closing (>) carats and it may even be spelled caret. Some people call them angle brackets but that confuses me with the other kinds of brackets ({[]}). In any case, you might want to tell Bill Longley that his script finds that use of them in a non-HTML way is an error. In most of the records that I fixed you'd used them to point such as "this => that". Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand now. I'm going to correct the last one.Hauck 15:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
In case you're interested, a "caret" (with an e) is the ^ symbol. The other symbols (approximated by less-than and greater-than signs) have two standard names: "Angle brackets" and "Chevrons". The formal name should be "chevron", because "angle bracket" refers to 2 different things in typography, but "chevron" is less familiar to most people. (And I apologize if this is just the professor in me getting carried away :-) Chavey 15:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the correct terminology, so I won't sound like such a dunce the next time I point at it. Mhhutchins 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It's a very basic function that just counts the number of opening and closing angled brackets to make sure they match - it doesn't even check they're in the right order. Ideally we'd parse all notes to make sure they're valid HTML with no nasty script injections, but that's considerably more complex to do. BLongley 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, having cleaned up several dozen records that your script "called out" I think it worked quite well. Mhhutchins 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. While testing, it seemed to find lots of "<br" and ">li>" errors, I don't know if it found anything really important. BLongley
Those were present, along with "<bi.", ">/ul>", and maybe ten that were supposed to be links but failed to placed "<a href=" before the linking URL. Mhhutchins 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
One way to make the bracket-checking script a bit fancier is to have a single number that you use to count the angle brackets. Whenever you see a "<", you add 1 to that number; whenever you see a ">", you subtract 1 from that number. If the number ever goes below zero, you have mismatched brackets, and if the number isn't zero at the very end, you have mismatched brackets. Does the same functions, plus checks ordering, and only involves a small amount of coding. Chavey 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Interzone, #6 Winter 1983

Can you have a look at INTZWIN83 and see if the author of the review of The Burning Book by Maggie Gee is credited? BLongley 21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the note but attributed the review to our prolific friend "uncredited" as the review is credited to (AF), perhaps Abigail Frost (she was the Designer of the magazine at the time). Hauck 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cybernetic Brains by Jones

Someone added a comment to this pub. When you get a chance can you check the cover art credit? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Two points : 1) The cover is indeed attributed to Powers in Jane Frank's book (page 124) & 2) the signature is clipped just in the middle on my copy but it may effectively read "Jerome Podwill". If you add the point 3) artwork is quite unlike Powers', it's possible that this someone is right. Hauck 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
And that editor, Baseman, [no relation that I know of ;-)] has now submitted a change to that record. I've held it for now as my copy [the image shown is mine] definitely has no signature, not even a partial, but it is obviously 'shifted/cropped'. I can't recall Podwil signing with more than his last name, but that's of no consequence. I'll drop a note on the editor's page to direct him here. Maybe he can upload a scan of his copy to make sure. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been almost a month and there's been no response from Baseman. I think all involved agree it's not Richard Powers and it seems you have the most signature to work with [my copy has none and Don Erikson's just has the tip of the first and last name]. Have a look at the two submissions I have on hold and maybe pick enough data to alter the notes to fit what we have? Then I can get the two submissions off the queue. Thanks! Maybe a scan of your copy would show more than mine? --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A case of time travel?

I am leaving for a week or two of vacation in your home country, but have nevertheless a question about this pub I stumbled over. How can it have entries up to 1997 when it was published in 1985? Yes, I know that we deal with science fiction, but had Knight really developed a time machine? Stonecreek 17:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The data comes probably from the first editor who had entered this book without primary veryfing it (it's dated 1997 for a 1985 publication), I suppose that the non-merged parts "inherited" this later date. I didn't even think to modify it, my mistake.Hauck 18:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Interzone #82

Can you confirm that the review "Druss the Legend" on page 61 of this issue is a review of the short story or the collection titled The First Chronicles of Druss the Legend? The date of the review coincides more closely to the collection. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You're perhaps right but the whole thing is not very clear as the title is given only as _Druss the legend_ (price is £14.99 which isn't right, publisher is Legend) and as Gilmore don't mention the fact that it's a collection. Hauck 05:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the cover I can see why he would confuse the name of the book. I'm going to correct the link, but leave the title the one that the review gives. It's obviously not a review of a short story published three years earlier. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The price of our record didn't match, so I checked on Locus1 and they gave the price as £14.99, so I changed the unverified record to match. Even more evidence that it was the collection that was being reviewed. Mhhutchins 15:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right.Hauck 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Shape of Space

Scanned in a new image for [this], replacing the Bookscans one. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

From Time to Time

Added notes, month [Locus] and the Author's Note to the contents of [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

L'Enfant de Mars

Can you check 329188 please? The publication authors don't match the title ones. And the cover image suggests Merril(l) was miscredited. BLongley 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There's effectively a misprint for Merril (it's also Merrill on title page, I've made the pseudonym) but it's indeed Cyril M. Kornbluth (a common mistake in french publishing).Hauck 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The publication probably shouldn't go under this title if the authors are different, though. I say "probably" as the rules for foreign re-publications are a little vague - a title change still goes under the English parent, I suspect author changes (even if only for typos) should get their own variant. Feel free to check with other moderators and editors though, I'm not multi-lingual. And it will probably all change again when we get some experienced programmers with both free time and multiple-language skills! BLongley 19:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I probably thought (and still think) that such cases of obvious typos in author's names don't warrant such a heavy treatment. Hauck 20:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
In this case it's not the Merril(l) typo that is the issue, but the "Cyril". Most of our titles are under the "C. M." version. I've found this problem a lot with authors like Robert Heinlein, who seemed not to need his "A. " for many British publications. BLongley 20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Gore Vidal's 'The Smithsonian Institute

I'm in the process of separating the publications of the US and UK divisions of Little, Brown, so I added the addendum "UK" to the publisher credit in your verified record. I saw that it was a second printing, so I cloned it to create a record for the first printing. In the process I saw that your record is marked "tp" (pretty highly priced at that) and dated 1998. Are those correct? According to the first printing was in October and was a hardcover edition. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right for the format (it's indeed a HC) and it's a second printing. I updated the notes to that effect.Hauck 17:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Conan L'Usurpateur

You note in this pub record that "the spine reads "C.O.N.A.N/7/R. E. HOWARD" and that Carter is credited as co-author." Does that mean that Carter is also credited on the title page? If so, the pub will have to be unmerged from the current title record and made into a variant of the non-Carter record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Same situation with Conan Le Flibustier. Mhhutchins 00:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
For both, after verifications, I dropped Carter as author (see notes).Hauck 05:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Conan Le Brigand

I unmerged this pub record from the title record credited to "Andrew J. Offutt" and merged it with the "Andrew Offutt" title record. Mhhutchins 00:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Etoile Doubles

In this pub record the editor is credited as Robert Louit, but the pub's title record (here) gives the editor as uncredited. Same situation with Etoile Double #2. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Corrected.Hauck 17:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Le Temps des genévriers (Juniper Time)

Hi, I made this publication a third printing on account of this French website.--Dirk P Broer 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry but I had to reject your submission. I'm quite familiar with noosfere, enough to know that even if it's probably the most complete bibliographic french site, it's not accurate enough to be used as a reference tool for determinating the precise printing rank, a matter quite problematic (and probably unsolvable) for french books. Hauck 15:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
So only the 1980 Denoël edition is certain of it's printing rank by being the first edition?--Dirk P Broer 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd say yes even if the determination of the first printing is somewhat difficult (no printing line) and must be verified with external parameters (other titles in the same collection, publisher's catalog in the book, etc...). For an example of the quality of the data present in noosfere, see this book noosfere and ISFDB and note the lack of differences between the 1974 printing on noosfere and the absence of the third 1974 printing. Hauck 16:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Gladiator-at-Law by Pohl & Kornbluth

I've submitted an update for your verified pub to change the author from "Cyril M. Kornbluth" to "C. M. Kornbluth". It's on hold at the moment, but I'll accept it if the change is correct. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I confirm C. M. Kornbluth on title page.Hauck 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken HTML

You've got some broken HTML for the image notes here. BLongley 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Corrected.Hauck 17:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I might be able to improve the cleanup script for finding such problems. BLongley 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pubs with stray author credits

While working on the Stray Authors clean-up project, I ran into quite a number of pub records that you'd entered and did primary verifications on. All those listed here have mismatching authors. This was caused by entering the pubs using the "Add Publication to This Title" function when the author of the pub you're entering doesn't match the author of the title record you're entering it under. It also happens when you enter a pub under the canonical title record when it's actually published under a pseudonym.

For example, the first pub was entered under the title record crediting Judith Merril and C. M. Kornbluth. But the book was published as by Judith Merrill and Cyril M. Kornbluth. It should have been entered as a new pub and then its title record made into a variant of the original title record.

There are others here because the French publication credits a variant of the author's name that is not in the database. For example: Le Tery is credited to "Paul Wilson". A pseudonym will have to be created.

In order to repair these titles, you will have to unmerge them from the title record under which they have been entered, correct the newly created title record to match the pub's credit, and then either merge it with a pre-existing variant, or create a new variant if one doesn't already exist in the db.

L'Enfant de Mars
L'Enfant Tombé des Etoiles
L'Etreinte de Vénus
L'Héritage de Saint Leibowitz Tome 1 : Amen 1er
L'Héritage de Saint Leibowitz Tome 2 : Amen II
L'Hiver d'Helliconia
L'Homme Infini
L'Homme Infini
L'Homme Sans Idées
La Croisade de l'Idiot
La Dernière Aube
La Locomotive à Vapeur Céleste
La Magicienne de la Forêt d'Eld
La Seconde Expérience
Le Ciel Est Mort
Le Fulgur Gris
Le Fusilier Cade
Le Jour où Moururent les Dieux
Le Livre d'Or de la Science-Fiction: Ursula Le Guin
Le Maître du Réseau
Le Premier Fulgur
Le Privé du Cosmos
Le Ravin des Ténèbres
Le Surfulgur
Le Tery
Le Tsadik aux Sept Miracles
Le Visage Dans l'Abîme
Les Contes de Neverÿon
Les Dépossédés
Les Enfants de Mathusalem
Les Enfants du Joyau
Les Formes du Chaos
Les Improbables
Les Maîtres du Vortex
Les Mutants du Brouillard
Les Quatrièmes Demeures
Les Sirènes de Titan
Les Voyages Electriques d'Ijon Tichy
Lumière sur le Détroit
Patrouille Galactique
Un Air de Sorcellerie

These pubs popped out because of their French-language titles, but there are others that may appear as I go further down the list. I will help you repair these record, but my hope is that by doing them yourself you will become more aware of any situations that may arise in the future when entering French publications that have author credits that don't match the original credits. Mhhutchins 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Mike is right, author mismatches like I first mentioned here User_talk:Hauck#L.27Enfant_de_Mars probably over-ride the "foreign translations of English works don't get their own title" rule. I think if I ever had my works translated and credited to "Guillaume Longuement" then I'd prefer the pseudonym. That said, there's a LOT of things that could/should be improved for Non-English support and I'm happy to take advice. BLongley 00:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not surprised about this as I felt lately that the issue was bound to appear (there are surely some more). I'm going to work on this, but I wish to say that, when entering them, there was nothing clearly amiss as the link to the "wrong" author showed that Daniel Galouye was a pseudonym of Daniel F. Galouye, which was (is), in my eyes, quite correct. The fact that the fine technical points proved problematic was not really apparent and is perhaps more an artefact of the ISFDB structures and workings than a strict bibliographic mistake. Hauck 12:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
90% of the several hundred records that appear on the Stray Authors are not there because of bibliographic mistakes. The records unto themselves are very accurate. There's an occasional record where the editor entered the wrong author credit. Others, like most of yours, were simply entered under the wrong title record, which is a database problem not a bibliographic one. Perhaps the moderators, including me, weren't as diligent as we should have been when accepting these submissions (if they were entered before you started moderating your own submissions).
That's partly the case so I went on to duplicate the same mistakes )-:. Hauck 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I've checked the first two pub records on the list and they're not correct. Non-English titles have to be entered under a title record of the book's English title, and not under a variant record of its non-English name. Again, this is not a bibliographic error. It's a misunderstanding of the database standards. (See here.) Mhhutchins 19:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That's here that you're loosing me. Have a look at the first one L'Enfant de Mars and tell me if that's the template to use. Hauck 21:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that one's correct now. The reason you had to create a new variant was because of the authors, not the title. In most of these cases, an English title record with the same author exists. For example, L'Hiver d'Helliconia by Brian Aldiss. It's title record (here) should be merged with Helliconia Winter because the author credits match. And the title record for Le Premier Fulgur should be merged with First Lensman since they're both credited to E. E. 'Doc' Smith.
When entering a non-English title, first look for a title record that has identical author credit. If The Book by John V. Smith is in the db and has a variant record by John Smith, and the French translation, Le Livre, is credited to John Smith, you must enter it under the variant title record, not the parent title record. Mhhutchins 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations, I'll re-work them this evening (local time ;-)). Hauck 08:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This batch seems now OK. Hauck 12:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Flandry's Legacy: The Technic Civilization Saga (maps)

An editor, CKovacs, has a submission regarding some maps in [this] pub that you would be best to handle, since you are the primary and the notes state you couldn't find them...? Santé! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

With his help I'm now enlightened. Hauck 08:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are also four submissions to change publisher credits in pubs you've verified, all by Dirk P Broer. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen them but didn't know what to do with them as the necessity of changing Gollancz or VGSF/Gollancz to VGSF is lost to me. One of the books is effectively indicated as being published by VGSF on title page but copyrght page states that "VGSF is an imprint of Victor Gollancz Ltd." and I (personaly) foud that VGSF is not very clear. What are your thoughts about this matter ? Hauck 08:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I stick with the imprint name almost exclusively, not being particularly fond of Publisher 'strings' which could get quite long if all the levels are used. It is the individual editor's choice to add a second name, though the Help does specify "Imprint / Publisher" as to order if both are used. In this case VGSF, if noted, should be in the field. Gollancz can also be added, even if redundant. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hauck, it seems that you have fallen for the trap that Gollancz made out for you, publishing their hardcovers themselves, while publishing their paperbacks by either their VGSF imprint (with the red-yellow-black logo) or with other publishers even (e.g. Corgi Books). You can best take a Terry Pratchett discworld book for comparison: First published in Great Britain 19xx by Victor Gollancz Ltd, next line: First published by VGSF (in case of Greg Bear)/Corgi Books (in case of Terry Pratchett) 19xx+n, where n is equal to 0 or greater. The first edition as stated that you cite for Gollancz actually points to the hardcover edition. VGSF is all that is published with that logo VGSF / Gollancz is double-up as the G in VGSF already stands for Gollancz.--Dirk P Broer 08:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As you, after collecting british SF for decades, I can even also say that V stands for Victor but this add nothing to the discussion. You confirm that Victor Gollancz is indeed the publisher, so perhaps VGSF can be made into a series. As I wrote in response to Bluesman, there should perhaps be a policy to determinate in this case as the variants of Gollancz are quite numerous. Hauck 09:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Just as Mayflower is no series of Granada, but an imprint, so is VGSF an imprint of Victor Gollancz, used to publish part of their titles in paperback format. Like I already pointed out Gollancz publishes Pratchett in hardcover, but the paperbacks are Corgi. There is a simple rule-of-thumb possible here: the publisher is what the logo says it is, in this case VGSF, just as the copyright page says e.g. "First published in VGSF 1987". just my 2c,--Dirk P Broer 13:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
A series for "VGSF" wouldn't work, as we already have the "VGSF Classics" publication series and a pub can only be in one publication series. I lean towards making them all "VGSF" as the " / Gollancz" is already implied and it saves typing. BLongley 13:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
And it is more consistent. We do not enter Discworld paperback books as published by Corgi / Hutchinson either.--Dirk P Broer 13:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, all this is quite academic for me, when I read "First VGSF edition published 1993 by Victor Gollancz" in this pub, even my broken english let me understand that the publisher (i. e. the one that publishes the book) is Victor Gollancz. But frankly, as I said before, the jungle of british publishers/imprints/series and their links is perhaps a problem that doesn't have any satisfying answer for all the contributors. I'll let another moderator accept the sub if he/she wants. BTW, I thought than such changes have to be notified to the primary (and others) verifiers.Hauck 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The case was brought up by me as secondary verifier. I looked up the publisher VGSF, saw there what BLongley thought about it, and found that it was also my opinion. Then I had to find arguments to convince you, as you made plain VGSF titles Gollancz ones (would you do the same with Pratchett? Make his Corgi's Hutchinson's?). The confusion is the link that exists between the hardcover publisher Gollancz and the paperback publisher VGSF. Hope I have made my point clear, ---Dirk P Broer 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to be precise, I did not enter this titles, I've just primary verified them against my own copy. As my basic tenet when working on a collaborative project like the ISFDB is, by respect to the work of others and by habit of encountering as may viewpoints as there are contributors, to avoid modifying existing data to suit my own ideas of what it should look like, I didn't alter the publisher and left it like it was entered initially (whence the various combinations of Gollancz, VGSF/Gollancz). Of course, the fact that I tend to avoid altering other person's work (except for blatant mistakes, which was IMHO not the case here) is just a position of principle, not an obligatory stance. The person who initially put Gollancz as publisher had probably as many good reasons as you have to want to put VGSF on a work "Published by Gollancz", especially considering that the help says "For the time being you are free to choose an imprint ("Ace Books"), a division ("Berkley") or the parent corporation ("Penguin Group (USA)") as you wish." which renders Gollancz a perfectly valid choice. Hauck 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it's valid. We've argued about use of "publisher" many times in the past, but never really agreed on which way to change. I like simplicity, others like as much information crammed into the field as possible. I think the "simplicity" is winning slightly: when an imprint is clearly owned by the same publisher over time, then ONE place where it states who owns the imprint makes a lot more sense than adding it to every record. (IMNSHO.) We don't get many people arguing for "Tom Doherty" over "Tor" or "Forge". Whether to use "Tor Fantasy" and "Tor Science-Fiction" is a potential issue still, but we seem to have "Tor Doubles" sorted as a Publication Series. If people are up for another round of discussion, I hope that we can get "Imprint" agreed on as something worth recording. BLongley 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I second the motion, "Imprint" is IMHO an interesting concept, perhaps more than "Publisher" which can be nowadays quite abstract or quite variable in time with all the mergings or buyings. Hauck 08:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I should confess I do consider this as a bit of a hot topic, since I took another moderator to task over changing all my "Del Rey" books to "Del Rey / Ballantine" without checking with me. There are powerful Publisher Editing tools available to Moderators that I rarely use because it's so controversial - but now that we've improved Publishers to have Notes and Web-Pages and Wikipedia entries, standardisation is far more desirable. I've even added a Feature Request today that will hopefully make awards for publishers more prominent. BLongley 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought so ;-). That was the sense of my first remark (albeit badly phrased), a standardization of the publishers a the ISFDB level seems to me desirable (if possible). Hauck 08:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Corgi" is another can of worms - as usual, I prefer just "Corgi". I've never seen "Corgi / Hutchinson" but there's several variations under "Transworld" - but "Bantam" is also an Imprint of "Transworld". Using the imprint makes it very clear which are UK and which are US titles though. (Well, there's some Australian pubs in there too, but that's definitely not my field of expertise.) BLongley 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[unindent] I always though VGSF stood for "Very Good Science Fiction". ;-) Mhhutchins 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Tsss ! ;-) Hauck 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
My two cents: "VGSF" gives me the name of the publisher. "VGSF / Gollancz" tells me the book was published by Gollancz under their VGSF imprint. Those 11 additional characters gives me a lot more information. When would less information be more valuable than more? Mhhutchins 19:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly my opinion (yours is probably more concise ;-)). Hauck 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not less information, it's just where the information is. When all VGSF publications are by Gollancz then it's simplest to use VGSF for them all and note that VGSF was always an imprint of Gollancz on the publisher record. I'd rather have 200 VGSF publication entries and one "publisher" record that's actually for the imprint, than make everyone type in "VGSF / Gollancz" on each publication they add. But I'm a database guy, I look at useless repetition and try and reduce it. Maybe the best argument is that few new editors, and none of our bots, are ever going to use "VGSF / Gollancz", and the approving moderators will end up having to adjust them? :-/ BLongley 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
My ! This topic is a big success ! To be frank, what was annoying me was the unilateral modification (without notification => I was taught that it is bad manners) of the data in a field relative to a verified publication, all this done without concertation. Bill's argument (compacity and standardization) is recevable and Michael's (more info is better than less, opacity of the meaning of VGSF acronym) also. Perhaps can we agree on a global approach like the one used for Tor UK ? Hauck 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't normally settle things on one user's talk page, but the start of any compromise is that people talk. I'll let Herve and Dirk sort out the etiquette issues by themselves. BLongley 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to look into some scripting that will tell us who might be interested in discussing imprints and/or publishers for any particular variety of "publisher". It's not going to be a simple "most people verified this version of it, so that wins" as it's obvious that people are following the crowd of past passive assent - we only got the "publisher" improvements recently that made harmonisation so much more desirable. I think I've got more "VGSF" publications than any other verifier, but that doesn't mean I get to make that canonical. Is it time to take this to a Project Page or a Community Portal Page? BLongley 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Hauck 06:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Award help please?

I don't know if you've noticed the latest clean-up projects, but "Award Titles with No Publications" -- particularly the "L" section ISFDB:Award_Titles_with_No_Pubs#L - is throwing out a lot of French titles. In your copious free time (of which I'm sure you have none), can you spare a look at these and advise? You really don't want me trying to fix such. Although if it requires some programming help (as the actual Award Editors are not technically available), feel free to tell me what's needed. BLongley 23:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, in between entering Venture UK and Le Livre de Poche, I can have look at your list (just done, it's mainly Canadian Awards). What do you want from me ? Hauck 08:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, finding and entering the first publication of the work should "fix" them in terms of the script no longer complaining about them - in fact, entering any publication of the work would do that, but obviously the first is probably the most important. I guess if they're mostly Canadian then I can find the longer works at, but shortfiction is harder to trace. BLongley 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mathematics of Magic

Does this book specify whether "The Castle of Iron" is the novella version published in Unknown in 1941, or the expanded novel version published in 1950? It's length would indicate it's the novella (its current status correct), but then its appearance in the other Harold Shea collections aren't very much longer, and the font size would affect the page count. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Title page reads "Unknown, April 1941, revised, Gnome Press, 1950" and the copyright page "_The Castle of iron_ was published in Unknown, April 1941, and expanded Gnome Press, 1950", which makes it likely the novel version (note that the font size is quite small => 42 lines per page). Hope that helps (does it makes the collection an omnibus ?). Hauck 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I think we should leave it as a collection. All of the other Harold Shea books are entered as collections, and I don't think this expanded novella would qualify the book as an omnibus (unless you follow a very strict definition of the word.) Do you want to change the record to the novel record, or would you like me to do it? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll let you proceed as you're probably more efficent than I. Hauck 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sky Lords

I believe this edition was published under the VGSF imprint. The cover art concurs. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another one to check here. Mhhutchins 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
One more: Pasquale's Angel. Mhhutchins 01:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
And this one: Aztec Century. Mhhutchins 01:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In fact there are lots more of VGSF / Gollancz titles in all format (except HC, I think), like this TP Mortal Remains or this other TP Queen of Angels. That's why I think that a fixed policy should be determined before starting the mass modifications, considering the fact that the value "Gollancz" in the publisher's field is allowed (cf. help) and left to the appreciation of the "enterer" or the verifier.Hauck 06:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In fact the first one Mortal Remains is very interesting as it bears the VGSF logo on spine but has "Victor Gollancz" (not VGSF) on title page and "First published in GB 1995 in hardback and paperback by Victor Gollancz" => see here and there. Hauck 07:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, recording the VGSF imprint is probably going to be useful in finding errors - as far as I know, there should be NO hardcovers under that imprint. (Yes, I know this doesn't mean that recording publisher as well is a problem, just saying that imprint has its uses.) BLongley 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, another one: Speaking in Tongues. Mhhutchins 01:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I like this one, it's the one that states "First VGSF published by Gollancz", which leaves not much ambiguity as to who is the imprint and who is the publisher. Hauck 06:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to facilitate a transition to a (desirable) Imprint / Publisher structure, I'm updating my "VGSF" or "Gollancz" verified titles to "VGSF / Gollancz" but I'm victim of the "these f**** books are in the back tier of my bookcases" syndrome. => Done (in fact there wasn't a lot of them where I was sole verifier, for the multi-verified ones, I'll pass).Hauck 07:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Same problem with my collection. I'll have guests who are amazed at the quantity of books on my shelves...then I point out that they're only seeing half of them as there is a second row of books behind the front one! Mhhutchins 19:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I get visitors impressed with the three boxes of books in my living-room. When I point out that that's my spares pile, they think I'm weird. When they see that I have two bedrooms used purely as libraries, they think I'm very weird. I guess not many people actually own more SF than your average book-shop has in stock, but I suspect ISFDB editors are far more likely to have such a collection. Actually, I must check the code behind Top Verifiers and see if it's counting the way people assume it does. BLongley 15:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
My kind of homey place! Nothing like the aroma of old books.... and that's eccentric, not weird! Really! Tell 'em I said so. ;-) And thanks for splitting the Verifications into Primary and Secondary, I enquired about that some time ago. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Lucky you ! My spares fill an Ikea Billy bookcase completly (their number fluctuates between 600 and 700 books). I sometimes manage to sell them (or trade them) but they seem to reproduce themselves as there are more and more. Hauck 15:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
We must compare lists sometime. I used to use Read-it, Swap-It a lot, but swapping books one-by-one was a bit of a pain. BLongley 17:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I have four boxes of paperback duplicates and a box of just ACE Double duplicates, though I'm afraid the shipping from Canada would be rather injurious. Would be a very interesting swap-meet with current company!! :-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
London in 2014 ? (so far I've only made the European Worldcons, The hague and the two in Glasgow) Hauck 05:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a date! Never been to one. By then I may need a container [small one] for the duplicates. Won't Customs be fun..... ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Who Killed Science Fiction?

I added my (P2)verification and a note about the printing date to Who Killed Science Fiction?. I'm considering breaking up the "Like Some Opinions" section into the various pieces by the respondents. What are your thoughts about that? Thanks, --Willem H. 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please proceed, IMHO for the researcher it's certainly a very interesting addition as the main interest of this book is the historical perspective given on key figures of SF, I admire your courage to attack this task. Hauck 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree totally. It's not that large a task, look what Bill Longley did with this pub. I won't be starting until I'm back from vacation (going to Crete for a week tomorrow). I'll let you review the pub when I'm finished. --Willem H. 19:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Aw, that was simple compared with Paperback Parlour. BLongley 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi, the cover artist Gino d'Achille for this title gets confirmed in this publication (page 182).--Dirk P Broer 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Edit done. Hauck 13:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Les Quatrièmes Demeures

The pub record gives the author as Raphaël A. Lafferty, while the title record gives his name as Raphäel A. Lafferty. Which letter has the mark on the book's title page? Mhhutchins 18:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected. Hauck 20:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of changing cover images

Thanks for the courtesy, but it's not necessary if you've done or will be doing a primary verification of the pub. (See the first bullet point of my notification preferences.) Thanks again. Mhhutchins 19:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather err on the safe side. Hauck 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

== Imprint / Publisher ==

Hi, there! I've changed publisher to Gollancz / Orion to respect imprint / publisher convention for the several verified pubs: this, this, this, this, and this! Thanks! P-Brane 03:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The War Against the Rull

This cover for this book is reproduced (without text) in an obituary tribute to artist Stanley Meltzoff in Locus #551 (December 2006). It's also listed on the website as one of his book covers: Mhhutchins 18:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Info added. Thanks.Hauck 19:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Worlds of Fritz Leiber

New image and slightly expanded notes to [Worlds of Fritz Leiber] --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

F&SF cover scans

Do the covers of the issues themselves have the same cross-check pattern that is showing up on the scans? Mhhutchins 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably an artefact of the scanner that only appears on some of them. Hauck 20:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Going Deep by James Patrick Kelly

This title was a Nebula Award nominee as a short-story, but your verification has it as a novelette. Would you care to check the length? BLongley 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. It's listed on the ASF TOC as a novelette (it runs to 12 pages). The length comes probably from there. Hauck 19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Flight to Opar

New image, expanded notes for [Flight to Opar] --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Same for [Hadon of Ancient Opar] --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


The hardcover edition of [this] has the same artwork as the paperback which credits Bruce Jensen. The image of the hardcover seems to have Jensen's signature on the lower right. Does the book actually credit Barclay Shaw? --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A nice one ! The jacket effectively credits Shaw ("Jacket painting: Barclay Shaw") but I confirm the signature "Jensen '90" on cover.Hauck 20:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


I've been working on BSFA awards today, and one of the 2008 nominations is confusing. You've verified this but articles like this and this suggest there's another story "Thirstlands" by Nick Wood (or "Woods"). Can you check please? BLongley 04:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're perfectly right. It's the last text of the anthology. Hauck 14:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It almost makes working on awards worthwhile. Plus point - finding a missing title. Minus points - Chavey pointing out 28 things that need fixing, with Tiptree awards alone! :-( BLongley 14:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A New Dawn

I placed this into the NESFA's Choice publication series. Is the series indicated in the book? Also, can you check to see if Burks is given co-author credit on the title page (385) for "The Elder Gods"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the first time that I hear about such a series (even if I've got about all the NESFA titles), it's mentioned nowhere in the book. Broadly I tend to regroup the NESFA titles in three groups : the Boksone books (the latest being the Stross), the integral editions (Zelazny and before Smith for exemple) and the one-shots (this one, Budrys, Schmitz). Peraphs it's a designation for the latter group. For Burks, he's clearly credited as co-author ("With Arthur J. Burks") on title page (and on copyright page). Hauck 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is something from the NESFA site, see here. The list is also in the NESFA catalog. Since there is nothing in the books about the series (I've got about half of them), I didn't think it was worth a publication series. --Willem H. 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Willem, this seems not worth the mention as the source is quite ephemeral. Hauck 16:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Search for Philip K. Dick

Hello, Hervé. Did you write the note in this title? (Or, do you know who did?) I ask, because I think that it'd be right to merge the individual pubs, because it is essentially the same book, after all. It should be mentioned in the notes that there are differences between the editions, though. But, at least the two newer pubs from 2009 and 2010 seem to differ only in the fact that the latter had a better editor, according to this note on the author. Stonecreek 08:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to answer "no" to your two questions. From the history of the author's page, perhaps Marc Kupper is involved in this. If you want to merge the two later editions, no problem on my side. Hauck 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I've found in Locus1 that the publication month for Ambient (Unwin Paperbacks, 1989) was February.--Dirk P Broer 11:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Posting new comments on wiki pages

I wonder what method you're using to add new comments to any of the wiki pages, including other editor's user pages. The reason I'm asking is that I always check on the "Recent Changes" page to see what has been added since I last checked. Your new comments appear to be entered without a subject or headline. Do you use the "Edit this page" link, or the "Post a Comment" link? (Some wiki skins also have a "+" tab to add new comments.) It helps those of us who are keeping track of what's going on to know what the subject is first, to determine if it's something we can help with or something that we need to know. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know that there was another method than "Edit this page". Hauck 10:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Just something to consider. Adding a comment instead of editing the entire page also leads to less edit conflicts. If someone has added a comment between the time that you've opened the editing box, written the comment, and then saved it, there will not be a conflict if you were using the "Post a Comment" or "+" methods. And as I mentioned above, those methods let other editors know what the subject is by just looking at the recent changes page, instead of having to go to the page to see what the subject is. (I highly recommend that all moderators bookmark the recent changes page, if they haven't already.) It's up to you. Mhhutchins 19:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
"(I highly recommend that all moderators bookmark the recent changes page, if they haven't already.", this I do.Hauck 05:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The State of the Art

Hi, I've found in Locus1 that the 1st print of The State of the Art (Orbit 1991, hc) was published in March and I changed your verified record. I hold the 2nd printing of the same hardcover, also published in 1991, but later that year.--Dirk P Broer 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Stolen Sun and Tramontane

I added Emil Petaja's introduction of "Tramontane" and a note about this essay to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(The) Soul of a Robot (Quartet / Orbit, 1977) : Cover art by Bob Layzell

Hi, I've found the cover artist for Soul of a Robot (Quartet / Orbit, 1977). According to [ this site it's Bob Layzell.--Dirk P Broer 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Added a scan of my copy as well.--Dirk P Broer 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's typical Layzell.Hauck 05:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Rod of Light

Hi, about The Rod of Light (Methuen, 1985) Clute/Nicholls just says 1985, Locus1 gives Methuen, October 1985, Reginald3 however says London: Allison & Busby, 1984 as 1st publication. I changed your verified publication to October 1985.--Dirk P Broer 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Serpent Mage

Hi, while verifying Locus1 on The Serpent Mage I noticed that Locus1 placed the publication in January 1989, while the book itself states 1988. I added this information in the 'Notes' field, without altering the publication date. The edit is still pending though and perhaps needs your approval as 1st verifier.--Dirk P Broer 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Star Dwellers (Sphere, 1979)

Hello Hervé, I found the cover artist for The Star Dwellers. It is Colin Hay.--Dirk P Broer 08:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hauck 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Life on Mars

Can you confirm the publisher given in the pub record for this title? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in fact just plain "Viking" but the publisher's name was already entered when I verified the pub (probably direct from amazon via fixer). So knowing that the publisher's names are a real battlefield and even if it wasn't exactly what was on the book, I supposed that the person that moderated the fixer submissions was better informed that me concerning this touchy subject. Fell free to change it to Viking or I can change it myself. Hauck 16:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Change done. Hauck 17:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't ever consider that a moderator's acceptance of a Fixer submission makes the record reliable, verifiable, or even as proof that the pub exists. If you have the pub in hand, you're infinite times more qualified to change any field of the record, regardless of how the original moderator, no matter how touchy, might feel about those changes. Those few moderators who work on Fixer submissions gladly welcome any validation of those records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Seconded! Fixer records are getting better, and hopefully easier to moderate, but they're still based on potentially dodgy data from Amazon. I treat any pub with "Data from Amazon" as something suspicious. And early "Dissembler" submissions aren't even labelled that way, but are even more suspicious. Primary verifications are the best, IMO. Even if the publisher is not in the preferred form - and it may be some years before we settle on what that is. :-/ BLongley 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think so ;-). You probably know now that I'm quite reluctant to modify data already entered, but I sometimes "do" some Fixer submissions (the easy ones). Hauck 17:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy Commentator image

This file needs a license. I was going to add one, but I couldn't find a pub associated with it. Can you help? Mhhutchins 15:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded it during a discussion of this fanzine (it's the Fall 1986, Vol V No. 4 issue). What information do you need or action do you require ? Hauck 17:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ordinarily we would need to have a license for each image that's hosted on the ISFDB server. If you upload using the "Upload Cover Scan" function from a pub record, the system automatically adds the license. If you use the "Upload File" function from the wiki pages, you have to add the license manually. Do you plan to create a record for this pub? If not, we can delete the image. Or we can add a license. We would need the publisher name and the artist credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

James Blish's The Bridge

You verified this pub which contains The Bridge. You have also verified this pub which contains Bridge. The first is listed as a shortstory published in 2008. The second as a novelette published in 1952. I wanted to double check that first one to see if it's accurate or whether it's a variant of the second one? Would you mind checking? --JLaTondre 16:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it's the same text (I directly verified in the Feb 1952 Analog), I've made a vt of the NESFA spelling.Hauck 16:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. However, I think the size should also be updated. That will remove any future questions on why one is marked a novelette and the other a shortstory. Currently, it implies the second is an abridged version of the first. --JLaTondre 19:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Demain, Moisson d'Etoiles (image with bandeau)

I added CID (data and license tag) to this image. Mhhutchins 01:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Same for this image. Mhhutchins 01:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
And both of these: [1] and [2]. Mhhutchins 01:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Sex and the Black Machine" image

Is this image the cover for this pub? Mhhutchins 19:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Hauck 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a license tag and linked it to the pub (and notified the record's verifier.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Three Variant Possibilities

The following three cases are ones where you have verified similar titles from the same author in two different publications:

Would you mind checking to see if these are the same stories and variants should be created? Thanks. --JLaTondre 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done for Whates (same title in both pubs). Hauck 05:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Done for Saberhagen (same titles but TOC and copyright pages had different titles in both cases). Hauck 13:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Best SF&F Volume Four

Can you verify the title of the story by Kij Johnson on page 485 of this anthology? We have records for "The Cat Who..." and "The Cat That...". The original title on is "The Cat Who...". If correct, we'll have to create a variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's "Who", corrected and merged. Hauck 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Mhhutchins 20:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking Science Fiction: Dialogues and Interpretations

Can you confirm the spelling of the author's name for the essay on page 144 of this publication? Here name is normally spelled "Mendlesohn". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It was effectively a mistake, corrected. Hauck 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Spirit Ring: New Cover Scan (less dark)

Hi Hervé, I have uploaded a slightly less dark scan for The Spirit Ring (Bean, 1993) But I am still not satisfied with the result (the actual book is still lighter than this scan as well).--Dirk P Broer 14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's nicer. These reflective parts are quite a pain. Hauck 15:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Uncredited cover art

There are a dozen or so cover art records that have been entered as "uncredited", all of which appear to have been entered in the past couple of months. The standard is to leave this field blank if the artist is unknown. This was the policy before I came here, but I think it's because the page would be thousands of records long if we entered "uncredited" for all pubs which have uncredited cover art. (Go to uncredited and scroll down to the Cover Art category.) Thanks. 14:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, but to be frank, it's not a very satisfying rule (e.g. it doesn't discrimintae between "uncredited" and "no cover art"). Hauck 15:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure someone had a good reason for doing it this way, but I wasn't involved in the decision. Personally, I place a note in the note field if a pub has no cover art. Feel free to bring it up for discussion on the Rules & Standards page. Cover art credit has always been a point of contention among editors. Mhhutchins 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cigarette Characterizations in Jack Williamson's Wizard's Isle

Could you please join in this discussion regarding Cigarette Characterizations in Jack Williamson's Wizard's Isle. I placed my question on Rkihara's talk page because he has the first primary verification. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Poul Anderson's Epilogue

You verified this pub which contains Epilogue and this pub which contains Epilogue. . .. Are these the same story? If so, since the second one is a foreign language publication, was the title translated and should it really be entered with the canonical title? Thanks. --JLaTondre 17:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected for the french collection, the case of the UK Analog is left open. Hauck 18:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Upper Room and Other Likely Stories

I added a cover artist credit to your verified edition of this book, and dropped your conjecture that the book designer was also the cover artist. This artist credit was based on the credit given for the same cover on the hardcover edition. Chavey 05:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lost in Space

Just added more detailed contents for Lost in Space. Albinoflea 21:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rendezvous with Rama

Added a scan of the fold-out, with note, to [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Incandescent Ones

New image [no checkerboard effect], slightly expanded notes for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

House of Shards

I have added notes to your verified House of Shards. AndonSage 06:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Between the Strokes of Night

Added Introduction and Afterword to the contents, expanded the notes slightly for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Interzone, #48 June 1991

Could you please check if C. N. Gilmore's review of Steven Brust's Taltos the Assassin misspells the author's first name "Stephen" or whether it's a data entry error? Thanks! Ahasuerus 06:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Gilmore is indeed mispelling the author's surname as 'Stephen' (only once in the introduction as he uses subsequently 'Brust' to refer to him); as indicated in the notes. Hauck 13:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
According to current standards, the review record should be modified to give the actual name of the author whose work is being reviewed, and the discrepancy noted in the Note Field. This helps to avoid titleless authors like Stephen Brust. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

== Sixty Days and Counting ==

Just updated the note for the Bantam Spectra edition of Sixty Days and Counting. Albinoflea 02:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Berserker printing

I recently acquired the 13th Ace printing of Saberhagen's BERSERKER. You verified this [3] as possibly the 13th with a number line ending in 14 and with a July 1986 date. My copy says it is the 13th with the same date but no number line. So before I make a contradictory entry would you like to edit it? Or I cpould do it. Don Erikson 16:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Please proceed to the required modifications. Hauck 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Time and Timothy Grenville

Can you check the art here and see if you can shed any light on this discussion? BLongley 13:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. It strikes me that there may be a case for having Images on INTERIORART Records the same way as we do on Publications - although we would have to allow for multiple images, and maybe pick up covers from variants too. I suppose the recent addition of "FR 3042002: Support for multiple web links at title level" is a step in that direction, but I haven't seen anyone use it for artwork yet. Would you use such if I coded it? I appreciate you have a lot of work still to do, so if artwork isn't a priority we can leave it on the backburner for a bit. BLongley 17:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid your analysis is right, I've got quite a lot of data left to be entered in the ISFDB (just think about all the french magazines which will need to be entered and merged title by title). Your idea of having the images is very interesting but leaves the problem of scanning interior art without damaging the book or magazine, an heresy to collectors like us ;-). Hauck 17:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I'll let you get on with your main work! In the meantime, is there anything I can do code-wise that would make things easier? You mentioned needing to rework 2000 titles after the recent language support changes, is there any sort of script that would help, or are they a bit too dangerous? I think an "Unmerge Foreign Title" option that unmerges a publication to a title with the correct language, and makes it a variant of the original, would be good if we can't do things safely with mass-update scripts. I'm a bit of a way off from designing such though, I seem to have messed up "unmerge titles" with recent "improvements", or at least not fully understood the differences between such for Container and Contained titles. And I know that Award Editing and Display is still not perfect, but I don't want to work on that till I see how badly I messed up with new "Award Types". But I'm still willing to code stuff people want, when it's within my capabilities (or not TOO far beyond). BLongley 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I also think that your idea of an <"Unmerge Foreign Title" option that unmerges a publication to a title with the correct language, and makes it a variant of the original>, would make my life easier. The only thing left to be done manually would be the re-merging of diverse printings (or editions) of foreign titles, including the eventual vts. Hauck 05:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, we could make it a mass unmerge of all publications for one language and avoid creating multiple identical variants. Although if the titles are as messed up as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone where the title of the foreign edition is just given in English with a Language suffix, we'll still have to use the standard unmerge, then retitle, and make variant. I'll see what scripts Ahasuerus will allow first, I still think we can do a lot with ISBN prefixes. BLongley 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There's also maybe a case for allowing Variants of Variants where the translation is literal - is a foreign version of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" different from a foreign version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"? One of those worms from the big can we just opened. I'll leave that to the foreign-language experts to thrash out though. BLongley 16:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Coyote Horizon

Can you confirm that the author's middle initial is not credited on this pub's title page? Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, corrected, I've also made the change for Coyote Destiny, I've always thought that the autor was simply Allen Steele.Hauck 16:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
He's used it off and on throughout his career, but more frequently lately. I guess he wanted to jump on the middle initial bandwagon (the sf field seems to have more than its share of authors with middle initials.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert F. Young's "Jonathan and the Space Whale"

Is there reason to think this Jonathan and the Space Whale published in your verified pub is not the same as the version published earlier in the US version of the magazine? Thanks. --JLaTondre 20:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably none. Hauck 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Miles Vorkosigan/Naismith: His Universe and Times: Timelines again

I know you've been harassed about this subject before, but I was uneasy about the outcome. Please see here for my opinion, and comment if you like. If you agree, I will change the credit for the essay to uncredited, vt'd to Lois McMaster Bujold and Michael Bernardi. I will also add the interior art piece by Suford Lewis to your verified edition of Dreamweaver's Dilemma (and all other editions). Thanks, --Willem H. 19:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As it seems that you've been promoted to resident Bujold expert ;-), I will be happy to let you proceed. Hauck 19:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Since Dana Carson didn't respond, I made the neccesary changes. Thanks, --Willem H. 15:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

1984 (cover art)

Hi, I identified the cover artist of this edition of 1984 (and at least two editions preceding it, 1966 and 1968). According to the cover shows The Control Room, Civil Defence Headquarters (1942) by William Roberts, presently located at the Salford Art Gallery in Manchester, England.--Dirk P Broer 21:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Science-Fiction Soviétique

Hi, Herve! Could you please have a look at this pub, seems to be a duplicate of this verified pub, no? If it's not too much trouble, I'd really appreciate ToC for this pub. I'd then try to identify the original Russian titles.

You're right for the duplicate. For the second point, you can have a look here.Hauck 05:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'll work on tracing Russian originals. Do you happen to know any other pubs that are French translations of Russian/Soviet authors? Cheers, P-Brane 05:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC).
If you're talking about ISFDB-entered pubs, there are probably very few (I've entered the following here, some Strougatsky here and some Denoel this collection), if you're interested in translated russian texts in french, you can probably start here.

Also, "Le Livre d'Or de la Science-Fiction" looks like a pub series rather than part of a title to me, what do you think? Maybe it makes sense to create the second pub series for publisher "Presses Pocket" rather than bundle it with "Presses Pocket - Science Fiction"? Cheers, P-Brane 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

For me it's not a good idea. In fact, I entered all the "Livre d'or" (which will later morph in into "Le grand temple de la Science-Fiction", like this one) deliberately as parts of the "Presses Pocket - Science Fiction" series as they are completely integrated with it (same look, same numbering sequence) and are presented in the publisher's catalogue as part of it. It's more a kind of sub-series (or sub-collection in french), an idea which doesn't have equivalent in the ISFDB (it's complex enough to translate the french concept of "collection"). Hauck 05:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, you're in a better position here! mine was just a casual observation. Cheers, P-Brane 05:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Best of Sci-Fi 3

I identified the cover artist for Best of Sci-Fi 3. It is credited to Richard Powers, the same artist that did Great Science Fiction Stories (of which Best of Sci-Fi 3 is a variant title). It all started with a search for the artist of Sabotage 1: Ruimteplatform, a mirror image of the original artwork. Thanks to Willem H..--Dirk P Broer 19:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. Hauck 20:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mindstar Rising

Hello Hervé, I think I might have pinpointed the publication month for Mindstar Rising. As I have put in the notes I think the Locus1 record for the March 1993 edition describes the 3rd printing. I leave it up to you to change the date if you are convinced.--~~

Date changed, thanks.Hauck 16:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)