User talk:Kpulliam/Archives05

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Queen of the Damned

Hi, I've had this on hold for a week sorry about that. In the case of Ballantine and other publishers the only reason for the Canadian printings was to do with Canadian content law. In the early 50's to late 70's there were two printings one US and the other Canada but if you look it says "cover printed in the US". These early ones had only one price the US since the exchange rate was at par more or less. From about 1978 to 1988 the Canadian printed ones would have a higher price to reflect the difference in currencies (these are the ones that I would make a separate entry for). From mid to later 1988 they went to dual pricing so either printing could be sold in the US or Canada. The Canadian printed version ended in about 1996 and after that most pb's sold in Canada are printed in the US. In the case of the one on hold we only use the US price and put the Canadian price in notes. What I would also note is the existence of a CDN printing and that it's identical to the US. Daw, Baen, Tor and several others also did this or some variation of what I've described above. I'll leave it on hold till I hear back from you. Thanks!Kraang 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah... For some reason I had the idea in my head that Canadian printed items should list the Canadian price in the database. Please amend my note, and fix the price, or accept it and I will edit it to fix the mistake. - Thanks Kevin 02:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem I'll fix it. Here are some examples[1]. If you look at the notes in the first three examples you'll see what I mean. In the 1982 2nd printing there are three different types. I've combined two examples under one listing so its less confusing. :-)Kraang 03:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ISBN mixups for Baen publications

As you appear to be more familiar with the publications of Baen Books than anyone else around, I'm hoping you can help me with a conundrum. It arose when a new editor wanted to update this pub by changing it to an omnibus, and added Zahn's The Backlash Mission as a content. According to OCLC this ISBN (1416509127) was assigned to both this pub by Chris Dolley and this pub by Timothy Zahn. Searches on both and Amazon brings up the Dolley pub. We have the Dolley pub but with a different ISBN (1416509259). OCLC shows both of these ISBNs for this one title. According to Locus1 the Dolley title has 1416509127 and the Zahn title has 1416520651, which agrees with our record but as Blackcollar: The Judas Solution. I've left a note for the editor, but it might take awhile before he discovers his talk page. In the meantime, can you shed any light on the situation? Thanks. MHHutchins 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC) It just occurred to me that it would make sense for Baen to print new editions of the first two titles in this series as they had just printed the third one, maybe even combining them into one volume. Perhaps the editor intended to update this edition as an omnibus of those two titles. MHHutchins 22:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm this pub is an Omnibus of The Blackcollar and Blackcollar: The Backlash Mission.
Per the Baen Catalog:
  • 1-4165-0912-7 HC Resonance by Chris Dolley
  • 1-4165-2134-8 PB Resonance by Chris Dolley
  • 1-4165-0925-9 HC Blackcollar by Zahn (An Omnibus of 'The Blackcollar, and Blackcollar: The Backlash Mission)
  • not published PB Blackcollar by Zahn (An Omnibus of 'The Blackcollar, and Blackcollar: The Backlash Mission)
  • 1-4165-2065-1 HC Blackcollar: The Judas Solution (A third Blackcollar novel, to complete the trilogy)
  • 1-4165-5543-9 PB Blackcollar: The Judas Solution (A third Blackcollar novel, to complete the trilogy)
I'm not sure if I answered the question yet, but I'm happy to do more digging, but I've got to step away from the computer for a bit (but I wanted to get you the quick and dirty research bit first) - Later Kevin 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That's great. Everything seems to have been straightened out. But it's still odd that OCLC has the Dolley and Zahn pubs both containing each other's ISBNs. Do you think they were somehow reversed in the pubs themselves? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
At times, as much as I love em, Baen seems to be a hit or miss operation when it comes to the copyright page. They are notorious for mispelling cover artists (And interior artists) names, and I've even seen one Anthology with a name on the cover that didn't even appear in the book (It was John Ringo on a Fantasy Anthology.... the man doesn't even write Fantasy).
It is indeed possible that all the electronic files say one thing and somehow the print book says another... but with that said... I've checked the RTF ebook for Resonance and it lists 0912-7 as the ISBN. The Blackcollar RTF lists 0925-7 and The Blackcollar Judas RTF lists 2065-1. AS far as I know, the RTF files are the same file/layout that is sent to the printer for the Hardcover editions, and at that point, only a frantic phone call should be capable of changing the printed text. BUT if an editor verifies a pub with the other ISBN, I'm gonna have to track down some physical copies to double check. If we can confirm (through a known editor) laying eyes on a messed up ISBN, I'll be happy to email Toni Weisskopf or one of her minions at Baen to see if we can put some more light on the subject. Thanks for asking - A mystery is always fun! Kevin 04:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Zahn's Heir to the Empire

Would this eighth printing have the same month of publication as the first? MHHutchins 04:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks for spotting that. I realized 3 minutes after I submitted it that I had forgotten to zero out the date. I was just waiting for it to get approved (or spotted) so I could fix it. (It really wasn't worth a Yell on the Moderator board). Thanks! Kevin 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Space more info

Here's a link to the OCLC record for Fictional Space, if you're interested in filling in the blanks. MHHutchins 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back and add to that when I'm on the road for work in a week or so (And away from my physical books) - Thanks Kevin 03:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fallen Angels

I'm holding your submission changing the authors of this record. There is already a variant title record which is identical to the change you propose. This variant was created for the "Michael Flynn" pseudonym. Changing this will make it a variant of itself. MHHutchins 05:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Doh! - Please reject it. Somedays I can't start a fire with two sticks even if both of them are matches. (I was just too excited trying to get the 'F.' out of there) - Kevin 03:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. MHHutchins 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The aim of "Authors that only exist due to reviews"

Hi, thanks for looking at ISFDB:Authors that only exist due to reviews, but your comment "Already Linked" makes me think that you're missing the point slightly. Yes,this review links to this title. But Author Leo A. Frankowski is a stray author, linking nowhere. If you stumble across it from the Author Directory or from an Author search, it's a dead-end. That's what I'm trying to get fixed. A minimum would be making A Leo A. Frankowski a pseudonym for "no A" Leo Frankowski so it gets you somewhere. I think it would be better if we knew why the pseudonym existed (i.e. it was reviewed under that version of the author name) but that could be accomplished by creating the variant title under the reviewed name, or adjusting the publication with the review in to record the canonical name and note the differences. I'm not too worried about reviews that don't link you to a title directly so long as you get to some version of it in the end, I am worried about authors that don't link anywhere at all. BLongley 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a bit confusing and all the discussions about what the page is for have been moved to archives as it's over a year since I raised the issue, so if you can tell me how to explain the aim a bit better I'd appreciate it. How to fix things is a bit open still, but linking reviews isn't enough for what I intended to fix. BLongley 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Roger and WilCo. I think the first one I looked at threw me. I think it was not linked to the right title either, so I then took that as the blank I needed to fill in. Is there a 'preferred' solution? (Adjust the review name to match the corrected name or create a variant)? Thanks! Kevin 03:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a few views on the talk page, feel free to add more. I think I'd prefer to simply adjust the review record, but that often means messing with a verified pub, and I get fed up asking people to recheck stuff. (The more time I spend on the Wiki the less time I have in the database.) And there's always the risk that the review gets it right and the pub record is wrong. So leaving everything unchanged in the reviewing and reviewed publications and creating variants to link everything is less controversial, but it's more work. BLongley 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There's also the issue of reviews of non-books. I think we can cope with reviews of magazines and fanzines, reviews of graphic novels and comics less so, and reviews of non-genre non-print stuff should be right out. I'd change such to ESSAYs. BLongley 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Omnibus / Nongenre

Hi, I've put your three changes of the omnibus books on hold. The novels are nongenre but the over all book is an omnibus. If we change it to nongenre we won't be able to add content. I've added content to vol. III here's how it looks[2]. If you had something else in mind let me know. Thanks!Kraang 20:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. I hadn't thought about the lack of 'container' ability for non-genre items. Please just cancel those three edits. - Thanks Kevin 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Amber: Volume II---- added cover art / notation

Afternoon & apologies. This. [3] . I added a cover image and profuse notation in matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


I have received a reply from ISFiC: wrote: Some time ago I purchased a copy of OUTBOUND - Jack McDevitt that came signed by the author, a pleasant surprise. Can you tell me how many of the 1000 were signed by him? I ask for this with a bibliographic slant as I edit for the and want to add as much data to our record of this publication as possible. Thanks! Bill Taylor

We did not have Jack sign a specific number of copies, and in addition to the ones he originally signed, I know he signed more for us at a later date. If I had to guess, I'd think he signed around 200 copies total.

And if there is any way you could correct my entry (which is amazingly out of date) so that my name appears correctly (there is no period after my middle name) I would appreciate it.

Steven H Silver

Since this is too much for a note I'll probably just put that approximately 200 copies were signed by the author and cite the source. And I did submit a change for Steven's name as he requested. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ehhh since they were not signed and numbered, is it really of any value to document that 'some' were signed by the author before the publisher sold them? Doesn't this artificially promote any later signed copies or imply something that isn't? I'm thinking 'signed' notes should only be present for numbered or otherwise identifiable editions, (which would then warrant an unsigned publication record). Kevin 05:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, the Author change was dangerous! I presume Mike let it through as nobody has verified anything with the H. yet. But the DAW covers suggest it's sometimes forced upon him, we'll have to watch out for those coming back and be prepared to make a pseudonym. Can I take it his middle name is really just "H" and it's not an abbreviation? That would be worth a note on the author, or somebody will try to regularise it again. BLongley 09:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Your surmise is correct [Wikipedia Talk]. Steven himself has a wiki login and has added a statement that the entire middle name is "H" to his talk page. While I was there I also edited the link back to ISFDB to use his new canonical name. Kevin 15:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I see now that you mean he has a Wikipedia login, he seems to be having troubles with the ISFDB Wiki though. We'll probably need a lot more entered here, or in the database itself, before he's immune to "obvious corrections" though. Thanks for bringing it up though, "protecting Canonical Names" needs a bit of discussion. BLongley 21:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Boxleitner?

Do you want to make Bruce Boxleitner a variant name of William H. Keith, Jr. for "Frontier Earth" and "Searchers"? Thanks!Kraang 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. WHK Jr' cops to it on his [website] about halfway down his bibliography. Kevin 04:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating. Question, Does Bruce Boxleitner admit to being ghosted by William H. Keith, Jr.? Who will wring out the truth about William Shatner? LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting find! Thanks!Kraang 13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This is how it looks now[4],if the note is unclear or could be said better just submit an update. I also added a link to William H. Keith, Jr.'s web page. If you find other authors whose web page is missing just click on "Authors Data" and add it.Kraang 14:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Ack - I wasn't intending on making the Pseudonym relationship, just varianting the titles... I was thinking it best to leave it as 'Name used by' (With a bibliographical Wiki note about the ghostwriting) instead since Boxleitner could very well hire other folks to ghost write at a later date.... thoughts? I mean I really appreciate it when someone see's a typo in a submission and corrects it for me, but jumping ahead and making further serious edits when an experienced editor is already 'working the issue' is kind of getting out of control. Thanks Kevin 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, further ghost-writers would mean further pseudonyms. And if Bruce writes something by himself, then the "Pseudonym. See: William H. Keith, Jr." will go away. BLongley 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I hope you don't mind me sorting out the "Ian Douglas" trilogies for you. BLongley 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
By just creating the variants without the "Pseudonym relationship" I believe we end up with stray publications, in other words the Bruce page would be a little screwed up. This is from an even more experienced editor thats spends his time fixing all sorts of messes on the data base. :-)Kraang 17:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
No Problems that don't evaporate in a week filled with hectic work and doing my taxes (I made 23 cents this year in my sole proprietor business!!! - Of course I made actual money ~3K, but I'm actually proud that my hobby/business turned a profit 'after' deductions). I was just disappointed to not see it in the 'as submitted' state and then get to understand from first hand experience why it was a only a partial solution. Cheers Kevin 05:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunless World

Added a cover image to [[5]]--Bluesman 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Keith William Andrews " novels

Now that the "Keith William Andrews" novels have been set up as variant titles and the two collective pseudonyms have been created, we will need to add the Series information to the canonical titles and remove it from the variant titles. It's a bit painful and I wish there was an automated way to do this, but no such luck... Ahasuerus 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep Yep.. just waiting on the approval to create the variants to do just that. Thanks! Kevin 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ace DBL F-223

Added cover images and fleshed out the notes of [[6]] --Bluesman 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine except for the cover art credit. I had a feeling that the Ace doubles site has the art credits backwards (But I hadn't gotten around to proving that yet). If you look at Envoy to Worlds cover, you can see what might be Gaughans signature just to the right of the gentleman's foot. I don't have the volume in front of me at the moment, but that's where the suspicious signature was. If you could take a second look at this one I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks! - Kevin 12:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Double your Emshwiller Double your fun

A system bug I assume but adding Gaughan as a coverartist resulted in two credits for Emshwiller. There are also now two coverart records on Emshwiller's biblio page. It might be quicker for me to fix this problem if I have your OK. Coverart titles are only vaguely connected with pubs once they are created and occasional weirdness happens.--swfritter 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. If you can easily fix this issue I would greatly appreciate it. Kevin 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. I ended up removing all artist references from the pub which made the title records go away. I then added the artists to the pub which created new title records.--swfritter 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Strange and Savage Life of Hunter S. Thompson

The Strange and Savage Life of Hunter S. Thompson has been approved and a space has been inserted between "E." and "Jean" in the author's name. Those spaces can be very slippery at times :) Ahasuerus 03:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's both late and I'm on my 2nd (err 3rd) adult beverage of the evening. I saw the double edit in the recent edit list and was mighty confused because it looked just like I (hic) remembered entering it. Kevin 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sure at some point Bill Longley and you will be able to swap stories of editing after the Nth "adult beverage" of the evening :) Ahasuerus 03:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops - Just noticed I left the actual title 'Hunter' off. (From one perspective the Nth beverage is a great training tool to recheck your work later.) Cheers Kevin 04:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mummy!

I approved the addition of Jane Webb's The Mummy! and then recalled entering this title just a few months ago. A little digging revealed that we already have it listed under Jane Loudon, her married name. The book was apparently first published in 1827 anonymously while she was still "Jane Webb". Would you like to untangle this mess of variant titles and pseudonyms or would you like me to give it a try? (A good self-sufficiency test, if nothing else! :-) Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My My... that is a tangled web we weave. Before I untangle it, I need to figure out where I want to end up. It was published anonymously, in 1827, reprinted in 1828, again uncredited in the publication, but her husband liked the book and sought her out and they were married in I think 1830. So while it was published anonymously, it was not a mystery for very long(or wasn't really a mystery, it just wasn't printed in the book). When it was published he name was Jane Webb, but since most of the critical references to her are afterwards, they 'mostly' refer to her as Mrs. Loudon... then Bleiler goes and reviews the book in 1949 and writes the review referring to her as Ms. Webb, as is correct at the time of the writing. Fully viewable copies of the second edition all three volumes is available here [Vol. 1], [Vol. 2], and [Vol. 3] Kevin 02:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
We could unceremoniously string two pseudonyms together... Uncredited to Webb to Loudon. Does that even work? We could ditch the uncredited and attribute the early publications to Jane Webb, pseudonymous to Loudon, with copious notes that it was anonymous at initial and second publication. Thoughts? (anyone?) Kevin 02:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay, I was in the middle of bandaging one of Fixer's tentacles.
There are a few basic principles that can serve as guideposts in this morass. The first one is that we always try to enter Publication titles and Publication Authors as they appear on the title page of that particular edition/printing. Each Publication's main title, e.g. the Novel record for a Novel Publication, the Collection Title for a Collection Publication, etc, should match the Publication's Title and Author. (The only common exception to this rule is that we tend to be more liberal with subtitles at the Publication level.)
The second principle is that there should be only one canonical Title record for each text and only one canonical Author record for each human being involved. All other related Variant Title records should link to the same canonical Title record. Similarly, all related Author records (house names, pseudonyms and variant spelling versions) should be set up as Pseudonyms of the canonical Author record (or, for collective pseudonyms and house names, records).
In this case, we will first need to change the Publication records to reflect what the books say, i.e. "uncredited" (not to be confused with "anonymous" -- see Help) for the 1827 and 1828 printings and "Webb" and "Loudon" (whichever applies) for subsequent printings. Next we will need to adjust the associated Title records to match the Publication records. Then we will need to pick the canonical Author name and the canonical Title record. Then, we will need to link the Variant Titles with the canonical Title and create a Pseudonym record. At that point we will be able to link the review(s), although there is some controversy re: which Title (canonical or actual) to link to.
Having said all that, I will be the first one to admit that we don't do a good job of hiding the underlying complexities of the application from editors and when we try to, as is the case with hiding Collection/Anthology/Omnibus Titles in Contents, it's often counter-productive. I am sure the whole thing could be done with a couple of mouth clicks given a better user interface, but, unfortunately, Al's time is very limited at the moment and he is not in a position to do any kind of meaningful development. Since he is the only one who knows the application, things are likely to remain unchanged until he has more time for the project... Ahasuerus 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The dilemma here is that the review refers to neither the accepted canonical name 'Loudon', nor was any work ever published under 'Webb'. I have been linking authors by adjusting the review (with an editorial note that the review attribution differs from the published work) as a simple typo. In this case the review author makes it very clear that he is referring to the author 'Webb' by her maiden name User_talk:Rtrace#Arkham_Sampler_Spring_49_-_Jane_Webb_-_The_Mummy_Review , as the name she held at the time of publication, and only subsequently was her name changed to 'Loudon'. I cannot comfortably change the review to 'uncredited' even with an editorial note, so based on the above... The review needs to be amended to 'Loudon' with a note that it was listed under 'Webb'; otherwise we are still left with the Author 'Webb' as a Ghost Author in the DB. Thoughts on this solution? Kevin 05:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
An argument could be made for listing the author as "uncredited" in this review since she is not mentioned in the title of the review. The title page of the article reads '"The Mummy!" by Everett Bleiler' (as does the table of contents), and does not mention the author, though she is credited in the first sentence: "Jane Webb was desperate." The mention of the publication comes at the end of the first paragraph: "Perhaps Jane Webb did not know that Fielding had received £1000 for Amelia, Mrs. Radcliffe £900 for The Italian, Mrs. Inchbald over £1000 for A Simple Story and Nature and Art, but in any case she knew that there were money and respectability in writing popular fiction, and acted: writing and selling, at the age of 20, The Mummy! A Tale of the Twenty-Second Century (London, Henry Colburn, 1827, 3 volumes)." I had only skimmed the review previously when Kevin originally asked about it and have now read it all. Bleiler makes no mention on whether she was credited or not. The review states is was reprinted in "1872" which I had assumed was a transposition of 1827 but appears to just be incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtrace (talkcontribs) .
Of the three options that we have ("Webb", "Loudon", "uncredited"), I think "Webb" is the least palatable one. My own inclination would be to link directly to "Loudon", but a case could be made for "uncredited". Would you like to copy this discussion to the Standards page to make sure we are not missing anything? Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we've found the satisfactory conclusion without a need to move the discussion. The sticking point was the review crediting to 'Webb'. For now, I'm proposing
  • Changing the review to 'uncredited'
  • Deleting the publications I entered this week (and erasing the current 'Jane Webb' and 'Jane Webb Loudon' relationship)
  • Entering the the 1872 (Frederick Warne published) edition attributed to Jane Webb Loudon (with notes that actual attribution in the volume is unknown at this time and that it is actually the 3rd Ed (and pointer to the 1828 2nd edition at Internet Archive as evidence) because the 1872 edition is cited in several places [Bleiler the Early Years], [Dictionary of Biography], [1994 Edition of The Mummy])
  • Making the canonical name 'Jane Webb Loudon' (even though nothing SF was published under that name (Except possibly the 3rd edition)- since while her later works are attributed to ['Mrs. Loudon'] they are often cataloged under ['Jane Webb Loudon'] or 'Jane (Webb) Loudon' and at least two critical works are titled using her [full name])
  • Undoing the current Canonical 'Jane Loudon' by changing parent titles for the 1827 and 1828 Colburn published uncredited 1st and 2nd editions
  • Making a pseudonym relationship between 'Jane Loudon' of the 1994 U. of Mich. edition to the new Canonical 'Jane Webb Loudon'
  • and Finally.... Linking the Bleiler review from 1949, to the 'Jane Webb Loudon' title, since (while controversial) it seems best to make the review float to the top of this convoluted set of linkages ('uncredited', 'Webb Loudon' and 'Loudon'). (Bleiler admits to reading the 1st edition 'many years ago' in 'The Early Years' on page 793, though the entry in that book is based on the 1872 edition. The reading of the first uncredited edition is probably what was reviewed in 1949).
Thoughts? I primarily would like to get Rtrace's opinion since this solution involves changing his (her? Sorry I'm bad with names) verified pub. - Thanks Kevin 03:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This all sounds workable and I agree that pointing the 1949 review to the 1872 Jane Webb Loudon title (assuming I'm understanding the final disposition correctly... anyway, the parent title) makes the most sense. Bleiler was certainly aware of the 1872 edition at the time the 1949 review was published and it's really more of an essay about the work rather than a specific edition.
Well, one could argue that it would be better to use a "name that we are sure has been used on a title page" as the canonical name, but given the convoluted nature of this case, your solution seems workable. Besides, with complex bibliographies sometimes it's better to implement a solution and see whether you like it than to try mapping everything out ahead of time. Ahasuerus 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm Ron, btw, and a he.--Rtrace 13:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, all of our "serious" contributors are male. We have had a few female authors stop by to update their data and some female editors submitted an edit or three, but they never seem to stay. I hope we don't smell! Ahasuerus 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope we do actually, no odour at all would suggest we're non-biological - although maybe Fixer and Dissembler have a scent of solder about them or something? BLongley 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry and Science Fiction

Chemistry and Science Fiction has been approved and "Jack H Stocker" changed to "Jack H. Stocker". The contents-free version of the same book under "Jack Stocker" has been deleted. When you get a chance, could you please review the results and change Short Fiction entries to Essay where appropriate? Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh the joys of cut and pasting from Worldcat (which omits periods) and doing so late at night (which caused me to forget to fix the essays) - Thanks Kevin 17:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that a change has been submitted and approved by Swfritter. The result looks good except that you mush have inadvertently changed the main Chemistry and Science Fiction Non-fiction Title to an Essay, so now this Publication record doesn't have a Non-fiction Title. Keep in mind that Non-fiction pubs need to have a Non-fiction Title just like Novel pubs need to have a Novel Title or else they will not appear on the author's Summary page (see Jack H. Stocker) and the pub won't be linked to any Title at the top of the page. Ahasuerus 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It's just one of those days. (I'm surfing between sessions with the chainsaw cutting up a largish tree in my year) - Thanks again Kevin 19:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Careful with that tree, some of them interpret the law of gravity rather creatively. I have approved the submission and everything looks good -- thanks! Ahasuerus 19:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We dropped the half of the tree that didn't fall on its own on Weds., so its just lots of bent over sawing to cut it up. The problem is, I'm rather top heavy in that position (I'm not out of shape... round is a shape!) and my back is constantly complaining... so I'm taking regular breaks. Kevin 19:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


I believe the Mummy! case indicates that you have a good understanding of the way the database is organized and should have no trouble approving your own submissions and then branching out into approving other editors' submissions. You also actively participate in Rules and Standards discussions, so would you be interested in becoming a moderator? If you are, please read the list of Moderator Qualifications and the Help page at Help:Screen:Moderator and I will nominate you over on the ISFDB:Community Portal. (Think of the fame! the perks! twice the pay of regular editors!) Ahasuerus 20:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be honored! - Kevin 21:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You do know twice zero is still zero? But we will let you have a Secret Decoder Ring. BLongley 21:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of all the adoration and appreciation.. not to mention all the Women!...wait a minute... Oh that's right... I'm already married. I guess I will have to live with the double pay..since its so low... do you think we could get a raise to 3 times?? Kevin 22:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You get double-pay as you're married, I guess. Triple-pay might need a dependent child or something like that? We might have to withdraw the Secret Decoder Ring offer if it interferes with a Wedding Ring though. I'm still single so am happy to take away distractions from the attention from all the ISFDB groupies we have though. I know, it might interfere with my Editing and Moderating time, but I'm willing to make that sacrifice... BLongley 23:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I love that Help Screen - I'm mentioned 6 times in the first example! Ah, a controversial young editor I was in those days. We probably ought to recheck it before we point too many people that way. And make sure current mods are up to date with it too - I know I had to remind our most-active mod it has been updated since we first got guided there. BLongley 21:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mummy!: A Tale of the Twenty-Second Century on Internet Archive

Did you happen to take a look at page 2 of volume 1 on the internet archive? I won't even link to it from here. Them Harvard guys are sure high class.--swfritter 01:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I love finding graffiti in other peoples books... it gives them character. Kevin 02:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There are other things you can find in other people's books too. One time I was entering a 1930s magazine and found a contemporary fanzine budget between its pages. Ahasuerus 03:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost Everyone's Guide to Science

The author of this title should be Gribbin instead of Gribbon. I know this because I just entered another of his titles yesterday and misspelled it also. Synchronicity? MHHutchins 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep - I caught it about 2 minutes after I entered it. Edits already submitted. - Thanks Kevin 03:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)