User talk:MLB/Archive/2012Feb-Jul

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives: February - July 2012


Hello, MLB/Archive/2012Feb-Jul, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!Kraang 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Author data

Your submission to update your author data made no changes. Were there some intended? --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have had work published as "Mark Baumgart". I have only used the name Mark Louis Baumgart for the last twenty years. Sometimes it has been changed by the editor.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The only format the software will accept for dates is Year/Month/Day and it has to be all numbers, otherwise it will change the date to 0000-00-00. I'll change the day part for this. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lovecraft's Weird Mysteries"' #7

The submission adding a record for this title was accepted, but some changes will have to be made to the record in order for it to comply to ISFDB standards. Please read this help page that gives instructions on how to create records.

  • Any work that is not credited should be credited as "uncredited" in the author field. I changed all of the "Anonymous" entries.
Thank you. I have been doing this since I read your notice.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Any untitled work should be disambiguated by adding the name of the publication in which it appears. So "untitled" should be "untitled (Lovecraft's Weird Mysteries #7)". If there are two or more such untitled pieces by the same author/artist, then add a number in brackets starting with the second piece (as in the case of Allen Allen Koszowski's work in this issue.)
Thank you. I have been trying to do this. If I have ever listed Allen Koszowski as Allen Allen Koszowski then I am an idiot. As far as I know there is no such person as Allen Allen Koszowski. It's just Allen Koszowski.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Reviews of anything other than books should not be entered in the Review section of the entry form using the REVIEW type. They should be entered as an ESSAY type in the content section, and use the following format: "Review of [DESCRIPTION and "NAME OF WORK"]". I changed the film review to an essay and titled "Review of the film "The Four Skulls Of Jonathan Drake"".
Thank you. I now know better.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A question: Is the untitled piece on page 41 shortfiction as it was entered. Your note says it's a comic book advertisement. Mhhutchins 18:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a reprint of an old comic book ad with a new caption, I should have treated it as a piece of uncredited artwork as this product is long, long gone.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Another problem: there are three different credits for Grimsley pieces: page 38 as "Mardecai Grimsley", page 38 as "Mordecai Grimsley", and page 46 "Mordecai P. Grimsly". Were all of these entered as published? Mhhutchins 18:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
These were hamfisted mistypes. I went back and corrected the mistakes. There were no listings for Mordecai Grimsly or Mordecai P. Grimsly in the eighth issue. I suspect Grimsly was just another pseudonym for editor Navroth.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lovecraft's Weird Mysteries #8

This record was accepted into the database, but there are a few problems which I'll correct for you.

  • The NONFICTION type is reserved for book-length work. Shorter pieces that are included in a larger work should be typed ESSAY. So I've corrected the type for An Allen K Bestiary.
Thank you, you are correct. Perhaps a listing somewhere for "gallery" to include multiple pieces of artwork bound together as a folio of some kind, or short included comic strips, or comic stories? These types of illustrations are so rarely titled, or are often retitled.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I could find no publication titled "Book of Dark Wisdom" other than a fanzine. If it is, I'll remove the REVIEW type and change it to an ESSAY. Only use the review section of the publication entry form to add reviews of books. Any other review (films, comics, recordings, magazines) should be entered in the content section as essays, titled in the form "Review of Ridley Scott's film "Alien"" (for example). Let me know what this publication is so that I can decide which type it should be entered as.
I don't know. It is merely listed as a one paragraph review of "Book of Dark Wisdom". No details other than a recommendation, a notation of its existence, and a brief listing of some of its contents were listed. No details of whether or not even if it is a book, a magazine, or a fanzine. I listed it to be complete in my listings. Fanzines seem to be often fast and loose with publishing details.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There was only one interior art record by Linda Narvoth for the story "A Breath of Magick", so it should not have been titled with the "[2]" appendix.
Thank you, I'm sorry.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The price field should include a currency symbol, so I assume "5.00" is in dollars so I changed it to "$5.00".
Yes, five dollars.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the questions here on your talk page. Just click on the [edit] link, which opens a dialog box into which you can respond. End your message with four tildes (~~~~) which will sign and date it. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 19:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead or Alive

I've accepted the submission adding this record to the database, but made some changes based on ISFDB standards (see the Help link in the Welcome section above.)

  • Changed the ISBN-10 to ISBN-13, based on the Amazon listing's "Look-Inside" feature.
  • Added the cover art credit, again from Amazon
  • Added a link to the cover image on Amazon

A question: is there a printed price on the book? I'm assuming you have a copy. If so, please do a primary verification of the record (instructions linked in the Welcome section.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just after I bought mine at a discount on Amazon (a review is posted there) it went out-of-print on that site. There is no price on the book, I believe it is print-on-demand. I got the price from the Absolute Tyrant website which seems to be still selling them new.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, just after I accepted your first submission and wrote the above message, I went back to the queue to find another one for the same pub, but with a different author (David Harris), which doesn't match the Amazon listing. In the future, if you find you've made a mistake, you can always cancel a submission before the moderator gets to it. Go to the link "My Pending Edits" under the left-side "Logged In" menu and you cancel any submissions that haven't been handled yet. There are other problems with the second record, other than the wrong author. The link you gave was to the Amazon listing. You should get the URL of the actual image, not the URL of the page on which it is displayed. Just right click on the image and choose "Copy image URL", and then paste it into the image URL field. I'm going to take the price that you added to this record and add it to the first record. I'll give you a chance to look at the second record before I delete it. Mhhutchins 19:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete it. Thank you.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Your attempt to clone the miscredited record has been rejected. Once a record's in the database, you can either delete it or edit it. Cloning it only creates a new record. I've gone ahead and deleted the record you created that credited "David Harms", and have brought all the data over to the original record. Mhhutchins 16:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Submissions placed on hold

I'm holding all your submissions until you've responded here on your user talk page. There are several issues with each of them, and I'd like to talk them over with you. None so bad that they can't be repaired, and nothing that I can't fix myself. I just need to let you know what they are so you can avoid them in future submissions. Thanks for contributing. Hope to hear from you soon. Mhhutchins 16:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am irritated that I'm getting so much wrong. I'm new at this, but that's no excuse for my sloppiness. I'll try harder in the future.MLB 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason to kick yourself, because there is so much to learn at the start. I promise it will become easier the longer you stay here, but at the beginning the learning curve is rather steep. My best piece of advice is that you look over this page. Bookmark it. It is your friend. It has almost everything you need to know about updating and creating records on the ISFDB. The important thing is that you've found your talk page, so that we can communicate with each other about the submissions. I'm going to start working on each of your submissions that I have on hold. Please keep your eye on the link "My Messages" when you're logged into the database. If it's highlighted yellow, it means there have been new messages left since the last time you visited the page. So if you're ready to dig in, I'll start working on your submissions. And again, thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 22:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
You have corrected me on numerous issues, sadly some of my submissions might have some of the same stupid mistakes (More Tales to Tremble By comes to mind). Now that I know better, I would never make these mistakes. I'm embarrassed. MLB 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't be. I'm be giving you help on the other submissions that are currently on hold. They'll be handled in a separate message at the bottom of this page. Mhhutchins 19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bitter End: Tales of Nautical Terror

I have your submission creating a new record for this title, but there is already a record of the publication in the database. You should have edited this record before adding a new record, which not only creates a new pub record, but a duplicate title record. Don't worry, you'll get to know the difference between the two major types of records before long: pub records are records of books, title records are records of works. One title record can have multiple pub records under it. Isaac Asimov's I, Robot has one title record, and dozens of pub records indicating the books that published the work, including this pub record for the first edition.

Back to the submission. I see you've added the contents (in reality, the title records of the stories which are contained in this anthology). So, I'm not going to reject the submission because of the fine effort you made in adding them. I will accept the submission and then merge the newly created title record with the one existing in the db. Then I'll delete the old record.

There's a few other problems with the submission:

  1. You gave both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. I assume that both are given in the book. If so, then only give the ISBN-13. If only one is given in the book, you should have given that one in the field. The system automatically displays both when you view the pub record, but the editor should only enter what is actually stated in the book itself.
I have eliminated the ISBN-10 and I have kept the ISBN-13. MLB 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. You credit two artists in the single "Cover Artist" field, when you should only credit one person (or entity) per field. If more than one artist (or author, or editor) is credited click the button "Add Artist" (or "Add Author") and enter the second person's credit in the new field.
I have corrrected this (I hope). MLB 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. The URL you entered in the "Image URL" field was to the Amazon webpage displaying the image. You should have only entered the URL of the image. Let me know if you need instructions on how to get an image's URL.
Yes, I need instructions. I have just downloaded the paperback version's cover to Richard Lewis' (Alan Radnor) novel Possessed to Amazon and it can now be used for this site, not being an expert in this, this site's instructions can be confusing. MLB 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. (These instructions apply to capturing the URL of any image on the internet and are not ISFDB specific. But remember, we have to have permission to link to images. Don't do this on websites for which we don't have permission.)
When you're looking for a matching cover on Amazon, you'll see that some of them have a link to "See Larger Image". Left click on that link and you're carried to the larger image. Place your cursor on the image and then right click. A menu will pop-up. Choose "Copy image URL". Now go to the ISDFB record that matches the image whose URL you just copied. Choose "Edit This Pub". In the field labeled "Image URL", paste the URL you just copied (hit CTRL and V at the same time on your keyboard). Then submit.
Now sometimes you'll see the "Zoom" feature on Amazon images. Just right click and copy the URL, and remove the extra characters between the periods. And sometimes you'll see the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon images. Do the same thing: place your mouse's cursor over the image, right click, copy the URL...but there are MANY more characters between the two periods, all of which should be removed before you copy the URL into the ISFD record.
So to be specific about this record, go to the amazon image page Right click on the image, copy the URL which is You'll notice there are two periods in this URL and characters between the two of them. This is Amazon's way of adding a frame around the image. We don't want that, so we'll remove that part of the URL (all the characters between the periods, leaving only one period), so that it becomes This is the URL that you enter into the record's Image URL field. Mhhutchins 19:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accepted the submission and ask that you make the corrections. Here's a link to the new record. If you need assistance, just ask here. (When you respond to a wiki message, you should add a colon (:) at the start of your message. This will indent it, separating it from the previous message and make it easier to read the "conversation" between the parties. Add one more colon for each additional message.) Mhhutchins 22:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Man-Eater by E. R. Burroughs

Hello, MLB! You can change the data of a publication without mentioning anybody if it is not primary verified (and this is not). If you have a copy of the publication in your hands you are the one who can tell best of it's contents! If it is primary verified it is best to ask the verifier(s) first, if they can say 'Yes' to your proposed changes. If you just add some content or a cover image that was omissed so far, you can do so, but should inform the primary verifier(s) after the additions. Thanks for your contributions! Stonecreek 11:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do have a copy of this in my grubby little hands. MLB 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Submission accepted. I will unmerge the pub from its current title record and variant it. When you get a chance please work on the record from the message immediately before this one. After you've done that, I'll start on another one of your submissions that I have on hold. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what else on The Bitter End: Tales of Nautical Terror you want be to do. I have eliminated the ISBN-10 number and kept the ISBN-13 number which is listed on the copyright page. Until I get the basics down without incident, and as I am unsure as how to use the Image URL function, I have eliminated everything in that field that I did. I will try the Image URL function sometime in the future. I have also seperated the two artists into two seperate listings as you asked. Other than to do a verification of The Man Eater, I am unsure as to what else that you want me to do. Please let me know. I'm new at this and I want to know. I collected fanzines and anthologies since the sixties and I have several hundred fanzines, semi-prozines, and obscure prozines in my collection. The information on which I'm sure that you might be interested in. Thank you so far for your patience. MLB 18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've given you instructions in the above message about copying Amazon's URLs. If you're able to scan your books, you can upload the images to the ISFDB server. BTW, it's best to keep messages of the same topic together. So click on the [edit] link for the message that you're responding to. Don't click on "Edit this page". Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, please do a primary verification of The Man Eater. Mhhutchins 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding content to nongenre books

We allow nongenre books into the database only under certain predetermined circumstances. (Nongenre means books that are not spec-fic or spec-fic related nonfiction books, i.e. not science fiction, horror, or fantasy). The book was written by an author of note in the field, or an author who is primarily known for his spec-fic work, or an author whose majority of work is in the spec-fic genre. When we do accept these nongenre books into the database, we only create records for the title, but not for their contents. For example, we would allow a record for a book of mystery stories edited by someone prominent in the sf field. But we would not add the contents of that book, which are mystery stories by writers who have done little or no sf work. We would allow a content record for any of those mystery stories that also have an sf, horror or fantasy element.

All of this leads to the submission adding a record for When the Husband Is the Suspect. Because Jean Rabe has published many books in the field, it's OK to create a record for the book, but we cannot allow the contents that you've added to the record. If I accepted the submission, I'd have to go back and delete each of the content records. Instead, I'll reject the submission and recreate you submission, but without the content records.

In the future it is best to ask a question on one of the community pages, before going through the effort that may be fruitless in the end. Click on the community portal link on any of the wiki pages, and you'll find a list of the major community pages, each have a specific purpose and will determine on which to post your question. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention. Use the NONFICTION type to enter books (such as When the Husband Is the Suspect) which are not fiction. Use the NONGENRE type to enter books which are any kind of fiction other than spec-fic and its various related genres. Mhhutchins 05:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I'm kinda surprised that you accepted it. I just thought that I'd offer it to you because Jean Rabe name was attached to it. This book has seen several editions, but the only one that I own is the large-print one. MLB 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you want me to do a verification on any book that I own? MLB 18:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please do a verification of this record. I also created a record for the first edition. (And the only reason it was accepted was because of Rabe's involvement.) Mhhutchins 19:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding new records to the database

I'm holding a submission adding a new publication for The House on Hackman's Hill by Joan Lowery Nixon. It was entered using the "Add New Novel" function. This function should only be used if the title is not already in the database. You should first do a search for the author and look for the title of the book. Once you've found the title, click on it and choose the "Add Publication to This Title" function. This way, the record you create will be added to the list of publications. By choosing the "Add New Novel" function, you're creating a new title record as well as a new publication record. I'll accept the submission adding the Scholastic Apple edition of the title, and then merge its title record with the one already in the database.

This will not happen again. MLB 09:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A question: how is the publisher given in the book. Is it "An Apple Paperback, published by Scholastic", or something like "Published by Scholastic Apple"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It says on the inside "An Apple Paperback" published by Scholastic, Inc. I'm supposing that this is like "A Penquin Puffin" book published by Penguin Books. Locus listed these books as Scholastic/Apple in their forthcoming sections. MLB 09:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So "Apple" is the imprint and the publisher is Scholastic. We enter books that give both in this format "Imprint / Publisher" (note the spaces surrounding the slash). So the record's publisher should be "Apple / Scholastic". I'll update the record. Mhhutchins 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The record is now in the database. I've corrected the link to the image on Amazon. Is it the same on your book? Also, please check the printing data from the book's copyright page. Is there a number line indicating the printing as well as an edition statement? Scholastic has a very strange system to indicate a book's printing. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 19:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the image is the same as mine, such is the benefit of buying books for my young nieces. The number line is 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 then lots of white space and then 1 2 3 4 5/0. I could not figure this out so I used the "First Scholastic printing, October 1990" line that was on the copywrite page. MLB 09:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Your copy is not the first printing. It's the 6th printing, and it was printed in 2001, according to the number line. I'll update the record. Please look it over to see how it's displayed, and then do a primary verification of the record. Mhhutchins 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Working with series

I have a submission to add a new record for Dark Seduction by Kathleen Korbel. The publisher should be given just as "Silhouette" and not "Silhouette (Silhouette Nocturne)". "Silhouette Nocturne" is a publication series and is entered in that field of the publication record, along with the number (if there is one) in the next field. In the submission you give "Daughter of the Myth" and "2" in the publication series and series number field. These are title series, not publication series. Here's a link to a help page that explains the difference between a publication series (a series as defined by the publisher, not the author and may not have any relation to other books in the same publication series) and a title series (a series that is solely defined by the author, who has chosen a common setting, or characters, or a continuation of an earlier work.) Publication series are entered in pub record updates, while title series are entered only in title records. I've accepted your submission and made the necessary changes. Please take a chance to look at this pub record, this title record, the author's summary page and the publisher's series to see how the different series are displayed. A question: we have the title series as "Daughters of Myth". Do you think it should be "Daughter of Myth"? Is that stated on the pub anywhere? Mhhutchins 20:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I will read that page for future references. No, I have all three books, and all three clearly say on their covers "Daughters of Myth". On the first book "Dangerous Temptation" it is on the back cover, on "Dark Deduction" and "Deadly Redemption" it is stamped prominately of the front cover under the book's title. On the back covers to the books there is a "Daughters Of Myth" logo with the blurb "Three daughters hath the Fairy Queen, three heirs who long for love unseen." I guess that should have gone in the notes box, but as you can see, Daughters is clearly plural on all three. MLB 10:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So we had it correct. Thanks for the confirmation. Mhhutchins 19:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Horror at Fontenay

I've accepted your submission adding a record of this title to the database, but have made some changes.

  • We don't credit the translator in the author field, so I removed that and kept the credit in the pub's note field. I've also credited the translator in the note field of the title record.
  • I've disambiguated the preface by adding the title of the book parenthetically. We do this for common (generically-titled) records. So it's now "Preface (Horror at Fontenay)".
  • As you've brought up in the Note to Moderator, "50p" should have been entered as "£0.50" Please use £ instead of ₤. It's entered by holding the ALT key and typing 0163 in the numerical keypad of the keyboard. And we add a leading zero, if it's less than 1, so a 75 cent book would be entered as "$0.75".
  • And I removed the extra content record you created for the novel. You don't have to do this with novels. The system automatically creates a content record when you add a new novel to the db. So only create content records for additional content, such as interior artwork, introductions, maps, etc.

Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

More Tales to Tremble By

I had to reject the submission creating a new record for this title, because there was already a record in the database. I've updated it based on your submission. Please look it over to see if it matches your copy and then do a primary verification. A couple of questions: is the introduction by Sutton titled (on its page, not the contents page) as "A Word to Midnight Readers" without using "introduction" in the title? Also, the previous record had the catalog number as #1629. Is this number visible anywhere on your copy? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The word Introduction is not used in Sutton's introductory essay, and the essay is not listed on the contents page. You have to find it by reading the anthology. Yes, the catalogue number is #1629, it is in the right-hand corner of the back cover. On the copywrite page there is the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-25322. MLB 10:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
On the spine there is a box in which the word "Classics" is printed. In an advertisement at the back of the anthology there is a list of Whitman Classics. I don't know if this is an official imprint (like Airmont Classics) or just something unofficial. Other genre works listed as Whitman Classics are Tales to Tremble By, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, The War of the Worlds, and Alice in Wonderland. All books listed in ad, but not seen by me. I don't know if this helps or muddies the waters. I guess I should have noted this in the Note Field. MLB 10:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that Whitman Classics is not used on either the title page or the copywrite page. MLB 10:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You were right to use "Whitman Publishing Company" instead of "Whitman Classics" which sounds like either an imprint or a publication series. I'll update the record to add the LCCN to the note field. This isn't mandatory, but it's very helpful to some users. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Since I own this book and it isn't going anywhere for a while, do you want me to verify this anthology? And should I always inquire before I verify anything? MLB 13:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A Question Is Answered

Hello, MLB! No need to worry! You are asking the right questions, just the place to ask them would have been better this one, for example.

For me, this seems to be a later printing of the book. Please take a look on the copyright page of the book if there is a statement of printing or a number line (for the first printing this could be '10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1', whereas it would be '10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3' for the third printing in this case, for example. If it is a later printing you can submit a new publication via the 'Add publication to this title' button on the level of the title.

Regarding the ISBNs: Yes, 9-780152-163532 is the ISBN-13 (it is interdependent with the ISBN-10, and so, 0-15-216353-0 should be the corresponding and right ISBN-10; it'd be the same ISBN as in the 2001 edition). Also, take into regard if this is also a trade paperback (tp). Stonecreek 18:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. There is nothing like what you mentioned on the copywrite page. The closest thing that you mention is [Fic]-de20 several spaces then 90-21060. Then there is PZ7.V2773Us white space, white space, then 1991. I bought this in a bargain bin at Borders before the great collapse. Could this be a promotional review/reading copy?
The book is the size of an old British paperback. The same height, but a mere quarter inch wider than an American paperback, so I don't think that it qualifies as a trade paperback. MLB 13:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, with this sparse information it could in fact be anything. If there's no additional information I'd turn it into a publication with unknown publication date '0000-00-00', as here in a collection by Bradbury. Unfortunately, it is quite common to give no printing date for higher printings, and other sources (as Locus, for example) also tend to neglect them. A promotional copy is quite often stated as such, but nevertheless a possibility. Maybe you'd be able to give a note that states 'Assumed higher printing, no publication date stated.' with your submission (or what you feel has the greatest probability). Thanks for taking a look. Stonecreek 15:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I responded to the question that MLB asked here about the same publication. Perhaps reading my response would help. :) The question got lost on the page because it was added to the topic immediately preceding it. Mhhutchins 17:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


You asked: "Costello clearly says that this novel is a novelization of a screenplay by Brenan Deneen & Vince Mitchell. A screenplay based on Costello's earlier short story. Should this be noted in the note field?" - the quick answer is yes. We can also set the Storylen of the title to "nvz" which makes it display as "novelization". BLongley 14:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-ISBN catalog numbers

When a publication has a catalog number, and no ISBN, enter that number in the Catalog #/ISBN field preceded by the number sign (#). I've corrected the way it's entered in Strangely Enough!. I've also corrected the title you gave in the title field, since in your note to the moderator you say that "(Abridged)" does not appear on its title page. And I've added the Library of Congress cataloging number to the note field. A couple of questions: is there a stated date of publication (not a copyright year)? ^0 cents for a paperback in 1959 was way too high. Also, please recheck the catalog number. Popular Library started using pre-ISBN numbering in 1997 and their publisher number was 445, not 45. Based on the numbering and the price, I'd put the publication date sometime around 1969-1970. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No. There is only a copywrite date. It is unclear as to whether or not this pertains to the original hardcover or the later paperback. Having lived through the sixties and seventies I can state that Popular was throwing out a lot of these type of trivia/factoid cash grab books onto the market. I must have about a dozen of them. This book is my late father's however, and while I own a copy of the Scholastic version, it is in storage. Popular was, I believe, on it's last legs at this time so they were getting sloppy with their documentation. This may actually be the same book as the Scholastic one, only a comparison of the contents would tell. Even the Library of Congress number may be suspect, it may actually pertain to the original hardcover. Buried on the last page, right under the last paragraph of the last story is a cryptic "11-70". Could this be a printing date added by the printer?
My Dad's copy was extremely mangled, so their publisher number was cobbled together from two sources on the book. So, you are probably right, so the corrected number would then be 445-02573-060. The 060 is the price ($0.60), right?
The author's bio states that Colby was also an illustrator and newspaper columnist. These stories may have originally appeared in newspapers and the cover art, a series of six different illustrations, may also be by him. Do you want an abreviated version on this in the notes section? MLB 08:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Many paperback publishers failed, or chose not, to provide a publication date, especially in the 60s. Popular Library and Fawcett were notorious. But you did find a printing date code, which we can use to date this record. And as usual, the source should be noted. I'll update the record. About the LCCN, at one time only hardcover publishers applied for Library of Congress numbers (maybe the LoC didn't want paperbacks in their collection?), but nothing stopped paperback reprinters from using the LCCN on their editions. This led some people to believe that the LCCN recorded titles, not publications. Not true. Any publisher can apply for an LCCN for every edition of every title if they want to spend the extra money to do so. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Twisted Tales

I have the submission adding a paperback edition of this title. You ask "The copywrite [copyright] page lists the numbers 90 89 88 87 then white space then 5 4 3 2 1. Does this mean that this is the fifth edition and is dated 1990?" No. Your copy is the first printing of 1987. I'll make the correction and accept the submission. You actually should have cloned this record which included the contents. I'll make another submission to import the contents from the other record. When you get a chance see if the contents and pages match your copy. Mhhutchins 18:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the record you added. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The contents and pages are identical. Has anybody ever seen the tp version? A promotional copy perhaps? MLB 08:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Locus has a copy of the trade paperback in their Books Received listing. But there are no copies available for sale on May be a rare item. Mhhutchins 05:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Showboat World

Hello! It is perfectly OK for you to change the contents and/or metadata of this book. It has been verified only against secondary sources (Locus & WorldCat), who don't always take account of the cover artist. It has not been primary verified, that is by someone who actually owns this publication, so you are free to be the first primary verifier and add the cover artist. It'd be nice to add to the notes where in the book the cover artist is stated. Thanks for your submissions! Stonecreek 11:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Pub Series vs. Title Series

Hi. I accepted your submission of edits to Fire, but I moved the series information from the publication to the title (I also added Water to it). The "Pub Series" field is for a publication series, which usually will be publisher-specific. A rule of thumb is to ask yourself: "If this were published by someone else, would the series remain?". If the answer to that is "no", you likely have a publication series that should be recorded in the Pub Series field. Examples are often things like "Horror Classics" or "American Masters" -- the works within the series are not related by premise/plot/character/setting content. If the answer to that is "yes", you have a title series that should be recorded in the Series field of the title. The subtly of this distinction, combined with the easy visibility of the publication's Pub Series versus the obscurity of title's Series, bites just about everyone who wants to record series information, so you're in very good company. I hope that makes sense. If you have any questions or need help with the next series information you want to record, you can reply here or post a note on my talk page. Thanks. --MartyD 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. MLB 12:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Five Victorian Ghost Novels

I've accepted the submission updating this record, but ask that you retitle the interior art records so that they match the title of the work which they illustrate. The first piece should be titled "The Amber Witch", while the second and later records should be titled "The Amber Witch [2]", "The Amber Witch [3]", etc. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If your copy has a different price, it may be a later printing. Is there a printing statement or number line on the copyright page? If not, you can clone this record, zeroing out the date (as 0000-00-00), changing the price to the one that matches your copy, and then, once it's accepted, verify the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Entering pubs with multiple content records

You mention that you had trouble entering a record for this magazine. I find it best to break-up the entry of publications with this many records into several submissions. This will prevent your having to retype a lot of information if you have a glitch before making a final submission. Just let us know in the "Note to Moderator" field that the record is incomplete and that you will be adding more content once the submission is accepted. And that last point is very important: you must wait until the submission is accepted before making another attempt to update the record, otherwise data will not be complete. BTW, I changed the author credit of the review of Savage Menace and Other Poems. We only credit authors for single-author collections, not the editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I also removed the editor credit for the Shirley Jackson collections, the Joe R. Lansdale collection, and the credit for Michael Kelahan on the author collections that he edited. Mhhutchins 05:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
That I did not know. As far as the editor credit is concerned, I was just trying to be thorough. I could have put that in the Note field, but I thought that I packing in too much detail in there as it was. MLB 06:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fangs of Evil

Hi. I accepted your Fangs of Evil submission but made a couple of changes and have a question and have an answer. Sorry. :-) It looks to me like "Bullseye Chiller" is not an imprint, but rather is a publisher series ("A Bullseye ChillerTM published by Random House"), so I changed the publisher to be just Random House, and moved Bullseye Chiller to the Pub. Series field. I also copied the information about the number line ("10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" means first printing -- each new printing strips off the previous printing's number, so the lowest number remaining tells you what printing it is; for example, "10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3" would be a third printing) from your note to the moderator.

The other change I made is that you used CHAPTERBOOK for the publication, but then made it contain a NOVEL. CHAPTERBOOK is used only for book publication of short fiction. So either the CHAPTERBOOK should contain a short story/novelette/novella, or the whole thing should be a NOVEL and not a CHAPTERBOOK. I've left it a CHAPTERBOOK and changed the story title to a novella. If you think it should be a NOVEL instead, let me know and I will convert the entry. We normally use NOVEL for works of 40,000 or more words, but for works aimed at younger audiences we do use NOVEL for shorter things (then assigning a special length of "jvn" to the title). From what little I can find about it, this sounds more young-adult oriented, so applying the adult work standard is probably appropriate.

As for your question about crediting, if only Steiber is credited, that's how it should be recorded. We don't (yet) have a way to show/record derivation relationships between titles. Translations are a special exception to that (we treat translations as a work by the original author), but this one does not sound like a translation. --MartyD 12:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that if you took all the large type and reduced it to normal size, took away all of the white space (super-wide margins) you'd have something that might resemble a thirty or forty page novelette. I'd keep it as a novella. But that would be your call. MLB 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Prisoner in the Opal

This publication which you verified contains two content records for The Prisoner in the Opal. One with a page number and dated 1928 and one without a page number and dated 1974. I'm assuming there is only one version of the novel in this publication and the one without a page number should be deleted. Is that correct? -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a reprint of a 1928 novel (of which I know nothing), I only own the paperback reprint which I listed. The one without a page number and has a listed date of 1974 is entered automatically by the site, I think. However, the paperback is dated 1974, the novel is copywrited 1928.
Okay, I removed the bogus 1974 title record so now it shows correctly that it's the 1974 publication of a novel first published in 1928. I don't know the steps you took so I cannot give specific advice to avoid this, but I'd guess you added a new 1928 title record to the publication record when instead the original title record should have been edited to change it from 1974 to 1928. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Egypt Game

A few problems with the submission to add the 1996 Yearling pb printing to this title.

  • First, the title already exists in the db. You should have gone to this title record and clicked on "Add Publication to This Title". When you use the "Add New Novel" function, you not only create a new publication record, you also create a new title record. In order for all of the publications of this title to appear on the same page, you would then have to merge the two title records. So it's best to look for the title first and use the "Add Publication to This Title" function. If you can't find the title in the db, only then use the "Add New Novel" function.
  • You've entered the publisher as "Yearling / Yearling Newbery". This form of publisher indicates that the first part (preceding the slash) is the imprint, and the second name (after the slash) is the publisher. Please double check how the book is credited. I believe "Yearling" was an imprint of Dell. Also, Newberry (not "Newbery") is the name of a children's book award, not a publisher. In this case, it may also be a publication series from Yearling.
  • In the ISBN field you give "0-440-22-25-4" which is one number short from being a valid ISBN.
  • In the note field, you use the word "copywrite", and you've used it consistently throughout your edits. Please be aware that the correct word is "copyright".
  • You should not create a content record for any non-sf content. So the excerpt should be removed and deleted from the record. If these are the extra pages in the page count field, they should also be removed. You can always record the excerpt in the note field, giving the name and page count there.
  • And the biggest problem, which you've done in the past, is to add a content record for the novel. You don't have to do this, actually you shouldn't do it. The system automatically creates a content record for novel-type records. This extra title record will have to be removed from the record and deleted.

Please let me know if you're up to making these changes. If not, I can fix them for you. Mhhutchins 19:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have corrected what you ask. Yes, this is a Yearling Book. On the copyright page it says 'Bantam Doubleday Dell', quite a mess. However, it clearly says on the front cover and on the spine of the novel "Yearling Newbery". It spells Newberry with one 'r' on the inside front cover, on the inside back cover, the back cover, and on the excerpt page. I didn't misspell it, I copied it verbatum from the book itself. This edition of the book may only have offered through the Schoolastic Book Club. Maybe I should make a note of the misspelling in the note field. I am an idiot. I will NOT misspell copyright again. MLB 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It quite clearly says on the copyright page 'Two previous editons' but then the number line is 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 which means this is the first printing, right? Does the 'two previous editions' mean other publishers? This book is copyrighted '1967'. Printing histories are confusing. MLB 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Even publishers can't keep track of what they've published! That's why they need us bibliographers, but heaven knows they never listen to us. It looks like your copy is from the first printing of a new edition. Mhhutchins 21:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
And now I'm showing my ignorance. The award is actually spelled "Newbery". Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Mhhutchins 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tales of Edgar Allan Poe

Can you recheck the page numbers of the interior art records in the record? The piece on page 79 appears to be out-of-order. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected it. The illustration was on page 70 instead of 79. MLB 22:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombie Pulp

You entered the contents in this collection as by "Tim Curan". I'm assuming this is an error, because the book is credited to Tim Curran. Mhhutchins 19:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The idiots are ruling the roost around here. Yes, it is Tim Curran. MLB 22:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Downloading an Image

I've tried downloading an image that I've scanned from the book Possessed by Richard Lewis, the paperback Futura copy. Not being a computer engineer I got lost in the instructions. I got as far as PSSSSDLBNJ1983.jpg then... After an hour I now have a headache, too much thinking, and I need to lie down for a while. MLB 14:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This question should have been asked at the Help Desk. It's not likely that anyone who could answer it would have seen it by posting it on your own talk page...unless someone like me had come here to post a message for you.
So the image is now own the ISFDB server. Linking it to the record is fairly straightforward and relatively simple. When the image was uploaded you were automatically sent to its newly-created wiki page. Now place you cursor on the image and left click. You should now see the image as a file without a web page. The URL (internet address) of this file is visible in your browser's address window: You should copy this URL and then paste it into the Image URL field when you do an edit of this record. (Let me know if you need help on how to copy and paste.) Mhhutchins 17:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Using the Note to Moderator field to ask questions

You made a submission to "update" this record, but you've made no changes in it. did ask a question in the Note to Moderator field. This is not a good idea. The purpose of this field is to provide the moderator additional information to aid him in the decision to accept or reject the submission. It is better to ask questions on one of several different community pages: for general questions on adding and updating records go to the Help Desk, to get the attention of a moderator about a specific submission go to the Moderator Noticeboard, and to begin a discussion about the ISFDB standards go to the Rules & Standards Discussions page. By asking your questions on these pages, you are more likely to get a quicker response to your inquiry because these pages are available for everyone to view and respond. Questions asked in a submission are only seen by the one moderator who chooses to work on it.

Now, to your question: My copy is identical to the one on this site EXCEPT it has a completely different cover, same artist though, and a different title ('Megawar'). The number line (10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1) indicates that this is a first printing (right?). How do you list this? Is this a cover variant?

If you look at the record, you see it has not been verified at all, and specifically not primary verified. The image for the cover is provided by Amazon, which may have the cover of another printing of the title. Feel free to update the record if your copy matches in all other respects. Mhhutchins 16:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may never get all the fineries of this site's rules down right. I'll try not to do it again. MLB 11:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
But no, you are already on your way! Just look at my talk page - I've made the same and some more mistakes in the beginning! Thanks for your contribution! Stonecreek 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Megawar or Megawar of the Worlds ?

Hello, I rejected your submission for two reasons: 1) The note you kindly added doesn't belong to the publication but to the title - it is relevant for all publications of the title, not only for this one. 2) The cover image clearly depicts the longer version, so what is the basis for the shorter version? Stonecreek 13:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The basis is that I was holding in my hands a copy of the novel. Nowhere on or in the book is the long title mentioned. The cover says "Megawar. The blazing new novel by David Cian." The cover is also different, although the same artist is credited. My number line cites this as a first edition. Everything else is identical. I actually asked about this earlier and was told that my copy might be the final edition as nobody else had verified the book. I too have seen this advertised as Megawar of the Worlds, but that's not what my copy says. I'm puzzled by the whole thing. MLB 07:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I read the above item only after rejecting your submission. Please resubmit. Stonecreek 10:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the listing again. Amazon has changed their title to Megawar, but they have kept the wrong cover. MLB 13:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-genre magazines

We only enter non-genre magazines if they have at least one content of spec-fic, and that's the only content record allowed into the record. I rejected the submission to add an issue of Filmfax. In the future please ask on one of the community pages before going through the time and effort to create a record for a publication that you're not sure qualifies for the db. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I just thought that the article by sf artist Vincent Di Fate, the interview with and article on sf & fantasy artist Greg Hilderbrant, and the article on sf writer John Russell Fearn, all of whom are represented on your pages might be of interest. I have a number of non-genre magazines with spec-fic content. Now I know better. Thanks for the note. MLB 08:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
These spec-fic related pieces are not fiction, and that is the current criterion for adding records for non-genre magazines. It's a slippery slope to start allowing non-fiction work (although sf related) into the db. This would lead to creating records for an issue of TV Guide that has an article about the future of television written by Asimov. Mhhutchins 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I see by your home page that Hans Thirring was born today. I guess I now know who the pulp Thirring Wonder Stories was named after. MLB 08:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
:) Mhhutchins 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
What about magazines like The Paperback Collector which often feature articles about science fiction or fantasy books? Or hero pulps or hero pulp reprints which feature fantasy elements? I have a near complete run of G-8 and His Battle Aces reprints, each lead novel has heavy fantasy or sf elements (monsters, super-science, very mad scientists, etc.) however the rest is non-genre aviation fiction. Should I just list the lead novel and mention the rest in the notes section? MLB 10:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Non-fiction magazines that specialize in speculative fiction (like Locus) are absolutely allowed into the db. If The Paperback Collector only occasionally deals with sf, then it would not qualify. The lead novels in the hero pulps that have fantasy elements are allowed into the website, but you should only mention the non-genre stories in the note field. Do not create content records for non-genre work. They have slipped into the db, for example, when an anthology, let's say one "edited" by Alfred Hitchcock, is entered into the db, the editor should make sure that only the spec-fic pieces are entered in the contents. They do not always do that, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Mhhutchins 18:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding a publication for a title that's already in the db

As I pointed out earlier, you should not use the "Add New Novel" function if the title is already in the database. You've done the same thing with Percy's The Thanatos Syndome.

A good rule of thumb: don't use any of the "Add New..." functions before you look for the title. Here's the path I recommend:

  • Is the exact title and by the same author in the database?
    • Yes: Is there a similar pub?
      • Yes: Use the "Clone" function.
      • No: Use the "Add Publication to This Title" function.
    • No: Use the appropriate "Add New..." function.

I'll accept the submission and then merge its title record with the one already in the database.

Now about the submission: this is most definitely a book club edition, one printed by the Quality Paperback Book Club. I'll make the proper adjustments. One question: what is meant by the page count "372 +vii, viii"? Usually roman-numeraled pages appear before the numbered pages as in "vii+372". What is the extra "viii"? I'm also going to correct the interiorart record. All interiorart records should be titled the same as the work they illustrate. Can the page number for the art be determined by counting forward or backward from the closest roman-numeraled page? Mhhutchins 18:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read in the note field that the interiorart record you created was for a photo of the author. We don't create records for author photos. I'll remove it and delete the record from the db. Mhhutchins 18:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Kinberra Down

Hi MLB, Yes, I would change this one to be a CHAPTERBOOK.

Also, a lot of new publications are added to ISFDB by compilation from Amazon (& some other sources). When you are updating from a physical copy, it is a good idea to remove the "Data from Amazon ..." (Physical copy trumps Amazon!) (or update it to "Month and day from Amazon ..." if that data isn't in the physical copy.) --clarkmci / j_clark 09:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I accepted the submission changing this publication record to a CHAPTERBOOK, but then had to change the title record to match, and add a content for the novella of the same name. (This is the standard procedure for changing a NOVEL record into a CHAPTERBOOK record.) Mhhutchins 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Last Stand in a Dead Land

I accepted the submission updating this record but standardized the capitalization in the title and corrected the spelling of "copyright". Mhhutchins 18:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thrilling Mystery, March 1936 facsimile

I have your submission to update this record and have a few questions. Is this an exact facsimile of the original with no new material? Is John P. Gunnison credited anywhere in the publication as the editor of this reprint? Also, we have several records for an artist named simply Parkhurst, and I'm wondering if Harry Lemon Parkhurst whom you credit for several interiorart records might be the same illustrator. Is the name "Harry Lemon Parkhurst" mentioned anywhere at all in the issue or did you derive the name based solely on the signature? You asked whether the binding should be changed from "tp" to "pulp". Unless this reprint is printed on pulp paper with ragged edges and side-stapled with glued covers, it's best to leave it as "tp". I'm going to accept the submission but might have to make a few adjustments based on the answers to these questions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Gunnison is not credited anywhere as the editor. He is the publisher of Adventure House so that may be where the credit comes from. He is the editor of High Adventure and the G-8 reprints, as these are true anthologies and are often trunciated versions of the pulps that he is reprinting. As far as I can tell, most of his pulp reprints are exact reprintings, compared to the few pulps that he's reprinted that I own. He even reprints the ads and coming attractions from these pulps.
I got the Harry Lemon Parkurst from two places. A web search reveals that a Harry Lemon Parkhurst was not only turning out covers and illustrations for the pulp market at this time, but that he had no relatives doing artwork for the pulps at the same time. These illustrations were pubished long before the current crop of Parkhursts (there seem to be several) started publishing. The other place is the signature. For instance, one illustration for The Twisted Men is signed Parkhurst, while another from the same story is signed HLP (a signature that caught my eye), I could be wrong, but I drew a conclusion, and the art style is the same in all those that are signed by him. You can change it if you wish. The cover IS credited however. The contents listing wasn't mine, I just added to it, this the only issue that I have read so far which is why I mentioned that most of the stories were borderline fanastic fiction. The Cole story for instance is an honest to gosh ghost story. MLB 15:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantasy Annual, no. 1

Thanks for your submission, seems OK so far. I just took the (by Vargo Statten) away, and made this interior art into a variant of the original cover. That is absolutely sufficient to define it. Stonecreek 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book... and an unknown publisher

Hi, I modified your submission for this pub. after accepting it. 1) We call the publisher only 'Running Press' and 2)The Mammoth Book... is no pub. series but a title series. I concede that it isn't easy to decide in this case, since the contents of the anthologies differ widely, but look at it this way: The one thing they have in common is the title. Thank you for finding this publication. Stonecreek 10:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there is an unknown publisher stated for this publication. Probably it should be stated as St. Martin's (?). Could you take another look? Stonecreek 12:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who made a mistake. I thought that the publisher of 'The Limbo Connection' was St. Martin's, but believe it or not, they misspelled their own company's name (as St. Martins) on the spine. MLB 09:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't use the spine to credit author, title or publisher, especially if it's the spine of the dustjacket. This publisher's name has been standardized as "St. Martin's Press". I'll correct the record. Mhhutchins 17:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


The submission adding this record was accepted but some changes were made: A leading zero was adding to the price field (changing $.39 to $0.39). Publisher was changed from Whitman Publishing to Whitman Publishing Company (the name used in the records for other books from this publisher.) A shortfiction record was added as a content. This is required when creating a CHAPTERBOOK publication record. Please keep these corrections in mind when making future submissions. You'll find the documentation to support these changes on this help page. Mhhutchins 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hammer & Anvil

The two additional pages in this record should be entered without a space, e.g. "410+2", if they appear after the other 410 pages. If they're not numbered they should be entered as "410+[2]". If you have the book, please do a primary verification. If not, please record the source for your data in the note field. About the note Number three in the Sisters of Battle series, but only number in the novel series. The second adventure is an audio drama.: this is not publication level data. It should be removed from the pub record and added to the note field of the title record, which already has the series data. Mhhutchins 18:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I may never get all of this straight. If anybody asks, I'll say you're all not paid enough and they should give you all a raise. I hope that that my corrects bring the entry up to snuff. MLB 07:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Print on Demand books

Well, you are right: from our bibliographer's point of view these books let something to desire - they usually keep their ISBN and it's near to impossible to find out about the exact date of publication with later printings. Known updates or variants of text should be noted with a pub. of their own, though. You did perfectly well with this publication! Stonecreek 19:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Satan's Child

Thanks for your cloning! You had the ISBN nearly, only the 0- was missing. I'll add this for you. When in doubt, don't hesitate to look for other books by the same publisher - the first two segments of the ISBN are always the same. Stonecreek 13:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Novels in magazines

Magazines are not supposed to contain NOVEL records, so I changed the one you entered in this record to SERIAL and appended "...(Complete Novel)" to the title. This is the ISFDB standard and explained on this help page. 99% of everything you need to know about creating or editing publication records is on this page. Most other ISFDB editing functions are linked to this "How To" page. Mhhutchins 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Trau keinem Elf

Hello, 1) note the small 'keinem' in the title - it's typical German that only nouns start with a big letter, even in headlines. 2) The publisher is denominated only as 'Heyne' - a la convention of ISFDB, so we wouldn't have to search different publishers for a given publication. I'll change it and will also add the publication to the pub. series 'Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy'. 3) A better titling of the interior art would be 'Trau keinem Elf (map)' - map only as an explanation to differ from conventional art. Glossar should be titled 'Glossar (Trau keinem Elf)' to have a chance to find it. 4) And - quite important - it is a variant title (we haven't the possibility to differ between languages that long, but it is now the state of the art). Stonecreek 17:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you stick your head out your nearest window you'll hear a distant thumping sound. That's me banging my head against the nearest wall. However, despite half of my ancestors having come from Germany, sadly, I don't speak the mother tongue, so some of what I was doing was a guess. Thanks MLB 06:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely no need for banging your head! It's only natural for us all that we stick to the usages of the language we speak and write mainly or solely. And thanks to you for taking the effort of entering such pub.s! Stonecreek 20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, don't ask questions in the Note to Moderator field

If you have questions, ask them at the Help Desk before making a submission. I can not emphasize this enough. It is extremely difficult to answer questions when they're posed in a submission. The Note to Moderator field allows you, the submitter, to provide the only person who looks at the submission, the moderator, with additional information about the submission, not the publication. Mhhutchins 15:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes my ADD gets the best of me. If this is about the Dark Surge book, it was more of a rhetorical question. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'll try harder. MLB 15:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Aerie Books ed. of War of the Worlds"

You may have a different printing of this title than the one you want to overwrite. Dragoondelight was pretty good at getting his data entered correctly. If all three of the content records ("The Life of H. G. Wells", "Foreward (The War of the Worlds)", and "Afterward (The War of the Worlds)") are credited explicitly to James Gunn, you should cancel this submission and create a new record. And check to be sure that the foreword and afterword are actually misspelled in the publication as "Foreward" and "Afterward". I'll hold the submission until I hear from you. But you also have the option to cancel a submission before I get the chance to accept or reject it. (Those are my only two options.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I canceled it. I didn't know that you can make a new record if the ISBN number was the same. MLB 15:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That's no problem. Most publishers these days don't replace the ISBN with each successive printing (unlike back in the "good old days", the 1970s). In the case of Aerie, they only have one ISBN that I'm aware of, and use it over and over again regardless of the title! I don't know how they get away with it. Mhhutchins 16:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope that I'm doing this right, but I posted a more detailed question about this on the help page. MLB 16:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


Imprints are entered in the publisher field in this format: "Imprint / Publisher" (note the spaces on either side of the slash). In this record you entered the imprint in the publication series field. That's the field where something like "Harlequin Nocturne" would go. BUT, there's an exception as far as Luna goes. All of the other pubs in the database are entered simply as Luna without giving Harlequin credit. Look here. We can change all of the others to "Luna / Harlequin" or we can change yours to just "Luna". There are six primary-verified pubs among the several dozen pub records under that publisher name, and if you can contact the other verifiers, I can do a global change to all of the pubs in one submission. Mhhutchins 18:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, okay. I know I'll never get this correct. It clearly says on the back "a LUNA book from HARLEQUIN". Wouldn't this be same as Gold Eagle (men's adventure) or Worldwide (mysteries) from Harlequin? Seperate lines of books from the same company? Or is this like DAW or Jove being from larger companies? Am I asking too many questions? Am I making this too complicated? MLB 19:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Every publisher is handled differently. Our goal is to make sure that books published under a different imprint are grouped together in the database. Regardless of which way we do it, whether giving only the imprint or the imprint/publisher name, that still remains the goal. We don't want books published under the Luna imprint to be only listed as published by Harlequin. Same thing with books published by Silhouette, another imprint of Harlequin. All of DAW Books are listed under "DAW Books" even though they were distributed by New American Library. We don't want a DAW book to get lost in the list of books published by NAL. Just like we don't want Signet books to be mixed with DAW, even though both were distributed by NAL. There are going to be exceptions, perhaps in the hundreds when there are thousands of publishers listed in the database. Sometimes imprints are sold to another publisher, and sometimes their names are changed. When Pyramid was bought by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in the 1970s, they changed the name to Jove. But a few years later, the imprint was bought by Berkley, and they kept the name. We want to make sure that the Jove titles published by HBJ remain separate from those published by Berkley. So you can see how each case has to be handled on an individual basis. Mhhutchins 20:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, this is all above my pay grade. List it as you wish. When I get the time I'll ask around. However, a close examination shows that the Luna books are "BY" arrangement with Harlequin, while Gold Eagle is "from" Worldwide, and Worldwide is . . . what? All I know is I now have a headache and I should buy stock in Bayer Asperin. How do you do it? :) MLB 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Waking Nightmares

In the note field of this record you say that the stories aren't credited. Where was your source for the credits given in the record? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, you say something and you think you're saying something clearly. But looking at that entry I can see that I made total mud of it. What I meant to say is that the Table of Contents doesn't give credit to the authors, you have to look at each story itself for the author's name, you could not use the Table of Contents for authorial creditation. I had to type up this entry with the stupid book balanced on my lap. If you accept this entry I can give some of the stories listed original printing credits. Some were printed elsewhere, although dates are vague. MLB 19:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't get story credits from content pages anyway, so it doesn't matter that they're not credited there. It is ISFDB policy that you get both the title and the author credits from the story's title page. The longer you're here, the more you'll see just how many discrepancies there are between the two. We think the credits on the title page should trump if there is a discrepancy. About the original publication data for each story: click on the title of each story and update the title record, giving the first publication info in the record's note field. Don't do it in the publication record's note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
What I meant is that the average reader won't be able to tell which writer wrote what until they turn to the story, I have corrected my note and I hope that it is clear now. MLB 22:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Chibi Vampire: The Novel 1

I have approved the submission and made a few changes:

  • Removed "Data from as of 2010-03-27" since we now have a primary verification
  • Moved "Comedy horror about a silly vampire girl, for young teen readers. Based on the manga." to the Synopsis field in the Title record
  • Based on your note and on this Wikipedia article, the Japanese text was first published in 2003 and the English translation appeared in 2007. I have created a Title record for the 2003 Japanese novel and changed the date of the English Title record from 2003-00-00 back to 2007-01-09. I also rephrased the Publication note to make it clear that the copyright date refers to the original Japanese edition.
  • Added [1], [2], [3], etc to the INTERIORART records to disambiguate them.

Everything else looks good. Don't worry about the changes -- translations are a separate can of worms and often require additional TLC :-) Thanks for editing! Ahasuerus 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! MLB 06:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven's Blight

Just an FYI that we already have a record for Haven's Blight on file, so I used your submission and WorldCat to correct the page count and the publisher in the existing record. Ahasuerus 04:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Miracle, June-July 1931

Can you confirm that some of the contents are credited to "Elliot Dold" and others to "Elliott Dold" in this publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

When I did my review of this facsimile for Amazon I did a little research. I found an on-line version of "Science-fiction: the Gernsback Years: A Complete Coverage of the Genre ... by Everett Franklin Bleiler & Richard Bleiler and if you cut-n-paste the following unweildly url you can find information on Dold, his brother, and that it is discussed that he often spelled his name both ways, but what the correct spelling was. It also discusses that his big brother probably co-wrote all his fiction, and that Elliott Dold probably co-edited and co-created Miracle Science Stories, which is why I created him as a co-editor. Bleiler did all of the work, and I just took his word for it, as he backed it up with quotes and obscure research. The true facts as to who actually created Miracle may be lost to time. But, Bleiler states that Elliott Dold, Jr. is his full name. I hope this helps.
MLB 16:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You had updated the record, so I assumed you had the facsimile reprint of the issue. I just needed to understand why he's credited differently within the same issue. Sorry. Mhhutchins 17:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
My fault. There I go, overexplaining things again. Sorry 'bout that. I DO have the facsimile, I would never enter anything on this site unless I personally own it, or can get a hold of it, it just ain't kosher otherwise. All of Dold's material here is signed "Elliott Dold', 'Dold', or 'D', his artwork and style is quite distinctive. MLB 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, you got me thinking. I went back and re-examined the facsimile, and found that the correct title (found in on the contents page, and on the spine) of the magazine is Miracle, Science and Fantasy Stories. Note the comma, although the magazine's pages only use Miracle Stories on them. Am I making too much of this? MLB 19:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we should leave it as it currently stands. It's hard to determine what may be the true title when it comes to adding subtitles. Normally, we would include the comma if given on the title page (or in the case of magazines on the issue's masthead). But sometimes there is no separation between title and subtitle, and often there's only a change of font. In many cases, we just try to make the best we can out of what we've got. Mhhutchins 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

High Adventures #58

I accepted the submission to add this record to the database, but changed the title record of "The Monster Murders" to conform to ISFDB standards. I explained the standard about a week ago in this message. NOVEL records can not appear in magazines. They're entered as a SERIAL with the appendage to the title "...(Complete Novel)". The record is then varianted to the title record of any book publication (if there is one.) Mhhutchins 13:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I also dated the contents 1934-12-00, based on the date of the original publication of the story. Mhhutchins 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, I made the same mistake in my entry of only the pertinate entries of The Big Book of Adventure Stories with the included Tarzan novel. MLB 14:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Not really the same thing. I said that a NOVEL type record can not be contained in a MAGAZINE type publication. They can be contained in OMNIBUS, COLLECTION, or and ANTHOLOGY type publications. Mhhutchins 15:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cemetery Dance #65

Submission updating this record was accepted. I will be making the following changes, most of them are explained on this help page.

  • The editorial was disambiguated to "Words from the Editor (Cemetery Dance #65)" (and the capitalization was standardized).
  • The page numbers for the stories were changed to that of the page of the illustration for that story. For example, if a story's illustration is on page 2 and the story's text begins on page 3, we give the story's page number as 2. (Please check the pages given for "The Book of the Dead". The illustration and story were two pages apart, so I used the page number for the illustration as the story's start.)
  • I removed and deleted the records for the uncredited illustrations for the columns.
  • I added a REVIEW record for the essay on page 31. It is OK to create both an ESSAY and a REVIEW record even though there's only one work when the essay includes a substantial review (or more). This way the review is linked to the title record of the work being reviewed.
  • The interior art record for the Hirshberg story was corrected from "AftAfter-Words: The Second Book Depository Story", assuming it was just a typo.
  • The titles of the columns "From the Dead Zone", "MediaDrome", "Spotlight on Publishing", "Fine Points", and "The Final Question" were disambiguated.
  • I removed the column name "The Mothers and Fathers Italian Association" from the title of the piece and added it to the previously created series. When a column has a specific title, we use that title for the title record and then update the title record to add it to the series. (Not all columns are in series.)

It's also going to take some work to link the reviews of the spec-fic titles that are in the database under a different name, or to create records for those titles that are not in the db. I'll do that over the next few days. Mhhutchins 14:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm discovering that the reason why several of the review titles didn't link was because you give two spaces after a colon in a title. The ISFDB standard is just one space between the colon and the word following it.

Also, can you see which volume in Datlow's series The Best Horror of the Year is being reviewed on page 132? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Crossed by Garth Ennis and Jacen Burrows is a graphic novel. Any reviews of non-books (films, recordings, television, plays) or prohibited books (nongenre-related works, comic books, graphic novels, etc.) should be entered as ESSAY type and not REVIEW. Use this format (in this case) for the title of the essay: Review of the graphic novel "Crossed" by Garth Ennis and Jacen Burrows. The review record should then be removed from the record and deleted. Mhhutchins 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the subtitle of After-Words: The Second Book Depository Story appear to be an authorial subtitle or just an editorial description? Mhhutchins 15:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected several typos and mistakes. I have moved three reviews of graphic novels from the review field up to the regular field as you requested. I have also redone two reviews. "Draculas" actually had four writers, I changed that, The Best Horror of the Year had no volume number so I compared the image in the review to that on Amazon, and changed that as well. I have added a cover image to the listing. Sorry about the mistakes, but I had to go over every single page to find some of the hidden materials (interviews, book reviews), and my eyes were often going while reading every page. Several column titles also had typos so that they were not listed accurately. The story page lists the story as After-Words: The Second Book Depository Story, while the contents page gives the shorter title. I believe that the longer version is the full title. Even though Datlow mentions that Gahan Wilson's Edgar Allan Poe book is a graphic novel, it may be a reprint of his earlier Classics Illustrated collection The Raven and Other Poems which you have listed on your site. I did not know about not putting two spaces after a colon, it won't happen again. 21:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Baby-Sitter omnibus

Please check the ISBN stated in this book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, how is the publisher stated on the title page? Mhhutchins 15:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have corrected the ISBN number. The title page says Scholastic Inc., but on the copyright page it distinctly says it was created for Barnes & Noble, and it also says that this edition is copyrighted by Barnes & Noble Books. Nowhere anywhere in or on this omnibus is Point Horror mentioned. These special editions can be very confusing. The number line inside is 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 which means that this is a first edition of this omnibus, right? If so, Amazon is carrying a different cover than mine. MLB 19:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How to use the Note to Moderator field

I see you've added some very important information in the Note to Moderator field for your submission to add The Big Book of Adventure Stories to the database. I have to emphasize again that the data given in the Note to Moderator field disappears instantly upon acceptance of the submission. Nothing should be added to this field that you don't think should be part of the record. You took some time and care to add series and previous publication information about the various stories included in the anthology and unfortunately that data (and the time and effort it took to create it) will no longer exist when I accept the submission. I will copy the data here so that you can use it to update the title records of the various stories. (This data should not be added to the anthology's note field or to its title record as it is specific to the story and not the anthology.)

The Golden Snare by Farnham Bishop & Arthur Gilchrist Brodeur is a Lady Fulvia series story. The Mighty Manslayer by Harold Lamb is a Khlit series story. The Wings of Kali: The Spider's First Case is really by Norvell W. Page (according to Penzler page 874). Nor Idolatry Blind the Eye by Gabriel Hunt is really by Charles Adai and is excerpted from the novel 'Hunt Through the Cradle of Fear', according to Otto Penzler page 371. The Hand of the Mandarin Quong by Sax Rohmer was originally titled 'The Hand of the White Sheikh' and published in Cassell's Magazine in 1920-12-00, was re-written as 'The Mystery of the Shriveled Hand for Munsey's Magazine 1922-02-00 and rewritten again as the present title for the author's collection 'Tales of Chinatown' 1922, all from this Otto Penzler anthology on page 633. If you accept this, the introductory notes will be entered later.

Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed the author of "Sredni Vashtar" to Saki. I also changed the length designation of several stories based on their previous publications. Mhhutchins 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
And "The Might Manslayer" was corrected to "The Mighty Manslayer". I also removed the subtitle of "The Wings of Kali" as it seems to be more editorial than authorial. Mhhutchins 16:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. About the sub-title to "The Wings of Kali", honestly, I used your previous instructions about using the title of the story that is on the story page. As this story appeared after the novel series had already started, I suspect it was created as filler. However, the subtitle was not used on the contents page nor in its copyright page. It's your call, but this story is not printed in facsimile, so somebody who actually has the pulp should vertify the title.
The Howard Lamb story may be part of the The Complete Cossack Adventures which you have listed on your site. Somebody who actually has these or can check them could find out for sure. At the time, I was unsure of of how to enter much of the information in the Moderater field when it came to series stories. Sometimes it seems automatic, and sometimes it has to be put in manually. You have been very patient with my mistakes. MLB 19:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. The Note to Moderator field is for the submitter to include additional information about the submission, not about the publication. Information about the publication should be entered into the Note field. Information about the submission that would help the moderator's decision in determining whether the submission should be accepted goes into the Note to Moderator field. Ask yourself "Is the data I'm adding to the Note to Moderator field important enough that it should become a permanent part of the record?" If you answer "Yes", then enter it into the Note field, not the Note to Moderator field. Also, don't use the Note to Moderator field to ask questions. That's what the Help Desk and the Moderator Noticeboard is for. As for series information, none of it is automatic. All of it has to entered manually. Someone (probably the moderator handling the submission) has or will update the title record to add title series information. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Facsimile of Miracle Stories June-July 1931

More important than who actually edited the issue is how it's credited in the actual publication. If it's not credited at all, we should enter "uncredited" in the editor field, and then we can variant the editor record to one that credits the actual editors, based on secondary sources. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lai Wan

Hi. I accepted your submission of changes to Lai Wan, but your note to the moderator said you were adding an illustration, yet what you actually added was shortfiction. Which did you mean? If you meant interiorart, you can change it by directly editing that title and altering the type. Also, if this is interiorart, we do the titling a little differently than we would do for a written work. For untitled drawings, we use the title of the illustrated work as the artwork's "title", adding "[2]", "[3]", etc., if more than one such drawing appears. In a multi-work publication, we use the collection's title when the artwork is not illustrating a particular story, otherwise the story's title. Thanks. --MartyD 10:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Tales, December 1939

I accepted the submission adding a record for this facsimile reprint of the issue. It would have been better to leave the contents blank, import the contents from the original record, and then add the contents that are not listed in the original record. I will now have to go through and merge all of the new content records that were created in your submission with the records that were already in the database. Mhhutchins 16:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, looks like you uploaded the wrong file for the cover image:, three times! Mhhutchins 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The first two times look like the right image. The third time is for the H. G. Wells book. If you want I can revert the image to the correct one. Don't attempt to upload it again. Mhhutchins 16:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like you uploaded it from the record of the original 1939 publication record. You should always wait until a record is in the database, and use the "Upload Cover Scan" link from the ISFDB publication record. After you've had a chance to look at this, I'll make the changes to correct the image and the link. Mhhutchins 16:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly, The War of the Worlds image doesn't go with the facsimile of Marvel Tales, December 1939. Believe it or not, I have to truck to a library to do cover scans, and I scanned my facsimile, I did NOT attempt to steal this site's image, that just wouldn't be right. All information and images are from stuff I own and can vouch for. That's why I didn't import, all errors are my own. I now know better. I also now know that I can't upload an image until the entry is okayed. It seems my incompetence knows no bounds. I must be more trouble than I'm worth. MLB 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not true, and I hope nothing I've said makes you feel that way. We all learn from our mistakes. I didn't say that you'd stolen the image, even though there's nothing illegal or unethical to do so. MRVLSCNCSTDEC1939 is the tag of the original record for the 1939 printing, so you must have uploaded your cover scan using that record. You could not have uploaded it from the record of the facsimile reprint because it wasn't in the database at the time. I'll make the corrections and link the proper image to the record. Mhhutchins 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Which function to use to add books to the database

I given you this advice three times before. I guess it needs repeating:

Don't use any of the "Add New..." functions before you do a search for the title. Here's the path I recommend:

  • Is there a title record for the exact title and is it by the same author?
    • Yes: Is there a similar pub?
      • Yes: Use the "Clone" function.
      • No: Use the "Add Publication to This Title" function.
    • No: Use the appropriate "Add New..." function.

You used the "Add New Novel" function to add this edition of War of the Worlds to the database. I'll merge the new title record that was created with the one that's already in the database. Otherwise it won't be listed with all of the other editions of this title. Mhhutchins 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi! I added the full number found on the cover/spine, it's not to important but dosen't hurt to have.Kraang 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mystery in Mind: A Collection of Stories

I have accepted your addition of Mystery in Mind: A Collection of Stories. However, one question. You entered the interior artwork with a date of 2002 vs. the publication's date of 2003. From the notes, this appears to be based on the copyright. If so, it should be 2003 as the date of publication. Or do you know it was previously published? -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the foreword actually spelled "Foreward"? Mhhutchins 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This is embarrassing, I’m slightly dyslectic, and I constantly misspell the same words over and over again, and even though I look at them after I’m done, I often can’t see the mistakes that I make until afterwards. Again, I’m sorry. Yes, it's Foreword. As far as the copyright of the artwork goes. Oddly, there is NO copyright assigned to anything but the artwork in this anthology. I had to get the publication's publishing data from The artwork was copyright dated on each piece, so maybe it was published by the Rhine Institute elsewhere, I don't know, I just listed what was there. I got this book because I was Amazon surfing. This seems to be a very obscure anthology, other than that these stories were because of some kind of contest, you now know as much about this book as I do. MLB 15:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for works to have a copyright year prior to the publication year. Copyright applies from completion of the work where as there will be a delay before it's published. ISFDB records the publication date and not the copyright date. Lacking knowledge of an earlier publication, the artwork date should be changed 2003 per the book's publication date. The note you have regarding the copyright date & the source of the publication date is the way to handle the delta. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating titles, not artist credit

Please update this record, and disambiguate the titles of the interior art records, and give the artist as just "uncredited" or "JLD". It's the title of the work that's disambiguated, not the artist's name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I have made this mistake in my other entries. If you accept them, I will correct them then if you wish. MLB 17:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Submission accepted for this record. Please make the necessary changes to the interiorart records. Mhhutchins 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Working with series redux

I have to redirect you to this previous message. Again, publication series and title series are different. You can't enter a title series (such as "Captain Future") when creating or editing a publication record. Title series can only be added to title records. Please read the help page that I linked for you in the previous message. Mhhutchins 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Facsimile of Captain Future, Summer 1943

I've accepted the submission updating this record, but you'll need to make more than a few changes in order for it to comply to ISFDB standards:

  • As mentioned in the previous message "Captain Future" is a title series. You'll need to remove it from the publication record.
  • Columns are not entered in the title field of content records. You have to update the title record to add them to a series which is named after the column. You should only put in the title fields the title of this particular article.
  • And as mentioned in two messages back, you'll have to correct the titles and artist credit for the interiorart records.

Mhhutchins 18:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope I have corrected these mistakes. I see where I got sloppy. MLB 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

High Adventure

I've accepted the submission adding this record. Please remove "Ki-Gor" from the publication series field, and correct the disambiguation of the interiorart titles. Mhhutchins 14:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Same situation with High Adventure #94 Remove the publication series and fix the interiorart titles. You'll also have to correct the spelling of "Challange" to "Challenge" on all but one of the records (I corrected that one when I merged it with the existing db record) Mhhutchins 14:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Submission accepted for High Adventure #97. Please make the usual corrections as given above. Mhhutchins 14:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple more additional problems with High Adventure #99. The ISBN is not a valid number, and you've given the series names as part of the content titles. Please correct those as well as the usual problems with publication series and interiorart disambiguation. Mhhutchins

I have double checked the ISBN number, and unless the magazine got it wrong, issue #99's number is still 978-1-59798-133-0, it is so listed on the back cover, on the copyright page, and on its Amazon page. I'm not sure about the columns, but I hope that I got them right this time. MLB 18:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to correct the spelling on Captain Future's Challenge, I just corrected it. MLB 19:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ghost Town

Can you confirm that the cover is a collaboration between the three artists you've credited in the cover field of this record? Mhhutchins 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you've explained each person's role. Ordinarily, we only credit the cover designer in the field when disparate elements are brought together, especially photographs, and we record the other credits in the note field. Mhhutchins 01:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Titling maps

I've changed the title of the record of the map in this book from "Map (The Unicorn Dilemma)" to "The Unicorn Dilemma (map)", the ISFDB standard for titling maps. Mhhutchins 13:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This means that if you accept some of the other edits, I'll have to go back and change some of the entries. MLB 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Murphy's There and Back Again

If your copy doesn't have it price, it may be the SFBC printing. Does it have the number "06572" printed on the back of the dustjacket in a white box? Mhhutchins 13:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. I haven't been a member of the SFBC for over twenty-five years, so I'm unfamiliar with such cataloguing. Sorry for my ignorance. MLB 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. SFBC copies can often be found in the open market. I'll accept the submission, but remove your notice about the book lacking a price. You can move your verification to the other record. Mhhutchins 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Unicorn Peace

Do the maps appear after the last numbered page of this book? Your formatting in the page count field would indicate that. If they appear before the first numbered pages, you should count every page that appears before page 1, excluding the front loose endpaper, and then record the page numbers on the content records for the map. For example, if there are 12 unnumbered pages the page count field should be "[12]+344". If the first map appears on the eighth unnumbered page, you should enter "[8]" in the page field for that record. Mhhutchins 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't include the first loose endpaper, but everything else, do we include the copyright page and such as part of the 'everything else'? MLB 06:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If you're counting pages, yes, but only if you're adding significant content for which you want to place the record. So if there's nothing of significance before page 1, you don't add those pages to the page count field. If there's a map, frontispiece, introduction, etc, on unnumbered pages, you should create a content record for it. You have the option of adding the pre-page 1 pages in order to place this content record. It's not mandatory. You should not count the unnumbered pages pre-page 1 if there's only title pages, copyright pages, etc. and you've not created content records for any such pages (which you shouldn't anyway). Mhhutchins 15:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Amelia Atwater-Rhodes

Hello, I approved your submission for the two poems but renamed the second one as 'untitled [2] (Shattered Mirror)'. That is the standard for different works with the same title. You may give the first sentences or what you like in the synopses for the two titles. Stonecreek 13:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unfamiliar with the procedure when it came to works that are buried in other works (like poetry that is often buried in the text of novels). MLB 13:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Entering names with suffixes

As bizarre as it appears, we use a comma in all names with suffixes. So "Carlton Mellick III" should be entered as "Carlton Mellick, III". I'll make the corrections. Mhhutchins 18:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Forcing a new line in record note fields

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up before, but it makes for a clearer display of notes if each one is given on a new line. In the case of this record, it would be better to split this large block of text into separate lines. To force a break you have to use the HTML code <br>. [Look at how I cleaned up the note field of this record by using HTML breaks.) A keyboard "Enter" stroke and a space creating a new line isn't visible in the note field. And the bullets you're using tend to get lost in the jumble of the text. Just a suggestion. You can also use the HTML code for unnumbered lines which create their own "bullet point". Here is the help page that explains how to use HTML in note fields. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Jungle Stories, Summer 1949

Hi. I accepted your cover submission and cover artist credit update for Jungle Stories, Summer 1949, but I moved your note to the moderator about that credit into the publication notes. Two things to keep in mind: (a) Moderator notes are not preserved, they are only to help you explain anything you think the moderator might wonder about, and (b) If you record information about a publication from a secondary source, that source should be documented in the publication notes. The most typical example of "(b)" is recording that the publication date came from Locus1 or a later edition or some such, but secondary sources for artist credits are fairly common as well. So yours was a good note and helped me with the submission but ultimately would have been lost, leaving the artist credit unexplained for a future verifier/researcher. Thanks. --MartyD 10:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Kings of Horror

I've accepted the submission updating this record, but it's going to need a little tweaking. How is the publisher stated on the publication's title page? And the notes will have to be re-written to be less subjective:

  • Says that this pamphlet is limited to 3000 copies, although that may not be true. It's not up to the ISFDB to pass judgment about the truthfulness of what is stated in a book. You'll have to present a source that disputes the statement, otherwise just present the statement as given in quotation marks to make it clear to the user that you're recording what's stated in the book.
  • Says that this is published in cooperation with "The Miskotomic University Press". Why not just record exactly what is stated and leave it at that?
  • Ken Krueger published his Fantasy Readers under the names of Shroud Publications, Shroud, and Fantasy House. Is that relative to this particular publication? If not, then it should be removed and added to a bibliographic comments page for Ken Krueger.
  • No relation to the later Shroud Publications. Again, this doesn't appear to be specific to this publication. You can add it to the note field of the publisher data.
  • Ken Krueger was known to edit the works he published. Again, a subjective statement that is not publication specific. Feel free to add it to a bibligraphic comments page for Krueger, but give the source for this speculation. Mhhutchins 14:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
1.) Okay, I will correct that, see my note below as how that slipped by. There's an article to written about this, but not here.
2.) I thought I was being subjective. Sorry if I was misunderstood. The copyright page says it was "PUBLISHED IN COOPERATION WITH THE MISKOTOMIC UNIVERSITY". I was just reporting what the copyright page said, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was being judgmental or sarcastic, I wasn't.
I think it was the word "Says" that through me off. Placing the information in quotation marks (as you did here) let's the user known the statement is directly from the book. Mhhutchins 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
3.) Because of Krueger's eccentric publishing habits, it is possible that this volume could turn up as being published under another of Krueger's publishing house's names. I've seen all three on the Fantasy Readers, both with present and past copyright dates. I thought it important if this same volume were to turn up sometime under a different publishing name, but only because of a whim on Krueger's part. I can excise this, but see my note below. On the copyright page we get all three: Ken Krueger, Shroud, and Miskotomic University is mentioned. This link should take you to my scan of the copyright page on Amazon. I may just be over-thinking this.
I may have not mentioned this before, but we don't use the copyright page to determine the publisher of a book unless there is no statement of the publisher on the book's title page. It's possible for a copyright page to record multiple layers of the entity that published a book, from imprint to publisher to corporation. If this same book should turn up published under another name, then a new record would have to be created. The record that you update and verify should only match the book in your hand. Let someone else create a different record if their copy gives the publisher differently. Mhhutchins 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
4.) Ken Krueger has, since the publication of his Fantasy Readers, died, and his publishing companies were long defunt before his death, and I just mentioned that there is no relationship between his Shroud and the current Shroud Publications. I didn't think anybody should confuse the two companies and dissemble false information based on this entry. Sorry if I overstepped. I'll remove.
As I said, this could very well be important information, but it's not specific to this publication record. You can add the info to the publisher page for Shroud Publishing that there is no connection to Shroud Publishers. Mhhutchins 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
5.) Ken Krueger DID edit the work he published. He edited The Maker of Moons, I remember comparing the texts and his version had a paragraph or two removed, and there are other instances. But, you're right, unless I can point to a specific instance in THIS publication, such a statement has no place here. I'll immediately remove it. MLB 07:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
If you've made a direct comparison between the two, it is perfectly valid to point out that this printing has been edited, and give the source (your personal comparison of the texts) in the record's note field. A primary source is 1000 per cent better than a secondary one. Mhhutchins 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Maker of Moons

What do the two Garrison works on page 3 of this publication illustrate? Mhhutchins 15:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, how does one say this? Ken Krueger was a flagrently eccentric publisher, often editing public domain works in any way he thought was necessary. So goes his use of artwork. The two illustrations by Jim Garrison are cropped illustrations from his illustration on page 57 of Fantasy Reader #6, and the King in Yellow story, which was supposedly printed later. Whether or not the illustration was meant to illustrate the King in Yellow in the first place or whether it was just some filler art is something only Garrison can now answer, since Krueger has since died. I talked to the bookseller who now sells Fantasy House's inventory, books would often have multiple covers of the same printing, and books would be printed up, inventoried, then bound when the need arose. Isn't ducumenting small-press publishing fun? Oh yeah, I have no idea who Rick Hoppe is/was. Since this collections was copyrighted in 1954, was Hoppe's artwork original to the first printing (if there was one), or is it original to this volume? MLB 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
About the Garrison works: Regardless of its original source or its original usage, artwork that is meant by the publisher to illustrate a story is recorded with the title of that story, no matter if it really does or not. (If a publisher uses an 1895 drawing by Aubrey Beardsley to illustrate a 2012 story titled "A Weekend with the Fairies", that is the title we give the interiorart record. If the same work is used by different publishers, we try to variant them, when we become aware of the other usage.)
About the Hoppe cover: The date of the record for the cover art can be changed when we can confirm that it was previously used. If it illustrated a different work, we variant the two records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Worlds of Fantasy No. 2

Hi. For reasons I don't know, we don't use Pub Series for magazines, just the title series (which we label "Editor Series" for magazines). So I removed "Worlds of Fantasy". The title is already in the Worlds of Fantasy (UK) series. --MartyD 10:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know, as the magazine wasn't dated, and a 'No. 2' was attached to the title, almost giving the impression that this was an anthology. Thanks for fixing this. MLB 10:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Bizarro Fiction #2

Can you confirm the different spellings of two of the authors in this record? Is Krall credited as both "Jordan" and "Jordon", and is Mellick credited as both "Carlton" and "Carleton"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the first piece by Chrissy Horchheimer (page 1) really shortfiction and the other two are interiorart? Mhhutchins 23:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission to correct these was accepted. And in the process I noticed that there are two records for reviews of the same film by the same author on the same page (80). Is this correct? Mhhutchins 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, you didn't correct the record for "Carleton Mellick, III" on page 53. Is this correctly entered as credited in the publication? Mhhutchins 16:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the names of three reviewed authors to match their canonical name: "Anderson Prunty" to Andersen Prunty, "Jordon Krall" to Jordan Krall and "Carleton Mellick, III" to Carleton Mellick, III. Mhhutchins 16:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Your latest submission reverted the change I made of "Anderson Prunty" to Andersen Prunty, which is the correct spelling of the author's name. In reviews, we are allowed to make corrections if the title or author are incorrectly credited (but not the reviewer credit). I'll change it back to Andersen. Mhhutchins 16:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It must of have been made by accident when I removed the double entry on page 80. I will immediately correct it. I certainly made a hash of this entry. MLB 16:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Leather Maiden

How is the publisher credited on the title page of this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Vintage Crime/Black Lizard. MLB 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
That's an imprint of Vintage Books. So it should be entered as "Vintage Crime/Black Lizard / Vintage Books", which is how other books by this imprint are entered. (See here.) Note that there are no spaces surrounding the first slash which indicates that the entire name is the imprint. There are spaces surrounding the second slash which is how the ISFDB records an imprint and publisher in the same field. I'll make the correction. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Cthulhu and the Coeds or Kids & Squids

If your copy doesn't have an ISBN, then you should remove the number currently given in the record. Mhhutchins 21:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you should add the roman-numeraled pages to the record's page count field. Mhhutchins 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Zoetrope: All-Story, Spring 2012

Hi, I accepted your submission regarding the above mentioned magazine, but deleted the cover artist (and instead put the credit into the notes), assuming that his work wasn't with speculative content. If I was wrong in that assumption and the cover art does belong into the speculative area, then please feel free to re-submit. Stonecreek 09:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough it's hard to tell. The cover is two pieces of art that are an odd surreal combination of typography and art. Either google him, or wait until I can get to a scanner to scan the cover. I didn't know the cover art had to have speculative content as long the insides did. MLB 10:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Page count field... limited to 16 characters. I had to change the page count back for The Best of John Bellairs because the last three digits were cut-off. Mhhutchins 15:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


I've accepted the submisstion adding this record but made a few changes: the generic content titles were disambiguated by appending parenthetically the title of the book, and I removed Random House as the publisher. The current canonical name of the publisher is simply WaterBrook Press (note the camel case "B"). Mhhutchins 16:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps in WWIII: Asian Front

Please look at how I handled the maps in this record. It's not necessary to create content records for each map, especially if they're not credited. Also, use the format "Title (map)" or "Title (maps)". Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Maps are uncommon, but moreso in works of fantastic literature, still, this should simplify things. MLB 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Wind by Largent

I rejected the submission to add a record for this title to the database. "Techno-thriller" is among the genres that are listed as OUT in the current policy (see here). We only add nongenre books by authors who have reached a "certain threshold" within the speculative fiction field, e.g. a mystery by Asimov or Vance. Largent hasn't reached that threshold. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, as he has a number of horror and and thriller books listed here, I thought I would try listing it, which is why I did the listing. No problem. MLB 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The difficulty comes when defining "certain threshold". If you're not certain, it's best to ask on one of the community pages before making a submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Rejected submissions

Maybe you're not familiar with the list that is generated when a submission of yours is rejected. To access it click on the link "My Rejected Edits" under the Logged In menus on the left side of screen. I bring this to your attention because you've made several attempts to place an interiorart record into a series, and I've rejected each of them, explaining the reason why. Sometimes moderators just don't have the time to explain on your talk page, so we leave it in the note field of the rejection list. Mhhutchins 21:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I thought that this page was just a listing for stuff that was rejected. I now know better. And yes, I know you're busy. That's what ticks me off about my mistakes, I shouldn't have to keep coming back to you for advice, and I shouldn't keep making elementary mistakes. Some of this should be sticking to my wee mentality by now. I'm sorry I'm such a slow learner. On a positive note, it looks like your job is safe from me for a long time. MLB 07:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It just takes a little more time with the ISFDB, its entry standards being rather complicated. We learn by making mistakes...but don't you just hate having them pointed out to you! :) Please continue to contribute. Mhhutchins 14:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please persevere with us and we'll persevere with you. You're actually doing quite well - many editors would have given up by now. BLongley 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Titles for untitled interiorart

Hi. I accepted your changes and additions to Challenging Destiny #17, but I changed the "untitled" interiorart title to "Challenging Destiny #17, December 2003". For interiorart not illustrating any particular story, we use the title of the publication (with "[n]" if there's more than one), even in a magazine. Thanks. --MartyD 10:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you. MLB 10:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


You'll need to correct the author of this book to reflect the title page credit. I may have mentioned this a few times before: we always use title page credit over cover credit. And it appears the book was actually written by Robert Knight. You can leave the note field to explain the cover credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of Time

In this book, "Charlotte Zolotow" is the imprint, so it should be entered into the publisher field (as "Charlotte Zolotow / Harper & Row"), not in the publication series field. Also, those copies with the gold sticker are from the library binding edition. Mhhutchins 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I peeled the sticker back and it didn't have the library binding ISBN number, which is why I didn't use that number on my entry. So where does Harper Crest go? MLB 17:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere. If it's not stated in the book, leave it alone. If it's only a sticker on the dustjacket, you can mention it in the notes, but don't change the publisher field based on a sticker. Still, I believe that your copy is the library binding edition. The ISBNs of both editions are stated on the copyright page (the pages are printed in one press run), but only the binding is different. Remove the dustjacket and look at the actual binding. Is the spine quarter bound in cloth? Or are the boards completely paper covered? Mhhutchins 22:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Titles for untitled interiorart records...again

Interiorart records are given the title of the work they illustrate, usually the name of the story or novel. If there are more than one you disambiguate the ones after the first one with bracketted numbers as in "Title [2]", and so forth. I've made the corrections in this record. Mhhutchins 22:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. MLB 21:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


I've added the price to this record from information on the publisher's website. Most books in Australia do not carry a printed price (I guess the book stores decide what price to sell them.) Also, on page 6, could this be a frontispiece for the book? If so, it should be titled "Zombies (frontispiece)". Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead Rite

Are you certain that "Point Crime" is an imprint? According to the OCLC record, it's a publication series. How is the name used on your copy of the book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: is there a fantasy element to the story? The description sounds like it's a juvenile mystery. Mhhutchins 02:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it sounds like a Satanic/witchcraft thriller. I own this book, but I have yet to read it, so I don't know if there is anything fantastic in it yet, there could be, but I just don't know yet. It could have some borderline material. I entered it because you already have one of her books, a Point Crime book, already entered there. Until I read it and know for sure, I'm fine if you drop it. MLB 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. It can stay in the db until it's determined to be sf or not. ("innocent until proven guilty") Mhhutchins 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it says on the title page Point Crime / Dead Rite / Jill Benett / Scholastic. Isn't Point Horror or Point Crime only used on the British versions of Scholastic books? MLB 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
True. Your book was published by the UK division of Scholastic. Even though it isn't explictly published as such, we enter such pubs as "Scholastic UK". See here. You can make "Point Crime" into a publication series and "Scholastic UK" as the publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
After a little research, I've learned that "Point Crime" was used in the US as well, and there was another series called "Point Fantasy", which was used in both the UK and the US. Mhhutchins 19:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Now I know. MLB 19:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi. I accepted your modifications to Facade, but I removed the proposed "Abyss" publisher series. It is really an imprint (apparently, there should be a badge on the spine?), but we already have a Dell Abyss "publisher", along with SFBC and BCE derivatives, so I changed it to that. I don't know why we have that as "Dell Abyss" instead of as "Abyss / Dell". I will ask the lone active verifier. Maybe you and he can compare notes and see if your book's publisher is identified the same way. --MartyD 10:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I researched the cover artist and found he shows it on his website and on his Goodreads page. I added a note citing his website as source of the credit. Notes like "Not credited in the book; source of credit unknown." are perfectly good to put in the publication notes field. --MartyD 10:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Before looking at the Abyss books in my collection I would sworn the imprint's name was Dell Abyss. That's how Locus always labelled them, and when you spoke of them, they were always "Dell Abyss". Well, I looked at the books and was surprised to see that "Dell Abyss" is nowhere on the actual books. In fact, it's not even mentioned either on the title page or the copyright page. The publisher is just "A Dell Book" on the title page and "Published by Dell Publishing, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group" on the copyright page. The spines have two logos, one for Abyss and one for Dell. On the first interior page, there's a letter to the reader explaining the "Abyss line of cutting-edge psychological horror" and a message from Stephen King: "Thank you for introducing me to the remarkable line of novels currently being issued under Dell's Abyss imprint." So I've rethought how the pubs should be entered into the database: "Abyss / Dell" so that it reflects the current ISFDB standard of "Imprint / Publisher". I'll see if there are any other primary verifiers to notify before making the change. Mhhutchins 14:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I know from the discussion above (about "Point Crime") that sometimes it's a toss-up about whether something is an imprint or a publication series. In cases like this, it comes down to just gut instinct. I wish there were a more definitive way to know this. Mhhutchins 18:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Awful Apple Orchard

This record has been accepted into the database. You mention that it's part of a series titled "Shivers". Please enter this as a publication series if it's just the publisher's packaging that makes it part of a series. If there is a common setting and characters shared by the books, then it would be a title series. Please ask if you need help in determining which kind of series it is. Mhhutchins 00:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This series is like R. L. Stine's Spookville, or Fear Street, or one of Jonathan Rand's series. It is a loose series, I have several around here someplace, no continuing characters and this is not a publisher's imprint. MLB 11:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
So it should be entered as a publication series. There are fields in each publication record to add the series name and number. Those series by Stine were entered as title series, because at the time there was no other way to handle such series on the ISFDB. Someone with a lot of spare time might eventually get around to correcting them to a publication series. Mhhutchins 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You'll have to remove the series name and number from the title record and add it to the publication record. Series like Herbert's Dune or Asimov's Foundation are title series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Uh, okay, I guess. Then, since these are numbered, I guess I should put the number in the Note field, like the DAW Collectors Number? By-the-way, I hope you're not, um, looking in my direction to go and sort through all of those R. L. Stine books. MLB 14:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams

Please check the publication date and ISBN of this record. The ISBN is an invalid number. And if there is an ISBN-13 printed on the book, then it can't have been published in 1989. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Things that are done in haste are things that are fated to end up as waste. I saw this book at my local library and entered it there. I'm sorry, but, due to health reasons I'm not allowed to drive, so I won't be able to get back there again for several days. I could have sworn I got it right, can I correct, or check it in a couple of days? MLB 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviews of non-books

I told you pretty early on (here) that reviews of anything other than books should not be entered as REVIEW-type records. That includes fanzines, magazines, recordings, films, music, stage performances, and comic books (including graphic novels), They have to be entered as ESSAY-type records. You'll have to remove the review records from this record and then delete each of them from the database. The single record for "Reviewing the Science Fiction Fan Publications (Startling Stories, January 1939)" is sufficient for the record and no other records are required. Please remember this when creating records for any non-book reviews. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot, I'll get right on it. Although it's no excuse, it's been a long twenty-four hour day without sleep. MLB 14:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's done, let me know if you want the editors of the fanzines attached to the entries. MLB 14:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you skipped the part when I said The single record for "Reviewing the Science Fiction Fan Publications (Startling Stories, January 1939)" is sufficient for the record and no other records are required. ??? If the essay was credited, I'd consider individual records for each fanzine, but as it is now, the additional essays have no considerable value except to clutter up the pub listing. I'll reject the submission to update it. Mhhutchins 15:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you know how to remove contents from a pub record? If not, I can step you through it. After they're removed, the stray records will then have to be deleted from the database. Mhhutchins 15:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that I've got it. MLB 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of this World Adventures, December 1950

Is this a comic book? Mhhutchins 03:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I found a PDF of this online and saw that most of it is fiction. Strange that this title isn't already in the database, considering the Wollheim connection. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to know if the first comic story was part of a series and I found out that it was after a little research on line (check out this address for all the info on this), and that the whole comic section is a reprint of Avon's science fiction comic book Strange Worlds #1, November 1950. In fact, the first story, the Kenton of the Star Patrol story in the pulp, actually says to check out the next issue of Strange Worlds for the next episode! I have added this to the entry's note section, and to each of the stories in this section's Note field. I heard somewhere that M. Malcolm White may have been a D.A.W. pseudonym, but don't quote me.
Actually, maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that you once did have an entry on this magazine. Maybe somebody thought that it was a comic book and removed it. Anyway, I have the first issue in reprint that I will enter sometime in the future. Now I have to figure out how to merge Gardner Fox's entry with Gardner F. Fox's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MLB (talkcontribs) .
You can't merge it because it's by two differently named authors. They'll have to be varianted. Go to the title record and click on the link "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" under the Editing Tools menu. On the next page, change the Author1 field from "Gardner Fox" to "Gardner F. Fox", and submit. This will create a new entry on the canonical author's summary page. Mhhutchins 16:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. MLB 16:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Odds Are Good omnibus

If this record is an omnibus of this collection and this collection it would have been better to import the contents from those two collections rather than update the omnibus record by adding the content stories. I can accept the submission that does this, but then you'd have to make 18 submissions to merge the records with the existing ones. Or I can reject the submission and ask you to import the contents (it will take two different submissions to do this.) It's up to you. Mhhutchins 16:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try merging the two (or three) records. It'll be the first time that I've done this, let's hope I get it right, and I'm sure nobody wants to look at eighteen pending edits either. MLB 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Good. Here are the steps (and this should apply for all importing, not merging, which is an entirely different function.)
  1. Go to the pub record of the first collection, and copy the record number (or write it down for later). It's the number following cgi? in the URL window: "24723".
  2. Go to the pub record which you want to import the contents to: this record, and click on "Import Content" under the Editing Tools menu.
  3. On the next page enter the record number of the pub from which you're importing the contents: 24723. Remove the check for "Include page numbers?" because the omnibus is likely to have a different pagination. This isn't always the case so you need to check first.
  4. Now click "Import Content". On the next page you'll see that all of the contents of the first pub record have been added to an update of the second pub record. Enter the page numbers (if different) for the stories' appearances in the second record. If any of the content records of the first pub record are not in the second pub record, just enter "remove" in the page fields of those contents so that you can remove them on a subsequent submission. Now submit the update and wait until it's been approved by a moderator.
After the submission is approved, do the same thing by importing the contents of the other collection. Mhhutchins 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
And then I delete the stuff that isn't in the omnibus. MLB 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
No, don't delete it. Remove it from the record. (You want to remove the content record from the publication record, not delete it from the database.) I've removed the items that you didn't give page numbers to in your first submission to import the contents. Mhhutchins 02:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And whoever initially entered these stories into the database listed them as short stories, when many of them, by the rules of twenty pages or more, are novelettes. Should I ignore this? MLB 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Twenty pages in one book could be fifteen in another. Unless you do an estimated word count or the story is more than 30 pages (without illustrations), leave the length alone. Mhhutchins 02:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Consider me chastized. MLB 02:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Paperback Fanatic #19

The submission adding this record was accepted, but I have a few questions. Are the covers included in the page count field? The ISFDB standard is to include covers in the field regardless of whether the publisher's pagination includes them. (Pagination and page count are not the same thing.) Also, are the two records for the Jeff Jones illustrations unique to this publication, or are they the reproduction of covers that you mention in the notes. If so, you should either remove them from the record and delete them from the database, or create eight content records for each of the cover art reproductions. (I recommend the first procedure.) Also, you use "untitled" again. And again, I have to remind you that we don't use that for interior art records. The title of the record should be the title of the work which it illustrates. If it doesn't explicitly illustrate a work within the publication, give it the title of the publication itself. I don't know what else to do to make this any clearer. Mhhutchins 18:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Go to your nearest window and listen. The sound of thunder that you hear is me banging my head against the nearest wall. Although I usually do what you say, I keep making the same mistake, I'm sorry I can change the page numbers, but the covers are a form of gallery, and I don't mind looking up dates and such, or doing separate entries for them if you want. Or if you think I should delete them, I will. MLB 00:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The note field should be sufficient to explain. I'm sure in a magazine devoted to paperbacks, that you're going to get a lot of cover reproductions. It just seems overkill, in my opinion, to create content records for every one of them. Mhhutchins 02:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Littlefield's Horizon

I changed the binding of this record from "pb" to "tp" based on the OCLC record's giving the dimension as 21 cm. I also moved "Luna" from the publication series to the publisher field. Looking at the Amazon "Look-Inside" I saw this is what is given on the book's title page as the publisher, not Harlequin, the corporation that owns Luna. Mhhutchins 22:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor credit for Thrilling Mystery

Can you confirm the spelling of the editor credit of this record? Mhhutchins 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected this. MLB 14:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bone Chillers

This is a publication series, not a title series. I've removed it from the title record of Beware the Shopping Mall. Read my previous posts about the differences or go to this help page. Mhhutchins 15:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Irish Ghost Stories

You tell us what it doesn't say (or "day") for the title of this record, but you didn't change anything to indicate how the book is actually titled. And you give a price in the record, but state there is no price in the book. If the price was already part of the record, you need to mention that, or find a source. Mhhutchins 16:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be getting worse at this, I've fixed both of these. All I can say is that my computer had a glitch, and ate my first entry, and when I did it again, I forgot to change the title, although this is a poor excuse. I left the price because the previous person who had entered the data had put it in, but you're right (of course!), don't use facts you can't back up, this book seems to be out-of-print as both Amazon America and Amazon UK doesn't have new copies for sale (Amazon UK doesn't even list it). It's also not available on the publishers website, although I suspect that Irish Ghost Stories edited by Rosemary Gray, from the same publisher is an edited version of this anthology. When I got time I'll check this out. MLB 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Planet Stories, Fall 1941" reprint

A few things re: this facsimile reprint:

  1. I have changed the attribution of "Letter (Planet Stories, Fall 1941): First the "Have Nots" Now the "Let's Haves" from "Malcolm Reis" to "Malcolm Reiss"
  2. I have capitalized the "m" in the INTERIORART record for "Dead Man's Planet" and turned "The Vizigraph (Planet Stories, Fall 1941)" by "The Editor" into a variant title by Malcolm Reiss
  3. I wonder if "A Hermit Comes Out of Hiding" by Larry Shaw (which I have turned into a variant of Larry T. Shaw) may be a letter?
  4. Could you please confirm that "Letter (Planet Stories, Fall 1941): Solaroids" is a poem?

Thanks! Ahasuerus 07:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First, #1) Yes thank you. #2) Yes again, thank you, although I did not enter the essay entry as "The Editor" in the Vizigraph (Planet Stories, Fall 1941). That part was entered by somebody else, as were the stories. I just entered the art and the letters from my own facsimile copy. #3) The Larry Shaw letter is indeed a letter. This was before he became a professional editor. We were all young once, and I will change this entry as soon as this amswer is posted. #4) Yes, Solaroids is a letter, and a poem, it is two things at once. It is a letter in the form of a poem. I have about a dozen Startling Stories and Thrilling Wonder Stories and these were not an uncommon form of letter. Even Marion Zimmer Bradley did one. The author has no other entries on this site, but because it was a poem I listed it. #5) As a side note, I was surprised by the Isaac Asimov letter, in paperback form it would have been at least two pages long! If you're into Asimov it might be worth looking up as he talks about a trip he took, and says nothing about Planet Stories. :-). The things that you find in the old pulps! MLB 08:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks! I have updated the Notes field to clarify the situation with the poem and I think we are all set now. And yes, there were all kinds of "locs" (letter of comment) in the pulp era, including limericks, poems, mini-stories and so on. Startling and TWS (which were known as the Standard Twins) had particularly lively departments, which started out on the sophomoric side, but matured in the mid-late 40s and 50s. I have complete sets in my pulp collection and, unlike some of their contemporaries, the post-WWII issues are still worth reading. Ahasuerus 01:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"PS's Feature Flash" in Winter 1940 Planet Stories

Based on your note to the moderator in your modifications to the Winter 1940 Planet Stories, I changed "P.S.'s Feature Flash" to "PS's Feature Flash: Concerning Mr. Ayre —" here and here. Let me know if that wasn't what you meant. Thanks. --MartyD 12:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but like a true dope, I forgot to list William Stoy's letter as a letter, and I forgot to add two page numbers. I seem to keep getting the little things wrong. Thank you for catching this. MLB 12:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullet lists in notes fields

Hi. I just accepted Mystery Adventures, and I thought I'd mention something you might find helpful. Compare the way the notes' bullet list looks to the bullet list here (just as an example). If you want to use bullet lists, it's less typing for you and a better automatic layout by the browser if you use HTML's list tags: <UL> ("Unordered List") for a bullet list and <OL> ("Ordered List") for a numbered list. See Help:Using_HTML_in_Note_Fields#Unnumbered_lists for a little bit more of an explanation and an example. In a nutshell, where you did:

•This is a print-on-demand facsimile reprint of the original pulp magazine.
<br>  •Cover has been credited to <b>C. Blaine</b> in the Contents Page, and is 
identified by the artist's signiture, but the publisher of the reprint John P. 
Gunnison has identified the cover artist as <b>Norman Saunders</b>.
<br>  •Bondage and partial nudity cover.

to get:

•This is a print-on-demand facsimile reprint of the original pulp magazine.
•Cover has been credited to C. Blaine in the Contents Page, and is identified by the artist's signiture, but the publisher of the reprint John P. Gunnison has identified the cover artist as Norman Saunders.
•Bondage and partial nudity cover.

You could instead do:

<li>This is a print-on-demand facsimile reprint of the original pulp magazine.
<li>Cover has been credited to <b>C. Blaine</b> in the Contents Page, and is identified by the artist's signiture, but the publisher of the reprint John P. Gunnison has identified the cover artist as <b>Norman Saunders</b>.
<li>Bondage and partial nudity cover.

to get:

  • This is a print-on-demand facsimile reprint of the original pulp magazine.
  • Cover has been credited to C. Blaine in the Contents Page, and is identified by the artist's signiture, but the publisher of the reprint John P. Gunnison has identified the cover artist as Norman Saunders.
  • Bondage and partial nudity cover.

and this latter list will get indented automatically within the list of fields in the publication screen, rather than being treated as a block of text. --MartyD 13:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Underground Fiend" in New Mystery Adventures

A couple of questions and comments about your proposed putting (which I have on hold) of The Underground Fiend into a "The Mad Scientist of the Upper Amazon" series at position number 3:

  • I see that this November 1935 appearance is part three of a serialization, and I wasn't sure if your proposed submission is trying to account for that. For serializations, we simply use the title + "(Part n of m)", and then we make all of the serial appearances a variant of a single parent title representing the complete work. Here, this title should be changed to "The Underground Fiend (Part 3 of 3)", and we would then make that a variant of a new "The Underground Fiend" novel title (even if it was never published as a complete work that way -- Willard's bibliography display will show that it only ever appeared in its serial installments).
  • I could not find any reference to a "Mad Scientist of the Upper Amazon" series/theme with regard to Willard's works. From where did you get that?
  • If "The Underground Fiend" in its entirety is indeed the 3rd work in a "Mad Scientist" series, then what we would do is put the parent complete-work title I described creating above into that series in the 3rd position, and we would not put the serial installments into it (this is true of our treatment of any variants -- the parent goes in the series, the variants do not).
  • FWIW, I found this source if you want to try to get the other installments recorded.

So you should cancel that submission (or I can reject it), and then the title should be fixed up, the parent created, and the parent put into the series if appropriate. See Help:Use_of_the_SERIAL_type for a pretty good write-up of working with serials. If you'd rather I take care of it, let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 13:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read this story yet. It is not listed as a serial in the contents page, but on the stories title page it says The Underground Fiend and in smaller letter underneath if The Mad Scientis of the Upper Amazon. Part III. It give the impression that it is a series of short stories, and there is no synopsis of earlier installments. However, looking at the story again, I see that this entry starts with chapter seven, so I guess that it is an honest serial. Honestly, until I picked up this facsimile I had never heard of New Mystery Adventures or Edwin A. Willard. I picked up this facsimile because it had a story by Lebbeus Mitchell. I guess I really don't have any choice. ***sigh*** I don't think that I will ever get this right, I've saved the notes elsewhere so reject it if you will, I hate to have you fix it because I'd hate to have you clean up my mistakes. But, you are the sensei and I am but the pupil, and I must leave the final decision in the hands of the person with the most wisdom. MLB 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
To heck with it. If I can't figure this out I shouldn't be here. So I think that I corrected it and changed the note in the Note field to recognize this fact. Also, it's just a matter of principal for me not to enter anything that I can't hold in my hands, and verify personally. I prefer to make a fool out of myself rather than have somebody else do it, after all, I don't seem to have any problem making mistakes, I don't need any help ;-). (I think that I'm giving Mhhutchins an ulcer) Thanx for the link. MLB 14:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That looks right. Judging by what you say, it sounds like "The Mad Scientist of the Upper Amazon" is really a subtitle, and "Part III" is a reference to this installment of the serial (not to a Mad Scientist series). Keep going; it gets easier. I doubt you're giving anyone an ulcer. We are always happy to see new, active contributors who take trying to get the information right seriously. Every moderator was in a very similar pair of shoes once. --MartyD 11:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Don Lynch

Something must have gone wrong when you tried to create variants for Don Lynch's titles. One submission would have turned the "Atom of Death" illustration into a variant of Carolyn Cushman's review of Silvercloak and the other would have done the same to the "Phantom of the Seven Stars" illo. I have rejected the submissions and created variants and pseudonyms for "D. L." and "Lynch" -- hopefully everything looks OK now. Ahasuerus 05:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

William Stoy's letter in Planet Stories, Winter 1940

I have this submission on hold since something appears to be wrong with it. It would make "Letter (Planet Stories, Winter 1940)" by William Stoy into a variant of "Parodies Tossed: A. E. van Vogt's "Slan". Is it a safe assumption that the goal was to turn it into a variant of the same title by Bill Stoy? Ahasuerus 05:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yew, William Stoy and Bill Stoy are the same people, and I seem to not be very good at this. Thank you for your help. MLB 08:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming! I have set up a pseudonym and a variant title, so we should be all set. Ahasuerus 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Number lines


In your note to the moderator re Emily Rodda's The Forests of Silence, you query: "Number line inside on the copyright page is 24 23 22 21 20 19 which I think makes this the eighteenth edition, if I'm wrong please correct me."

Actually, it usually means the 19th printing of the particular edition. A first printing's number line is usually something like 5 4 3 2 1 (or 2 4 6 8 7 5 3 1). That is, it has a 1 on the number line. --clarkmci / j_clark 10:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought that I got that one wrong, hopefully I got the rest of these right. I now have niece's that want me to enter their books. Somebody is going to owe me an extra slice of chocolate cake on their birthday when I get to the "My Little Unicorn" books. I'll keep this in mind in the future. MLB 10:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to add that I've changed the publication's note for you, to save another round.
BTW: Is the US edition of The Forests of Silence really "pb" size? I'm curious 'cos all my Deltora Quest books are "tp" size (all Australian editions - must enter them into ISFDB one of these days! ... and earn myself chocolate cake??) --clarkmci / j_clark 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I've gone back and changed pb into tp. Yeah, if we ever meet you get a slice. MLB 10:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Several Deltora Quest submissions


1. Would you please check the ISBN for Cavern of the Fear - 0-343-39491-0 comes up with a checksum error.

2. I think our convention for US Scholastic is just "Scholastic" without "Inc." (Do a publisher search; although I notice a couple of Scholastics with imprints are still the wrong way round. Nevertheless, just "Scholastic" for US Scholastic Inc. seems what people have been using.)

3. Not sure I was totally clear re the number line: Number line usually indicates printings, not editions. Different printings of an edition usually have the same ISBN. Generally the differences are minor - different price &/or different advertising at the back &/or different "other books by this author"; sometimes a bit different cover design.

4. Re the title / series edits - the tool to use for what I think you are trying to do is "Check for Duplicate Titles". What you've attempted would give 2 instances of each title up in the series section of the author's page. I'll reject so you can use the "Check for Duplicate Titles" --clarkmci / j_clark 11:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going back and changing all "editions" to "printings". MLB 12:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where I got the listed ISBN number but the one on the copy of Cavern of the Fear that I got is 0-439-39491-0, sorry for the inconvenience. MLB 00:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Now fixed, please check. --clarkmci / j_clark 02:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Perfect. MLB 09:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi book and record

Are you certain that the spelling of the publisher is "Buea Vista" in this record? According to this Amazon listing it was published by Buena Vista, as does this OCLC record. I'm assuming your copy has a different cover than the one on Amazon. Also, Mark Hamill (misspelled in your submission as "Mark Hammil") played Luke Skywalker, not Han Solo. And I'm assuming that the note "Has dramatic character dialogue, sound effects, and music from the movie." refers to the recording not the book, and should be noted that way. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Doc Savage #23: The Fantastic Island & Danger Lies East

Your submission to add this title has been sitting in the queue for a couple of days, probably because moderators see problems with it. First, you credit Anthony Tollin as the editor. The OCLC gives responsibility credit to "W. Ryerson Johnson and Lester Dent writing as Kenneth Robeson". How is credited on the title page? Is this an anthology or a facsimile reprint of a Doc Savage issue? Also, you entered "The Fantastic Island" as a "(Complete Novel)" and typed as a SERIAL. That type is only for work published in a MAGAZINE container-type record, not an ANTHOLOGY. (I hope you understand when we capitalize here, we're not yelling. It's the ISFDB standard way to indicate a type of record.) I'm holding the submission until I hear back from you. Mhhutchins 16:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

1.) This is an anthology. The three stories are facsimile reprints, but this anthology is not a facsimile reprint of any one pulp. The three stories are from three different pulps, and the non-fiction is all new, except for the Lester Dent non-fiction piece, which upon closer examination carries the note that it is reprinted from the February 27, 1936 issue of the La Plata Home Press, whatever that is/was, I'm sorry, I'll fix that. There is a whole line of these Doc Savage re-issues, I have another one on hand. Some have original covers, and some reprint the pulp covers.
2.) As this is an anthology, the contents page says, as an example, THE FANTASTIC ISLAND by W. Ryerson Johnson and Lester Dent (writing as "Kenneth Robeson"), quote unquote, the title page also gives both authors credit. So the correct authors are credited on the title page, and Doc Savage historian (who has mentioned before that he has had access to the author's original manuscripts) Will Murray has given this new edition his blessings. So, while these two stories (the other story Talking Toad is a non-Doc Savage story, and was published under Dent's name, and is in the Click Rush series, which I would have added once this entry was accepted) were originally published as Kenneth Robeson, they are reprinted, on the title page as by their correct author(s). Although the stories, in facsimile form, continue to carry the Robeson name. Tollin is the editor and publisher of these new Doc Savage reprint anthologies. The back cover reprints, in smaller scale, both of the Doc Savage pulp covers, also in facsimile.
3.) Okay, I made a mistake about the serial classification. Sorry, I do understand the rules, but I keep making these stupid mistakes, sorry. I was originally torn between listing this as an anthology or as an omnibus, but the inclusion of the new material and the non-Doc Savage material convinced me that this was an anthology. I may be wrong, but reprinting a story in facsimile, doesn't make that anthology a facsimile of the pulp or magazine. A good example of this is the new G-8 reprints, of which I own #7-42 (run and hide now while you can), which reprints in facsimile the lead novel, and only one or two, or none, of the back-up stories/features. But ISFDB's protocol may be different, and I will accept that. No sarcasm-you're the boss. And yes, I know I misspelled one of the story's titles in the entry. I can fix that. MLB 17:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The business about types, especially the SERIAL type, can be confusing, and most mistakes are understandable and easily repaired. From your description, it's clear this is not a MAGAZINE, and you entered it correctly as an ANTHOLOGY. Mhhutchins 19:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
4.) The title page says Sanctum Books in association with Nostalgia Ventures, Inc., but the copyright page says that this whole thing is copyright 2008 by Sanctum Books, so I went with that. #15 gives a variation as Sanctum Productions for Nostalgia Ventures, Inc. I would never list anything I can't hold in my hands. MLB 17:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Ordinarily we use title page publisher credit, so it would be "Sanctum Books & Nostalgia Ventures, Inc.". Copyright credits often differ and are only used when there are not other credits. Title page trumps copyright page, as far as crediting author, book title and publisher. Back to the original question: how is the editor (Anthony Tollin) credited in the book? I'll accept the submission and let you make the changes and corrections. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Submission accepted. Record here. You'll see that the display at the end of the metadata is slightly off (the Bibliographic Comments and Upload Cover Scan links are listed in the notes.) This was caused by malformed HTML. Looks like there is no closure for unnumbered list. Mhhutchins 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Anthony Tollin is credited as the series editor and publisher (although I would bet this anthology is really edited by Will Murray), but Ryerson, Dent and Murray are listed on the title page, but only as authors. I could change the editorship to uncredited if you wish. I've just started using the new way of entering stuff in the Note field, and I think I made the same mistake in a recent submission. MLB 20:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's not explicitly credited, only credit Tollin in the Note field and give the editor as "uncredited". Also, there's still an error in the HTML. You used another opening unnumbered list tag (<UL>) instead of a closing one (</UL>). Mhhutchins 21:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Ouch! I hope I got it right this time. MLB 22:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Black Mask Stories

Submission accepted. Record here. I changed the publisher's name to the most common usage in the db. Then I noticed you'd made the same HTML mistake (no closing tags for the list). I've corrected it. Mhhutchins 20:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't see the purpose of adding the title of the book parenthetically to the essays' title fields. This should only be done for generic titles ("Introduction", "Afterword", "Editorial" etc.) The only thing it does here is add more verbiage to an already busy page. Mhhutchins 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason is simple, but upon reflection is incoherant, and not worth repeating. Too many Mountain Dews for breakfast. I'll go back later and delete the excess verbiage. MLB 22:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
You noted that you would have changed this to non-genre if you had the option. Unfortunately, the NONGENRE type is reserved for non-genre novels. There is no type for non-genre collections, anthologies, shortfiction, etc. Maybe in the future... Mhhutchins 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Doc Savage #15

Please check the type of the Edd Cartier piece on page 4 of this record. Is the artwork on page 110 by a different artist than the other three pieces? And is the other piece on page 110 fiction? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. The Edd Cartier piece on page 4 is a collection of his artwork assembled into a framing border for the Introduction for this volume. I'll change this. The artwork on page 110 is a cropped black-and-white version of the original cover to the original Spring 1949 issue of Doc Savage Magazine which illustrated Return From Cormoral, and the fiction takes up a third of the page and it is the Doc Savage coda. I don't know from which story it was lifted from so I gave it an uncredited credit, the same is true for the date.
Also, The Red Spider is actually the 182nd adventure of Doc Savage. The 95th adventure was The Devil's Playground and was published in the January 1941 issue of Doc Savage. This novel then became the 25th Bantam novel. If you go to site, it which shows the correct publishing data for each adventure and you will find that Terror Wears No Shoes is actually the 176th adventure, not the 179th, The Red Spider is the 182nd, not the 95th, and that Return From Cormoral is actually the 180th adventure, not the 181st. Also the Nanovic piece is a real Doc Savage adventure. Shouldn't the original publishing date be used and not the reprinting date? When/if you had accepted this anthology's entry I would have added that to the story's Note field. The whole Red Spider thing can be confusing though. 95th book, first printing, but 182nd adventure. This, I guess, is why there are Note fields on this site.
I have just changed the Edd Cartier entry and I have added a cover image. MLB 08:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I merged the titles with the current ones and don't know how or who set those numbers in the series. A title record can only be in one series and have only one number so I have no idea how to reconcile the "adventure" number with the "publication" number. I'll leave that to someone who is really interested in Doc Savage, a series for which I have no interest whatsoever. In the meantime, as you mention, the note field is your best friend. Mhhutchins 13:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Theman Who Found Zero ?

I'm holding a submission to add a new record with this title, which I first assumed was a typo. But then you used it later to disambiguate a content record. So I'm going to accept it and let you make any necessary changes (to both the pub record and the title record under Christie's name).

Also, as I mentioned here before: the Note to Moderator field should not be used to ask questions or ask for help. That's what the Help Desk is for. But since I'm already here, you say "I may need help, two stories here were originally published under other names." As long as you've recorded the author credit exactly as given on the title pages of the stories (not the contents page), there's nothing to worry about. Once the submission is accepted, you can check to see if the stories are in the database credited to the other authors and make them variants to the others, or vice versa depending on which is the canonical author. If they are not in the database that can be fixed as well by using the "Make This a Variant Title..." or "Add a Variant Title..." function. Mhhutchins 14:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Submission accepted, Record here. You will now have to merge these new title records with any that are already in the database. Looking at the first few I see there appear to be more than a few already here. Here's the help page to learn how to merge title records. Mhhutchins 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing the title field of a pub record doesn't affect the title field of its title record. This title record will need to be corrected. Mhhutchins 22:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You added a note: "The cover is a restored reprint from the March 1935 issue of Amazing Stories. Further information can be found following the link." but didn't give a link, or did I miss something? And what does "restored reprint" mean? Mhhutchins 22:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I meant the link of the artist, I'll change that. Restored reprint means, to me, that this cover is from the March 1935 issue of Amazing Stories, but it looks like it's been restored. The wear and tear is missing, and the all the original information of the original magazine's interiors has been redrawn. You're right, I'll go back and change the wording of both notes. MLB 23:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be nitpicking here, but the artist's link only leads to the artist's summary page with several hundred title records. Once a user finds the right issue, he then has to click on the pub record link to see the cover. Why not just create an HTML link to the image? Entered as The cover art is reprinted from <a href="">Amazing Stories, March 1935</a>. Mhhutchins 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I made the cover art record a variant of the original cover art record. Mhhutchins 23:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This is embarrassing, because this is where I have to shamefully admit that I don't know how to do that. This cover has seen a lot of use, and I just wanted to mention that. While I'm not as dumb as I look (few are), I'm not as smart as I like to pretend that I am. Links are not my strength, I always seem to get them wrong, and you don't want somebody to click on one of mine and up on a site where you can make the ultimate chocolate chip cookie. That might be tasty, but it wouldn't contribute anything to this site. MLB

Redundancy in the note field

You added a note to this title record that "The Mysterious Card is a short story that originally appeared in the February 1896 issue of The Black Cat." when "Originally appeared in The Black Cat, February 1986." says the same thing. Also, the titles of magazines (and other container publications) are usually italicized, while contents are in quotation marks, according to MLA. There are no ISBN standards that I'm aware of, but with so many different ways currently in the database, I'm thinking about bringing up the topic on the Rules and Standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to go back and change them all, or just not be so redundant in the future? Being that most of us are amateurs, most of us will bring to this site our own way of doing things. Standardizing things might be a good idea, but who's going to go back and rewrite everything? MLB 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Very true. It's not a criticism. Don't worry about going back and changing anything. Just something to keep in mind for the future. And even if you continue to word it as you have, there's nothing really wrong with it. Sometimes the editor in me comes out when I see when one word can take the place of two. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Man Who Found Zero"

You can not change the credit of a title record without changing how it is credited in every publication in which it was published. So I had to reject the submission to change the author of this record to "Lon Arnold". Look at this scan of the September 1901 issue of The Black Cat. If the name is spelled "Lon Arnold" on the story's title page (not the contents page) in the anthology, you'll have to use the "Remove Titles..." function, then update the record to add the title back, then make the new title into a variant of the original one. Mhhutchins 19:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Fear Experiment

I'm not sure what you mean by the second bullet point in your notes: "Possible three first editions. Newstand version (0-679-82266-6), library binding edition (0-679-92266-0), and this one, which seems to be a book club edition." Are all three ISBNs stated in the publication? Mhhutchins 02:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. On the copyright page both the newstand and library binding editions are given seperate ISBNs, while my copy has no bar code, and a different ISBN number on the blank space where the bar code should be. Yet the number line, if I read it correctly, states that this is a first edition. So if the newstand edition and the library binding are listed on the copyright page, and this book are each given a seperate ISBN, and the copyright page states that this is a first edition, then all three must be simultaneous first editions. That is unless the copyright page is lying or misrepresenting itself, in which case I can't know that. MLB 16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright pages don't lie or misrepresent. They may be in error. In cases like this it's best not to surmise the situation ("Possible three first editions.") Just record the data exactly as presented in the book. Is the word "newstand" [sic] actually stated in the book? I've never seen that term used before in reference to a printing or edition. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 17:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"Newsstand" was always a term used to describe something (magazine, comic, book, etc.) that is sold at anything from drugstores, to department stores, to the rapidly disappearing bookstores. What other term should I use? MLB 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I know what "newsstand" means. I was asking if the term was actually stated in the book. Mhhutchins 20:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I like these type of serial juvenile series, but not enough to go out and buy one of each of the editions to verify whether or not all three were simultaneous editions, thus the "possibly" in the Note field. Somebody who has grown up reading these should fill in the blanks. I never list anything I can't hold in my hands, and never verify anything I don't own, unless I've borrowed it from somebody. I have seen copyright pages lie or misrepresent themselves. "1st edition" and "First time in paperback" are terms that come readily to mind. MLB 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to go back to my original request: "Just record the data exactly as presented in the book." You can never go wrong that way. And, sorry, it may be a matter of semantics, but copyright pages don't lie or misrepresent themselves...they just are. If there's an error, record it as stated, and then given evidence, using a reliable secondary source, that the information is in error. Mhhutchins 20:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Artist credit and variant creation

If we base art credit solely on a visible signature (no printed credit), it is OK to credit the artist's complete name, and note that the signature is the source. So I rejected the submission to make this record into a variant credited to "Pete Costanza". There are currently no records in the database credited to this name, but two credited to "Costanza". If we later determine that the other record was based solely on the signature, we can credit both records to Pete Costanza. I will update the artist's data to give his full name in the legal name field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Harry Lemon Parkhurst

This one's going to be a headache. We have about the same number of records for "Parkhurst" as we do for "Harry Lemon Parkhurst", and I don't know whether the credits are based on signatures or printed credit. I'll create a pseudonym and variant to the complete name, but it's still a mess. Mhhutchins 14:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In the case of this record, since you say it was based on the signature, I'm going to change the record's credit and reject the submission to make a variant. Mhhutchins 14:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The same situation with the records for "JPD". I'll change the records to "Joseph Doolin" as that's the canonical name. Mhhutchins 14:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the reason that I have not credited "Doolin" with being Joseph Doolin. The art with this creditation in Planet Stories has no signature, and since there are at least two contemporaneous artists with that name how can I assign credit? The same is true of "Stevens", I suspect who this is, but again, no signature. Again, is a great site as it shows samples of the artist's artwork and their signitures to compare. MLB 03:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wolfen

I added the title to the generically titled essays in this record to disambiguate them. Please keep this in mind for future entries. Also, when I changed the page count field from "288+2" to "288+[2]". Brackets around a number indicate that the pages are not numbered. One more thing: in the note field, container titles are italicized, while contained titles should be in quotation marks. So the title of the book would be The Wolfen, while the essay would be "A Note from the Author". Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


If your copy of this title is a fourth printing, you should not update this record which is presumably the first printing. You should clone it to create a record for the fourth printing. The date field should be zeroed out (as 0000-00-00) if the date of printing is not specified. (There are already records for the 5th, 8th and 9th printings.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A Matter of Crime

I accepted the addition of this pub, but changed the publisher from "Harvest/HBJ / Harcourt Brace Jovanovich" to "Harvest / HBJ". We do (sometimes) regularise the way publishers are spelled. Thanks, --Willem H. 09:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wild Wolf

A couple of things re: the proposed change to the title record for Wild Wolf. We have three separate series called "The Pack" on file, so I have disambiguated them by adding the author's name in parentheses. I then investigated whether this book is the 4th or the 9th title in the series and found the following list on the author's Web site. I have added the missing books using as the source and I think we have them all now. I am not sure why the edition that you have states that it's the 4th volume in the series -- perhaps the publisher meant to break the series up into two or more sub-series? Ahasuerus 18:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't go to the author's website. My copy of Wild Wolf only lists the books from their Nocturne series and not from all of their book lines. There also seems to be a series on mini-series in this series, but I don't have these books to check on what is what. Harlequin is pretty shabby when it come to documenting their books. Again, thanks for the correction. Now I have even more books to collect. MLB 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, thanks for checking! And you are right, Harlequin doesn't seem to be very detail-oriented, but then they pump out a lot of books and probably don't have much time to spend on each title. I always imagine their editorial offices as an old-fashioned factory with editors chained to the conveyer belt and the publisher walking around with a whip in his hand :-) Ahasuerus 21:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bradbury's Now and Forever

If there's only 221 numbered pages, how can there be an essay on page 223 of this publication? Also, is the name of the untitled essay "Untitled Harper Books Catalogue of Ray Bradbury's Books"? If so, then it's not untitled. And, if the catalogue's pages are numbered then you shouldn't add brackets to the number in the page count field.

One more thing: this is the last time I will be answering any questions that you pose in the Note to Moderator field. I've asked you several times to ask them on the proper help page, but you continue to ask, and I continue to answer. That's my fault for enabling the habit. So fair warning. Only enter additional data in this field which you feel will aid the moderator in his decision to accept the submission. That's all.

You asked why shouldn't the publication be recorded as an OMNIBUS. An omnibus is a publication which includes, among its contents, the entire contents of at least two other books which have been previously published. The ISFDB standard (which I personally feel is too restrictive): "A publication may be classified as an omnibus if it contains multiple works that have previously been published independently, and at least one of them is a novel." The William Morrow and Harper editions of this title are typed as a COLLECTION of two novellas. "Somewhere a Band Is Playing" was previously published as a standalone work by Gauntlet Press, but this edition does not include the entire contents of the standalone publication, only the novella. And I believe this was the first publication of the novella "Leviathan '99". So under any scenario this would not be considered an OMNIBUS. Mhhutchins 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore any real questions in the moderator field, sometimes I just forget myself. I do this in real life also. Asking questions when I shouldn't is something I'm trying to control. Again, I apologize. MLB 16:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope that I have corrected the other problems. MLB 16:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Is the catalogue really an essay or just a list of available titles, i.e. advertising? Mhhutchins 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I listed it because it is very odd for its type. It gives one-half to full page synopsises (synopsii?) of twenty novels, collections, and non-fiction books of Bradbury's. It works as an ad, but there are no prices, ISBNs, or order pages for them, so it's more of a promotional piece than anything else. I listed it because it was more than just an ad, and I know you don't want ads. Still, I can eliminate it if you want. MLB 18:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Planet Stories, Winter 1947

In this reprint you have let two entries with an unknown date of publication (0000-00-00), though I guess that they also were part of the original publication. Stonecreek 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have taken care of one of these entries, it was an oversite and a mistake. The Vizigraph's illustation is undated because until recently I didn't know the date. It's from the second issue and it looks like I'm going to have to go back and change the dates to all the entries. Soon. MLB 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dreams of the Dead

Can you confirm that the publisher stated on the title page of this book is just Bloomsbury? There's a record of the first printing which gives the publisher as Bloomsbury USA Children's Books. Currently the publisher designated as Bloomsbury is for the original British publisher. We try to keep books from its US division listed separately in the database.

Also, when you create a record for an excerpt do not give it a length designation. Just leave it as SHORTFICTION. It's not a short story or novelette, regardless of its word count. If a work is a self-contained excerpt and is retitled, then you can give it a length designation, but don't add "excerpt)" to the title. Note the source of the excerpt in the title record's note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: you'll have to blank out the publication date, unless there is a specified date for this printing. Mhhutchins 18:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it only says Bloomsbury on the title page. In fact, on the copyright page it sez "First published in the United States of America in October 2009 by Bloomsbury Books for Young Readers. This edition published in August 2010." Then down the page it states "ISBN: 978-1-59990-585-3 (reissue)".
Okay, thanks for the info on excerpts. I think that clears that up. MLB 14:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Spirits of the Noh

Submission adding this record was accepted, but there's a couple of problems. The ISBN-13 is an invalid number, and you failed to add the closing HTML tag in the unnumbered line list. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, if this was published by the US division (see the copyright page), please change the publisher field to "Bloomsbury USA". Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Varianting title records

If the parent record already exists, you should copy the number of that record and enter it into the first field of the "Make This Title a Variant" function. Because Cirque was the first use of the artwork, it's considered the parent title record. If you go to its page you'll see that its number is 67113 (the numbers after cgi?). Write that number down, memorize it, or copy [Ctrl C] it. Then go the record for the later usage of the artwork: Omni, February 1990. Click on "Make This Title a Variant..." and on the next page enter "67113" in the top field and then submit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try this.MLB 12:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

John Peel's Maniac

I'm holding a submission to add the first printing of this title, but it looks to be almost identical to this record. The only difference is the addition of "BC" to the ISBN field, which is not part of the ISBN. If you think the current record is yours and can be updated, cancel the submission to add a new record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The current record is not mine. I dunno, all I can report is what I see. The "BC" immediately follows the ISBN in the blank space where the bar code should be. I thought I cloned the current record but I could be wrong. Perhaps I should just add a note to the current record stating that there is possible book club edition. MLB 12:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying the current record is yours, just that it might be a record for your copy of the title. The only letter in an ISBN is when "X" is the check-digit. I'll accept the submission if you feel it's a different printing, but you'll have to remove the "BC" from the ISBN field, and explain in the note field that you believe your copy is not the same as the printing of the other record. 13:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay. MLB 14:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan Heilman vs Dann Heilman

I have your submission to make a cartoon by Dan Heilman a variant of a new cartoon title by the presumably correct name Dann Heilman. Since this is a case of 2 times that Dann appears, and 1 time that Dan appears, I think it would be best if we confirm that it actually was printed as Dan. It's very reasonable to think that Ron (Who verified the one publication with Dan Amazing Stories, October 1940) might have made a typo and spelled the name with only a single n (especially since that is the 'normal' spelling of the name that sounds like that, but the magazine might actually have Dann. Kevin 21:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to cancel your submission (But you can resubmit it after doing a little more detective work). I'm going to ask that go to Ron's Discussion User_talk:Rkihara page. (If this is new, use the 'plus' symbol at the top of his page). Please ask him to double check the Amazing Stories, October 1940 issue to see if that letter is listed as being by Dann or by Dan. If it actually is by Dan then you should resubmit the variant edit. If I've misunderstood what you were trying to do, or if you have any questions, please let me know or just ask - Thanks Kevin 21:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I will also warn you, that Ron (like all of us) does have some life outside of the ISFDB, and it can sometimes take a while to check older materials (especially if they are stored off site). What I do when I ask a question, is I put the users discussion page on my watch list (this makes it show up in bold on 'Recent Changes', but I also make a post it note or something similar. This is a 70 year old typo we are investigating. A day, a week, or even a month or two isn't too long to wait to make sure we get it right. - Thanks again Kevin 21:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nahh, it's cool. We're talking seventy-year old plus magazines, we may never get a totally concrete answer, if the answer waits a few months, or years, more, well, then so be it. I've always wondered though, if the relatives of these people ever look their parents up on this site. Now most of my relatives are gone, I know I'd look them up, but I seem to be the only one in my family to have left a paper trail behind me. I even have a page on this site.
Oh, I'm still a newbie here, so I'm sorry if I stepped on anybody's toes. MLB 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Friends in Need

I changed the page count from 23 to [23] (they were unpaginated and then we notify this with []) and substituted 'Don Bluth Studios' for 'Don Bluth' (assuming this is what was credited in the publication).

Still missing is the content of the CHAPTERBOOK (view it as collection with only one major shortfiction item). Thanks, Stonecreek 12:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is continued on the helpdesk --Willem H. 06:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Friends in Need

I've put a hold on your submission for "Friends in Need". Are you confident that a 23 page picture book based on a movie about some anthropomorphized talking baby dinosaurs is actually 'Speculative Fiction' as opposed to a cartoon/comic book at best or a picture book at worst? I'm concerned that this title is awfully close to "Animal books for very young children, i.e. books for preschoolers which depict simple scenes from animal life featuring anthropomorphized animals" which is defined as out of the scope of the database. Is there an identifiable plot or story? Does it tie into someone who already has a significant body of work in the database? Kevin 02:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, there is a story here, in words. One half of the page is an illustration from the movie, the other half is the story, in large letters. I'd say that this story is for first graders, but, not having children (just nieces) I wouldn't swear to it. It deals with talking dinosaurs, but this seems to be a gray area I'm not clear about. Are the Franklin books by Paulette Bourgeois ineligible? "Friends in Need" is certainly neither a cartoon/comic book or a picture book. It certainly has more words than a graphic novel. And it has a plot, but I am embarassed to admit that I have never seen the movie The Land Before Time, so . . .
I guess when I can get to my local library, I can scan a page or two and post them on Amazon so you can see. Unfortunately, I'm handicapped, and I can't drive, so it may take a week or two. I usually scan about twenty covers or so at the library and then dole them out when my submissions are accepted. If this submission is rejected, so be it then, my feeling won't be hurt. Boundries, I'm still finding them out on this site. MLB 18:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Without some strong argument I believe this book (And the Franklin books) to be out and not Speculative Fiction as defined by ISFDB Policy Animal books for very young children. Unless the artist, author, or someone associated with this book is quite literally award winning and that award is Spec Fic (Hugo, Nebula, etc) I don't see what talking dinosaurs, or talking turtles has to do with speculative fiction. These books simply supply anthropomorphized animals in morality tales or learning disguised as fiction. Kevin 03:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The Franklin books for example, Franklin Fibs is blurbed with "Bear can climb the highest tree, Hawk can fly over the berry patch without flapping his wings, and Beaver can chop down a tree with his teeth. "I can swallow 76 flies in the blink of an eye," Franklin fibs. . . . Then Franklin's friends ask him to prove it!". Franklin and the Computer is blurbed with "Franklin becomes so captivated with a new computer game that he almost forgets what being a friend is all about." Kevin 03:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
As such, I've rejected your submissions. If there is an identified link that merits additional consideration, feel free to resubmit them with the new supporting information. I've also deleted the one Franklin book from the database, and removed Franklin and the Computer. I'll point out that we don't have Winnie the Pooh in the database either. This isn't a judgement against the fiction, it's a judgement against the type of fiction. Thanks, Kevin 03:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, that clears that up, ummm, maybe. Although I have a question, other than the age of the target audience, what is the difference between Winnie the Pooh and Gordon R. Dickson's/Poul Anderson's Hoka stories? Or The Wizard of Oz where we have anthropomorphized lions, tin men, and scarecrows? Anyway, I guess I don't have to add Franklin's Fly Fishing Escapade, or Franklin Clips His Toenails to the database. MLB 09:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Breadth, Scope, Complexity, World Building, and Authorship. Kevin 02:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I also want to apologize for coming across as flip above. I was short on time and didn't self-edit. Winnie the Pooh is a great example because it's just barely out. I like to use it as a benchmark at times to help me draw a clearer line. Winnie the Pooh stories essentially have Owl doing owl-like things, and Rabbit doing rabbit-like things. They are simply animals acting as obvious shadow characters with self described behavior in their name. There is no attempt to rationalize or make this fit into our world (No explanation as to what makes Pooh different from other bears (Science, magic, aliens, etc), or how this changes society around him). There is also no attempt to wall it off as a fantasy land (as in Alice, or in Oz, those worlds are explained as distinct and separate). Poohs Corner however is explained as being in the 100 acre wood, but nothing distinguishes that wood from any other. It could even be that wood over there..... the one you can see from your house. Pooh doesn't speculate... about smart bears from a different planet, or magical disappearing cats, or tornadoes that can whisk you away somewhere else... Pooh only wonders if there is any Hunny in the jar. Kevin 04:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazing Stories series

Hi. I have on hold your proposed modification to Jaguar! that would put it in a series called "Amazing Stories". We already have a series by that name, for the magazine of that name. I'm guessing the series you intend for this story is not that, so what needs to be done here is to use a unique name. The simplest way to do that can be to add something disambiguating in parentheses, e.g., "Amazing Stories (TV tie-in)" or something along those lines. --MartyD 03:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it a bit generic, but that's what the book said. How about "Amazing Stories (Choose-the-adventure book)"? These really aren't tie-in books, as they really don't have anything to do with the tv series. They're not even true novels, but a series of six choose-your-own adventures type of books. MLB 16:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever you feel is appropriate. I don't have the books, so I don't have an educated opinion beyond recognizing the need to provide something to disambiguate. --MartyD 17:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I rejected that submission and accepted your new ones using "Amazing Stories Adventure Books". As long as it's unique, we can always change the series name later if we decide something else would be better. Thanks. --MartyD 10:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine

I'm holding the submissions to add two issues of this title to the database. Here is a link to the ISFDB standards to add non-genre magazines to the database. You'll see that we don't credit the stated editor, nor cover artist (unless the cover illustrates a spec-fic story). You should only create records for speculative fiction contents. You note in the submissions that "Only writers with a history in speculative fiction will be listed.", but that's not the current policy. After reading the standards, you can either cancel the submissions or start a discussion on the Rules & Standards page about how the standards should be changed. Also, it appears that you've given the ISSN in the ISBN field. If you feel the ISSN should be entered into a publication record, it should go into the note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read these issues so I can't tell you if there is any speculative/fantasy content to the stories. If you say no, then no. If I ever read them, or any of the other mystery fiction magazine and there's any speculative/fantasy content to any of the stories then I'll try again, but for now I'll just let them go. I understand the whole slippery slope idea. MLB 08:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Still one step do do ...

... with varianting the reviews by TT Zuma. At present, that author hasn't been made into a pseudonym of his alter ego T. T. Zuma. Would you like to do that? Stonecreek 15:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say there is another step first - explaining why we shouldn't regularise "TT Zuma" to "T. T. Zuma". BLongley 16:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Because that's how I understand the help text here, under Initials. Stonecreek 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have a reason/justification behind "it is clearly the author's choice" or whichever part you think applies. BLongley 18:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the passage 'when most authors have initials shown with period and space, but a particular author is handled differently' is the one that applies here, because other authors are credited with the usual 'X.' in Cemetary Dance, when they have an initial. On the other hand, there are also reviews as by 'T. T. Zuma' in this magazine. Hmm, maybe the original submitter could tell us his point of view.
And then there's this author, for whom I suspect a typo. Stonecreek 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just a lowly contributer to this site, and I'm still learning the boundries as to what to do and what not to do. See the above comments by Kevin about my attempts at putting in young children's books. About T. T. Zuma, all I know is, is that this s/he has done stuff as T. T. Zuma and for some reason s/he has their reviews in the new Cemetery Dance as by TT Zuma. Whether this is a typo on Cemetery Dance's case, or a new preference in signing their name, I don't know. I have a cousin with an identical first and last name as I do, so I have signed my own name several ways over the years. I don't see much difference, say, in somebody signing their name T, T., Tom, or Thomas, as an example, as part of their name, it's their choice. However, I just wanted to make sure that all of this author's stuff ended up on the same page, figuratively and literaly. I didn't know that this would cause so much trouble. Sorry.
About this author, yes, this is a typo. I should know, I put it there. As Yoda would say, "Hamfisted am I." Again, I'm sorry for all of this trouble. MLB 09:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but this is no trouble, it's just a question that is not easy to solve, because none of us knows what the reason in changing the initials is. Maybe we should leave it at this point as it is and wait for future occurences of T. T. Zuma. If the new initials are to stay we should take them into account, otherwise the TT should probably be changed into T. T. again. But you do have a copy of the new Cemetery Dance, #66? Just asking because you didn't verify it (nobody's perfect, not even moderators).
Oh, and I changed the typo for you. Stonecreek 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I own a copy, and thank you for correcting the typo. MLB 19:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Tales of the Unanticipated #30

You added Rebecca Marjesdatter as the co-editor of this issue, although in the notes you give her as one of the associate editors and poetry editor. Is she credited on the title page as a co-editor with Eric M. Heideman? Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Eric M. Heideman is credited as "Editor in Chief", but Rebecca Marjesdatter is credited on the editorial page as "Poetry Editor", "Designer", "Associate Editor" and she's given a column to do an editorial and an obituary of Camilla DeCarnin. Since she seems to have done all the editing of the poetry, and there's quite a bit here, I listed her as co-editor. I can change it if you want, but at the bottom of the editorial she mentions that you can "friend" her and Heideman at Facebook on the TOTU site. I'm guessing it's all a matter of semantics here, but these can be important. They advertise an upcoming thirty-first issue, but I've never seen it. MLB 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ordinarily, we only give the person who is credited as the editor in the editor field. (But exceptions have been made.) Other roles can be credited in the note field. We'll leave the record as you entered it, but I only ask that you do a primary verification of it so that any future editors will know who to contact if they have questions concerning the credit. Mhhutchins 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The House on Hackman's Hill and Scholastic date encoding

I accepted your submission of The House on Hackman's Hill but made a couple of changes to it. I changed the date from 1985 to 1988 and replaced "First printing per number line" with the actual number line and its interpretation. From where did you get the 1985? (You might want to add that to the note -- Sorry if I lost something.) To answer your question in the note to the moderator, the number line:

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 blank spaces 8 9/8 0 1 2 3/9

tells us two things. The first part, 12 ... 1, tells us this is a first printing. The lowest number in the series indicates which printing it is (numbers representing earlier printings are dropped). If it were 12 ... 3, that would indicate a 3rd printing. The second part, 8 9/8 0 1 2 3/9, is Scholastic's encoding of the publication year (if there were a number where you have "blank spaces", that would be the month). It uses a similar range approach, with the lowest number winning. Here, 19 is implied, and 8 9/8 means 88 89, while 0 1 2 3/9 means 90 91 92 93. So that part of the line effectively means 88 89 90 91 92 93, and the lowest number is 88, so that's the year. Fun, huh? See this if you're interested in more details. --MartyD 13:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, **groan** I clearly need to take more classes in library science. I think this is one of the reasons that I'll take my time to start listing my book club editions, which I believe is a whole 'nother world of confusion. I get the first part, it'll take a little studying to get the second part. Yeah, that link is probably going to come in real handy.
The 1985 part. Because the copyright page sez so. "Copyright 1985 by Joan Lowery Nixon." Perhaps there is an unaknowledged hardcover edition? This can be such a thankless job. Thanx. MLB 07:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree thanks are rare for us, but we can thank each other. Thanks for tackling the book club editions, they're an area I try to avoid. BLongley 11:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright date refers to the copyright on the text (essentially, when the text was written), not necessarily any publication date. Copyrights are often earlier than first publication dates, especially around year boundaries. So for a work to be copyright 1985 but first published 1986 would not be at all unusual. Later printings will carry that same copyright date, too. See, for example, the copyright page of this edition. Notice it is still copyright 1985, but says First Scholastic printing, October 1990. And then its numberline shows it's a 9th printing in 2003. --MartyD 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Gold Eagle

Can you confirm that the publisher given in several of your verified pubs is Gold Eagle / Worldwide and not Gold Eagle / Worldwide Library? We have records for the latter name dated from 1984 - 2012, and it looks like the publishers should be merged as one. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 13:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It may at one time been Gold Eagle / Worldwide Library at one time, but now all the books that I have on hand are just Gold Eagle / Worldwide I have a near complete run of Deathlands, and a complete run of Outlanders and Rogue Angel as I have a real interest in pulp heroes. But the early ones are now in storage. Anyway, it says, on the title page of all my current Gold Eagle Books it reads "A Gold Eagle Book from Worldwide." MLB 21:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you go through the records of the ones that you have and make the adjustment? There is one record from 2010 that is verified as "Worldwide Library" and nothing from 2011 or 2012 under that publisher has been verified. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I did an Amazon Look-Inside for some of the more recent titles, and even though the title page says "A Gold Eagle Book from Worldwide", they are copyrighted by Worldwide Library, and the back states "A Gold Eagle Book from Worldwide Library". I don't think this is so significant to be an actual change in the publisher's name, and it wouldn't make sense to keep the books separate in the database. Would you object to my merging the two publishers? If so, I can pull out the ones that you verified, and only merge the ones that have yet to be verified. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no objections to merging the publishers, you would be a better judge of this than me. Did you want me to go back and change my entries while I have the time? MLB 21:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Not necessary. Merging will automatically change the publisher credit of every record being merged. And I can do it in one submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Zoetrope: All-Story

Are you certain that all of the stories you've listed in the submission to add the Fall 2011 issue are spec-fic? It's my understanding that this is a non-genre magazine that may occasionally publish stories of spec-fic interest. If so, it should be listed using the rules for non-genre magazines. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the note that this was a special horror issue. I'll accept the submission, but do some tweaking to follow the non-genre magazine standards. Mhhutchins 12:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, after taking me to task for trying to enter material from Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine I decided only to enter only stuff that seems speculative. Here it was a horror issue, I'm a bit obsessive, so sometimes I forget myself in listing details. I'll try to do better. MLB 21:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Um, I know I should have asked earlier, but where do I go for the standards for non-genre magazines? MLB 21:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Click on the "Help" link on any Wiki page. Then click on the "How To..." link to go to a list of the help pages of the most common editing tasks. That page is here (you should bookmark this page or remember how to get to it). Under the "Entering Data" listing there's a link for "Help: Entering non-genre magazines". Because this was an all-spec issue of a non-genre magazine, and because he's edited other spec-fic publications, I kept the editor (Michael Ray) in the record. Ordinarily, it would be entered as "Editors of X", with "X" being the title of the magazine, such as "Editors of Collier's". We also don't credit cover art unless it's for one of the spec-fic works, which I assume this cover is. Mhhutchins 21:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Startling Stories, January 1942

Okay, I did it again. I accidently hit the "enter" button while editing this record. If you okay it, I'll go back and finish it, and correct any mistakes. MLB 00:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Posting this on your own page doesn't really get the message to the persons you want to inform. It should have been posted on the Moderator Noticeboard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Mort Weisinger = Sergeant Saturn

Are you certain the Mort Weisinger wrote the Sergeant Saturn pieces? Is there evidence in the magazine or do you have a reliable secondary source? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've come across several websites that state that Weisinger wrote, and created, that name, but they also state that it became a house name. I'm going to cancel it, all of "Ol' Sarge's" inane contributions should probably be kept together, after all, once a pseudonym starts becoming shared who's to tell who wrote what. Go here: [1] for a quick one-paragraph summation of the whole thing if you're interested. MLB 23:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Variant cover art records

I'm holding a few submissions which want to variant the cover art records, three of which create new records. If there is already a record in the database, you should enter the number in the upper portion of the "Make Variant..." edit page. For example, you want to create a new record that is a variant of this record, the cover art for the Adventure House reprint of Startling Stories, May 1940. If the cover art is the same as this record, then you should merge the records. If you go to the page for Howard V. Brown, click on "Check for Duplicate Titles". You'll see that there are two identically titled records for Startling Stories, May 1940. If you're certain the two covers are identical, check the box beside each of the records and click "Merge Selected Records".

On the next submission, you want to variant the cover art record for High Adventure #94 by Earle Bergey with a new record titled "Cover: Captain Future, Summer 1940". If you go to the summary page for Earle Bergey, you'll see there is already a record for Cover: Captain Future, Summer 1940. The number of the record is 1459828. If you're certain this is the same art, copy the record number and then go to the record for the cover art of High Adventure #94, and click on "Make This Title a Variant...". On the next page, enter 1459828 in the field for "Parent #".

There are two methods for handling this because, in the first case, the cover art records had identical titles and are the same art work (so you merge them). In the second case, they're are the same art work, but have different titles (so you variant one to the other.)

You should cancel the submissions and try again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thrilling Mystery, March 1936

You want to change the title of this record from "Cover: Thrilling Mystery, March 1936" to "Cover: Thrilling Mystery, July1936" [sic]. I'm not sure why, since the publication it's linked to is the Adventure House reprint of the March 1936 issue, or at least that's the way you entered it into the database. Mhhutchins 22:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's called stupidity, and I'm guilty of it. For some reason, I put the wrong date on the entry, even though I was staring right at it. A rhetorical question though is why does the bald guy look like Daddy Warbucks? MLB 23:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:) Mhhutchins 02:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited cover art

When a publication's cover art is not credited, leave the field blank. Do not use "uncredited". I've removed that credit from the cover art field of this record. Also, take a look at your list of rejected submissions (linked on the front page as "My Rejected Edits") to see the reason why they were rejected. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland

I approved the addition of the series number, then realised this was a variant title so removed the series name and number. Only the canonical title should get series information, or the title appears twice (or more) in the series listings. BLongley 12:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Jayem Wilcox

"Legalname" goes "Last name, first names" so I changed "James Milton Wilcox" to "Wilcox, James Milton". BLongley 12:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark Marchioni

See above, but also the "M. Marchioni" and "Marchioni" edits duplicate data. The correct way to go is to choose one of these as the Canonical author and add the Biographic data only to that one, then make variants until all titles go away from the pseudonyms and appear on the Canonical author's page. BLongley 12:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I made Marchioni the Canonical name, I think, but where do I go from here? The help page wasn't quite clear as to what to do next. Do I eliminate all/most of the biographical data from the Mark Marchioni page? I made Marchioni the Canonical name because this is how he signed his name, and this page has the most data, I think, I certainly didn't count them up. MLB 09:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
You haven't defined a Canonical name: the way to do that is to make his other names pseudonyms of the main one. Then you work through every title under the pseudonyms, and create variants. There's a lot of work to do there - 130+ edits minimum - so leave it with me for a bit and I'll see if Data Thief can do most of the work for us. It looks like "M. Marchioni" would be easiest to make canonical as that has most titles at the moment. Would you mind if we chose that one? It saves another 70 or so edits. BLongley 13:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Looks like I didn't know what I was getting into. MLB 13:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The sheer amount of work puts a lot of people off trying it. :-/ There's a lot of artists that do need this treatment still, thanks for identifying this one. Getting Data Thief to do it once should help with future similar problems. BLongley 13:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. MLB 13:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, I got Data Thief to fix them. Please let me know if you see any problems before I try such on an even more prolific artist. BLongley 04:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh my gosh! I can't check every entry, but this is just awesome! **Ahem** I'm impressed. MLB 08:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, it's good practice for me. Let me know if there's any other major artists that need this treatment. BLongley 11:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Afternoon of the Elves

I accepted the submission adding this new printing of the title, but a couple of problems. The Scholastic number line: "30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 [blank space] 9 [blank space] 7 8 9/9 0 1 2/0" indicates the 19th printing in September 1997. The lowest number on the right side is 7 and the first number after the slash is 9, which means it was printed in [19]97. They would drop the "7" leaving the "8" if it were 1998, and they would drop the first four numbers ("7 8 9/9") if it were published in 2000 (with number line: "0 1 2/0"). Hope this makes sense. Also, I believe Apple Signature is a publication series, not an imprint. WorldCat's records refers to it as a series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear to me that I have quite a ways to go to get really good at this, as I only got it two-thirds right. Sorry. I hope to eventually get it right. All I know about Apple Signature is that by the rules that were taught me here, I just used what was on the title page. MLB 08:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
There's a fine line between imprint and publication series, and each publisher has a different way of designating them. More often than not, a publication series will be stated on the book's front cover, while an imprint will be stated on its copyright page and possibly the back cover and/or spine. Both (or neither) can be stated on the title page, which in most cases also states the publisher's name. Even then, some publishers will differ from the majority. If it were clean-cut and simply designated, I suppose we would be out of a job (for which we've yet to receive our first paycheck!) As for your progress, it's going to take time, but I can tell from your recent submissions, you're getting better. I've been here five-plus years and even now questions will come up. So don't beat yourself about not knowing everything about ISFDB standards. There are none of us who know everything. Mhhutchins 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been here about the same length of time as Michael, and even with the added benefit of looking at the ISFDB code, I know I'm nowhere near 100% expert and never will be. Nor are any of the other moderators: and even the founder would probably be confused by some of the changes we've made since he let us loose! BLongley 19:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the Valley of Thorns

I've brought this situation to your attention several times before, but it just doesn't seem to "stick". Interior art records are titled as the work which they illustrate. So there can be no "untitled" interiorart records in a publication. In this record, the title of the piece on page i should just be "Beyond the Valley of Thorns". Certain works can be qualified, such as maps or frontispieces by adding that parenthetically to the title. So the map on page vi should be titled "Beyond the Valley of Thorns (map)". Also, you should give the roman-numeraled pages in the page count field, e.g. "vi+221". Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There's also an "untitled" record for interiorart by Neil Roberts in Age of Darkness. Mhhutchins 19:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It does "stick", I just make mistakes. I'm still a neophyte at this. I'm getting more right than wrong, amittedly by a slim margine. I'll go and correct my mistakes. MLB 07:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Series "Magic Attic Club": publication or title

You previously added several publications (such as this one) to a series titled "Magic Attic Club". So I rejected the submissions to add the title record of the publication to a title series of the same name. Although technically, a series can't be both a publication series and a title series, I suppose anything is possible. Do you believe this series is both and should be given in both the title record and the publication record? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake and made these books a publication series, then I corrected it and made it a title series. I meant to go back and eliminate the publication series. As these books are written by many writers, and I don't think this company published anything else, or if they did I don't know what else. Really, despite evidence to the contrary, kids books are not my area of expertise. Just so you know I'm not being contrary, I'll go back and eliminate the pub. series and put in the title series if you want. Maybe in ten years when some young person gets old enough to start entering the books that they grew up reading, they can do a better job of this. MLB 07:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
If you're certain it's a title series (common characters, settings, etc) then I can make the changes faster. Just say so, and I'll do it. Mhhutchins 13:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
No, if I make a mistake, it's up to me to fix it. It's the only way that I will learn to do it right. Cross your fingers. MLB 00:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"Little Horus"

In your submission to merge two records for this title, you removed it from the series "The Horus Heresy". Was this intentional? Mhhutchins 19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No. MLB 06:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Lobster[-]Quadrille

Hi. I have your proposed merge of The Lobster Quadrille (no hyphen) and The Lobster-Quadrille (hyphen) on hold, as it would replace the unhyphenated version in The Hunting of the Snark, which has been verified, with the hyphenated version. You have to ask the verifier before making this sort of change. If the unhyphenated version is present in that publication, you should cancel this submission and make a variant instead. Thanks. --MartyD 10:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably just cancel. I'm looking at a (facsimile?) 1923 version of Alice in Wonderland and The Lobster-Quadrille is indeed hyphenated in the original source. In fact, the poem is in a chapter of the novel that is hyphenated also. Anything culled from this source and reprinted with a different title is by defination, at least to me, a variant, but, for me, it's simply not worth arguing about. I can ask, but the verifier looks to be a very busy collector and collater and may not have the time to look up a four-year-old entry. I don't know where most of the stuff that I've stored four years ago. MLB 11:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Marc will answer. You might have to wait a couple of days. I wasn't trying to argue. A seeming nit-picking question like this gets asked all the time. Asking will give him a chance to correct a mistake, or we can recognize a true variant, depending on what he sees. Slowly making the information more accurate.... --MartyD 12:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I left a message, I just didn't want to harsh anybody's mellowness. I've already been castigated (severely) by MHutchins today. ***sulk***. MLB 12:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Pointing out a mistake that's been brought to your attention before is not castigation. It's reinforcement. :) I apologize. Mhhutchins 14:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Please, I'm just annoyed that I keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Perhaps I should just be flogged when I make a mistake. Now that's reinforcement. :) MLB 00:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in this. Looks like Marc isn't going to respond. Since we don't know his copy doesn't have the hyphen, I'm going to reject the merge and make the hyphen-less version a variant of the hyphen version for now. We can always merge later if he discovers there is a hyphen. --MartyD 11:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

page count for Dark Seduction

I have on hold your proposed page count change to Dark Seduction. Unfortunately, the change has a typo (wants the page count to be "27"), which is clearly wrong. Looks like you're trying to expand it from 274 to cover the additional excerpt that starts on 275, but I can't guess what the ending page is. Sorry. Please cancel and re-submit. Thanks. --MartyD 11:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dying to Live: Last Rites

I accepted the submission adding this record, but noticed that the date you gave (2011-03-00) doesn't match the Amazon date that you cite as the source (2012-03-07). Mhhutchins 16:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that I mentioned this in my notes. Checking my Amazon "orders" I am listed as having bought this book on Monday December 19, 2011, and when I got it I copied the date off of the Amazon site then. The date has since changed, a revision?, also, there are reviews on this book's site that date back to about the original publishing date, reinforcing the fact that this book had an earlier date of publication. I have posted several reviews on Amazon that predate the revised dates that are now listed for these reviewed books. These links may help: and
Please don't take this the wrong way, you've been a very good instructor on this site, and I'm very grateful, but I'm not going to give you access to my personal account on Amazon to prove my point. I will verify this, and anybody who has any questions can contact me. MLB 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it, and I wouldn't give out my Amazon account data to even my closest friend! The problem is that when you use the words "date from Amazon", a user of the database will think that it's the date that is currently given in the Amazon listing. So what date did you receive the book from Amazon? The date of March 2011 that you give in the record doesn't match either the current Amazon listing for the print book, or the date you say you ordered the book.
BTW, the first link you gave leads to a page for a listing showing the title is unavailable, and is not dated, with only an ASIN as an identifier. The second link is better since it's for the ebook which was published in March 2011. So the date of the ISFDB record for the printed book may have a different publication date, since they were probably published on different dates. Mhhutchins 18:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put in the Note field that the date was listed when the verifier (me) bought the book, and then I'll list the date when the book was bought. You're right again, prove the facts. Print-on-demand books can be a pain. MLB 18:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I've accepted the submission to clarify the note, but want to make sure that "bought" and "received" are essentially the same date or within a week. I've bought plenty of books on Amazon which had yet to be published. Just saying... :) Mhhutchins 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I recieved the book within a week or so of buying it. I try never to order books that are "going" to be printed real soon now. MLB 19:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Blood 'n' Thunder #24

You left a Note to the Moderator that "I'm not sure how this works. Jean-Marc Lofficier lists Brian Stableford as contributing to this article, so I listed Stableford as co-author." There is nothing credited to Stableford in the record. Which piece are you referring to and how is it credited on the piece's first page (not in the notes or table of contents)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

On the title page of the article it states "The Parisian Jungle: A Brief Panorama of French Crime Fiction in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries". The last part sounded like a descriptive phrase the editor/publisher put in, so I didn't list it, I can put it in if you want. Then it states "by Jean-Marc Lofficier (with contributions by Brian Stableford)" which sounded like Stableford is a collaborator of some kind. If the ISFDB standard if different, I can list this in the Note field instead. MLB 17:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest just updating the note field, not only of the pub record but for the piece's title record as well. I only asked because you said that you had listed Stableford as the co-author and I didn't see it in the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, now I see you've updated the title record giving Stableford co-author credit. Oh well... Mhhutchins 18:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

More Stately Mansions author

Hi. Your submission of More Stately Mansions had the author as John V. Rosenman. I changed it to a "B.". Sorry if that wasn't right, but I figured I'd try to save an edit-review cycle. --MartyD 11:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thany you. MLB 11:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your message to SFJuggler

You put this on his User page rather than his Talk page - you probably want to change that or he won't see it for ages. BLongley 11:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Still learning. Thanks. MLB 11:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lore #9

I've put your update for Lore #9 on hold as a couple of clarifications are needed. From the New Content you are adding (mostly Interior Art) I'm not sure if you are starting the page count from the front cover, or the first page after the inside front cover, or further in than that beyond 'endpapers'. As Lore is currently listed as a magazine, the page count starts from the front cover (page 1) (for reference see the EditPub Help page for pages), and the back cover for this issue would then (presumably) be page 60, if that page count is still correct. I don't know the physical nature of the publication, but ordinarily endpapers don't apply as magazines are listed, they only properly apply to books and even then are not counted. ISFDb standards don't accept page identifications such as "bc" (presumably 'back cover') and "bep" (presumably 'back endpaper') as you've indicated – I see an non-standard "fep" (presumably 'front endpaper') page identification has crept into the original submission you're editing, which may have confused things; they're all listed as page numbers if there are individual entries to be made for those pages.

Also at the moment the credit names Thomas Brown as the cover artist, however your New Content would credit Allen Koszowski for Interior Art on Page 1. Is this a replacement, or, if there are 2 pieces of artwork credited (do I see one artwork inset inside a graphic background in the cover you've submitted?) then the second artist can be listed by clicking the 'Add Artist' button. Or is Allen Koszowski's work on a different page entirely?

Re. your query about the Stefan Grabinski translation, list the date of the translation as it first appeared in English, as the original publication was in Polish. A separate record for the original story in Polish would need to be created, and the English title made into a variant of the Polish title. See Grabinski's The White Wyrak for an example of how translations appear with their different translation dates. Thanks. PeteYoung 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: some of the above makes incorrect and/or misleading reference to page identifications: elsewhere they do appear properly listed under Content Information on the NewPub Help page as I'm sure you're already aware. But I'd still appreciate clarifications on what pagination you are using, ie. does the page count begin from the cover or does page numbering begin as 1 further inside the publication? For magazines the total page count including covers is what's entered into the Pages field, but add a Note stating where page numbering actually begins. As for the page identification of the Contents, obviously stick to what you have already submitted. The Note about the actual page numbering would also clarify for a Moderator the location of Allen Koszowski's artwork if it does not appear on the cover. Thanks again. PeteYoung 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the bc and bep, I can correct that. However, I only used the pagination that was used in the magazine. The table of contents starts on page one. Maybe this is why the original poster used fep. I didn't think i+60 (now 62) was right either for a magazine. I'll add the note. MLB 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Does this mean I have to do it all over again from scratch? MLB 01:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No need, but before I can accept the edit look again at the physical publication (this may save both of us time later!). After I approve the edit you may need to do a further edit later for the magazine's Page field if the count from Page 1 (the cover) going all the way to the back cover, is physically more than the 60 pages currently stated. If it's a staple bound publication - and I accept that I'm merely presuming that it is - the total page count would either be 60 or 64, or 68. I see that all entries for Lore use "fep" (and are all unverified) so I'm wondering if the editor who initially entered them was using "fep" to refer to an item on the inside cover? Is this how #9 appears, or does the editorial essay appear on a page further inside?
Your Note should clarify where the page numbering actually starts (presumably after endpapers, if there are any), ie. cover as p.1, inside cover p.2, front endpaper pp.3&4), and this would make the Contents physically appear on what would be p.5 (or p.3 if there are no actual endpapers), but is in fact numbered as page 1 (am I reading this right? I think you can see the need for clarity here!). Your Note could say something like "Page numbering for this publication begins with the Contents page as 1, physically page X of the publication. All Contents listings are as they appear on numbered pages." A page count of i+60 would be wrong, possibly for two reasons: 1) if there are no Roman numerals used for identifying pages, don't use them in the Page field; also 2) the above reason for the total number of pages from cover to cover of your stapled (?) publication.
Depending on the physical nature of the pub, endpapers (perhaps unusual in a magazine) would only normally need to be identified if an indexed item appears on them. The texture/colour/weight of the paper is what differentiates endpapers from the rest of the publication. If an item does appear on unnumbered front or back endpapers, by all means use "fep" and "bep" if this does not contradict any other page entries as they appear. But if an item in your pub appears on 'ordinary' unnumbered pages before Page 1 or after the last numbered page, put the number in square brackets (see the third point on Pages here) and add a Note that bracketed items appear on unnumbered pages before (or after) the first (or last) actual numbered page. Thanks again, I hope this makes logical sense and doesn't confuse further. PeteYoung 05:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The editorial appears on the unnumbered inside of the front cover, then the official pagination starts, and then it officially ends at page 60. The page count then goes up to 62 if you count the inside back cover, and the back cover itself, as this sight obviously does. Then the page count goes up to 64 if you count the front cover and the inside front cover as this site seems to do. However, the front two pages are not included in the page count as this would throw the table of contents off, making the table of contents erroneous. So should I list the page count as [2]+62, then put in the note field that the official page count starts after the first two pages? The cover is printed on slick index card stock. This magazine is stapled, and I have a headache, but then, it's all a learning experience. MLB 09:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Here, have a Tylenol (or Paracetamol if you're European...). Sorry for making the head hurt, I have days like that here too (today being one of them, NOT your fault, mine probably, we're all human etc). In the Page field we'll just enter the total page count 64, no bracketed numbers anywhere. Yes, the entire number of pages for magazines are counted, cover to cover. Don't worry about the total count throwing any page numbers off, they are still as you see them in the Contents records as you have listed them, and we'll include "bep" and "bc" as the other issues of Lore already use that notation. I'll approve the update now and quickly modify the pub with the other edits we've covered: it's probably quicker than testing your patience by making you wait further (I'll also revert the Grabinski translation back to 1998). Sorry I led you on a circuitous route in establishing an accurate page count, time for a rub-down with a damp edition of Interzone. ;) PeteYoung 11:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank-you. I just did an old copy of Talebones (#12), let's hope I got it right this time. My collection of odd fanzines and magazines go back to the early seventies. MLB 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Convictions by Scott Huelsman

Is this a book being reviewed? As we have no record of it. BLongley 12:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the review it was issued as a four CD multi-media project comprised of video clips, audio clips and snippits, a soundtrack, and a real novel, and the whole thing is set up as a metatext so that you can skip throughout the work. Patrick Swenson makes it clear that there is a real novel buried in here, it's just that it's not very good. I guess this was a failed experiment in style. MLB 12:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviews of videos and multi-media works are usually listed as ESSAYs, not reviews, because the ISFDB does not index such works , and a REVIEW type record normally leads to an indexed work or a placeholder for a work to be indexed when data is available. -DES Talk 12:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll go back and change it. MLB 13:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I messed up. When I checked out Talebones, I didn't notice that there were two listings for 1998 and I accidently created a dublicate record, with a large amount of new material. If you ok my correction of the misspelling of the title of the magazine, I guess the original can be deleted. I also have a cover image. Bah! I will never stop making mistakes. MLB 12:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishing titles in the note field

I saw this awhile back, but forgot to bring it to your attention. I notice that you bold titles in the note fields of the records you update. Even though it may not actually be addressed in the ISFDB standards, most editors use italics for container titles (like books or magazines) and quotation marks for contained titles (like stories or essays). This follows MLA Style, and is the most common way to distinguish titles, whether in or out of the ISFDB. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Series data goes into the parent title record

I see you're adding Ed Bryant's reviews into a series (Mathoms, Etc.) which is fine, but it's best to create a parent record first for Edward Bryant, and then place that record into the series. In many cases, if you place the series data into the variant title record, both records will show up under a listing of titles in the series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The system will move a series entry to the parent record if it's done the wrong way around, but we do sometimes end up with both records in the series and that messes up the displays. BLongley 21:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talesbones #18

You've dated #18 for November 2000, and #19 is dated May 2000. Perhaps #18 should be February 2000. November is too early for a Winter issue, in most cases. (I'm assuming you entered these, because of some of your submissions that I handled were updating content records. Neither of them have been primary verified.) Mhhutchins 20:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking reviews to title records

I see that you're changing the titles of unlinked reviews to the canonical name of the book being reviewed. Unfortunately, this still won't link the reviews to the titles. Once a review is in the system, the only way to link it to the book's title record is manually. It's a pretty straightforward function. Go to the review record, click on "Link Review to Title" and then enter the record number of the title record (not the publication record) of the book being reviewed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And it's OK to leave the titles in the review exactly as the review has them, provided you link them afterwards. A reviewed author can be corrected to the canonical name or one of its existing variants and we'll pick it up, rather than having a stray reviewee author. BLongley 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to try one, and if I do it right, I'll do the rest. MLB 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Paperback Parade #80 -- covers for non-genre magazines.

Help:Entering non-genre magazines#Steps to take says "Do not enter a cover artist, nor a cover image URL. Leave both fields blank. Exception: if the cover art illustrates the SF content, or is by a well known SF artist, enter the credit, and if an image is available, enter the URL". In this case, since the cover illustrates a Block story, and one of the indexed items is a conversation between Block and Silverberg, I am going to approve this, but it is right on the borderline IMO. In general, cover art should not be indexed for non-genre magazines. Thank you for your contributions, the ISFDB can be very complex to get to know. -DES Talk 00:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please add an entry for Paperback Parade to General Interest Magazines, if you would. -DES Talk 00:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1.) I was looking for that link. Thanx I will use it.
2.) If you feel that the image is not right for the site, by all means delete it.
3.) I added the magazine, let's hope that I got it right. MLB 01:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. You are welcome. Finding stuff in our wiki is not always as easy as it should be.
  2. If I thought the cover shouldn't be here, i would have rejected the submission or held it for discussion with you. But I wanted to warn you for the future that this is a borderline case, and that normally cover art for a non-genre magazine is not entered.
  3. Almost. The entry on the General Interest Magazines was the best that could be done given the state of the magazine entry itself, the problem was that the magazine was not entered with "Editors of Paperback Parade" as an editor or co-editor. I added that (which took two submissions, title and publication level) and then used the revised search. This results in a narrowly focused link result, rather than the overall author page for the editor. It also keeps the magazine listings together if the actual editor changes.
  4. FYI, you can enter a numbered list in the wiki with leading pound/number signs, as I have done here. I hope this helps. -DES Talk 02:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ghosts & Scholars #26

You entered #0968-7777 in the ISBN/CAT number field of this pub. But Help:Screen:EditPub#ISBN says:

"For magazines, it was at one time the practice of some ISFDB editors to enter the ISSN. However the ISSN does not identify a particular issue, but rather the magazine as a whole. Therefore the consensus is now that it should not be entered here, but rather on a magazine's wiki page. If a magazine does not have an issue-specific catalog number, leave this blank. "

Therefore i am going to remove this from the ISBN field, while leaving it in the notes. You might also want to have a look at Magazine:Ghosts & Scholars. -DES Talk 02:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I won't do it again. MLB 10:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Zoetrope, Summer 2012

The note about the artist in Zoetrope, Summer 2012 is a little garbled. I didn't want to put words in your mouth.... Thanks. --MartyD 10:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My note about the artist was not garbled, it was incoherent, which is worse. I have fixed it. MLB 10:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Vintage Book of Ghosts

I have approved your addition of The Vintage Book of Ghosts. Your note says "This is a retitling of The Chatto Book of Ghosts from 1994." Therefore, you should make this a variant of The Chatto Book of Ghosts. See Help: How to record a variant title if you want more details. If you have questions on this process, please ask here or on the Help Desk. -DES Talk 12:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is the same situation with The Vintage Book of The Devil -- a variant is needed.

Oh and when mentioning titles in notes, they should normally be in italics, not in boldface italics. -DES Talk 12:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"House Where Evil Lived"

I approved your edit of "House Where Evil Lived". Your note says: "Originally appeared in the May 1940 issue of the pulp magazine Uncanny Tales." As it happens, we already have a record for that issue, and so the title record for this story needs to be merged with the existing title record. See Help: How to merge titles for details. Thank you. -DES Talk 12:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On Stranger Tides

Are you certain of the author credit for the novel excerpt in this publication? There's a similarly named title by Rob Kidd. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 17:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your right. The excerpt was uncredited and I had to look it up on Amazon, and I must have transposed Rob Kidd's name with the name of the artist Tom Kidd. Sorry, I'll try to do better. MLB 17:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sunset of the Sabertooth

You entered this publication under the wrong title record. There was no reason to clone the Spanish language edition. If the title and author don't EXACTLY match, you should have entered it as a new publication. You'll need to unmerge it from this title record, and merge the newly created title record with this one. I'll deal with the Chapterbook question once the pub is in a better condition to work with. Also, the ISBN is an invalid number. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why you choose to bold certain words in the note field. That is not a standard entry method. Mhhutchins 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And what is "RL: 22 006-009". Entering it into a publication record without explanation doesn't help the average database user. (And I suspect I'm not the average user, and I have no idea what it means.) Mhhutchins 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have seen these numbers on many volumes of young people's literature. It should read "RL: 2.2 006-009". I think that it goes like this--RL is Reading Level; 2.2 is grade level; and 006-009 might be the age level. I know a children's librarian, and I'll check and make sure. I include them as I thought that they might be important to those that are interested in children's literature.
Sorry about the cloning error. I'll fix is it soon. I have to see a doctor now, and will do later tonight. MLB 17:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not really obvious, but when you unmerge, you get a new title for each publication you select for unmerging (each new title record will match the corresponding publication's name/title). So where your submission would have unmerged both the Spanish and English publications, the result would have left the original Spanish title with no publications at all and would have created a new, duplicate Spanish title. So I rejected your submission and unmerged just the English title, which I then merged into the existing English title (and then fixed up the pub to have only one NOVEL title in it) to save you some work. It should look right now: [[2]]. I also noticed a typo in the ISBN (0-670 -> 0-679), which I corrected; sorry if that wasn't appropriate. --MartyD 10:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it's fine. It's very clear that I need way more practice at this. Hopefully I'll develop a better record at doing this. It seems that all of the moderators jobs are still very safe from any ambitions that I might harbor. :) MLB 18:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Haunting Jasmine

What is the source for the publication date given in this record for the publisher's third printing? Also, in 2011, there was no such thing as "Library of Congress Catalog Number". LCCN stands for "Library of Congress Control Number". How is it stated in the book? Mhhutchins 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data"
I don't seem to be doing well today.MLB 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected it to "LCCN" and linked it to the Library of Congress website's record. You'll need to correct the date of the record if it's not stated. The date you give is the same as for the first printing. Mhhutchins 13:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. This site never ceases to amaze me. Now I know. It's LCCN from now on. MLB 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talesbones #18 again

In this record, I've removed the individual review records from the series "Mathoms, Etc." Only the column essay record should be in the series. Also a question: concerning the review record for Conjuring Dark Delicacies, I was unable to find a publication of this title. At first I thought it was about the anthology series, but that didn't start until 2005. Also the review of the beer book should be an essay, not a review record. I can correct that at the same time, if I know what the Howison book is about. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I just discovered that Conjuring Dark Delicacies is a horror-themed cookbook. I'll make the necessary adjustments to the record. Mhhutchins 15:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. These were a couple of borderline, to me, books. Somebody who has these books could pop up at any time and enter them. Would these have been "non-genre" or "non-fiction"? Authors should take more responsibility for their own publications. MLB 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The quick ISFDB definition of "nongenre" is a FICTION book that is not speculative fiction. Reviews of nongenre works by nongenre or marginal authors should be entered as an ESSAY type, not as a REVIEW type, along with reviews of films, recordings, comic books and graphic novels. The recipe book and beer guide are NONFICTION, but they are by writers who may not be "above a certain threshold", an admittedly nebulous qualification. Mhhutchins 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviews of books otherwise OUT

split from the discussion above, but then copied to Rules and standards discussions‎#Reviews of books otherwise OUT . -DES Talk 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The quick ISFDB definition of "nongenre" is a FICTION book that is not speculative fiction. Reviews of nongenre works by nongenre or marginal authors should be entered as an ESSAY type, not as a REVIEW type, along with reviews of films, recordings, comic books and graphic novels. The recipe book and beer guide are NONFICTION, but they are by writers who may not be "above a certain threshold", an admittedly nebulous qualification. In my opinion, you should only make REVIEW type entries for nonfiction books if the book itself is eligible for inclusion in the database, but the stated rules aren't so clearly defined. There was a discussion that opened the door to allow all books (whether nongenre or nonfiction) reviewed in genre magazines to be eligible for the database. I consider this a slippery slope, so I personally have a probably one-man war to make these reviews into essays, so that publication records aren't created for them. Creating publication records for such titles was the solution posed by others so that the reviews could be linked and to avoid stray authors, i.e. authors in the database without publication records. I think my method keeps the integrity of the database intact, and I feel comfortable with this unilateral decision. None of the changes I make to the database result in lost data. Mhhutchins 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was an accepted standard that works reviewed in major genre publications, and perhaps in ANY genre publications were IN and should be included. I have added a number of publications of such works, and intend to continue doing so when such items come to my attention -- I don't plan to form a project and seek them out -- unless there is a clear consensus against this. In fact if I encountered such an "ESSAY" review, at least in a pub I had in hand, I would be inclined to convert it back to a review and enter the publication. -DES Talk 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Men Like Rats

I've added a note re. Canadian cover price and some other publication details to your verified pub. Thanks. PeteYoung 17:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. MLB 18:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bizarro #3

Can you check the spelling of the credit for the cover artist and the books under review in this record? Is it "Carleton" or Carlton Mellick, III? And do the title pages of each of the "Sixteen Poems" give that as part of the title of the individual poems, and not as a group title at the beginning or on the contents page? Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll correct the Carlton name. Sixteen Poems was the group title on the contents page and on the title page. I wasn't sure how to list these. MLB 08:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless it's obviously a part of the title of each of the poems, I would recommend removing them from each of the records, and then make a note about the group title in the pub record's note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dead-Tossed Waves artist

I accepted your submission of The Dead-Tossed Waves but corrected the spelling of the artist's first name Angella -> Angela. While researching that and your note about the conflicting credits, I found the photograph on Stella's website, so I included that information and link in the pub's notes. --MartyD 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. MLB 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarzan Forever

You should not have entered this publication, being an excerpt, under the title record of the full-text publication. Also, you should not create content records for chapters. I'll unmerge the record, creating a new title record, and then remove and delete the chapter content records. If you have any questions about odd situations like this, it is better to ask at the Help Desk before making a submission. That saves us both the effort in making corrections in a publication before it's in the database. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm still learning. I wasn't sure that you'd even accept this, but this booklet was so radically different than its source that I thought that I would offer it up. MLB 00:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The World's Finest Mystery and Crime Stories; First Annual Collection

It's the content of the stories that determine whether they should be listed in the database, not the status of the author in the database. Nongenre books by spec-fic writers are allowed. Nongenre stories are another matter. Only the spec-fic contents of a nongenre publication (anthology or magazine) are allowed in the database. Are the contents that you added only of stories with spec-fic elements? Stories by "authors with a considerable speculative writing history" are not eligible for entry, even if they have sneaked into the database through the back door. Asking at the help desk before making entries like this would have been a good idea. Mhhutchins 01:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A question: you give the publisher as "Tom Doherty Associates" which is technically correct. But we regularize the credit for books from this publisher by using the imprint, either "Tor" or "Forge". Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if you accept the listing, I'll eliminate all of the entrys except for the ones already in the ISFDB, like the reprinted stories from Al Sarrontonio's 999 anthology, and then I'll also change the publisher. I did ask once before, I think I got the wrong advice then. MLB 06:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The record is in the database. Once you remove the non-spec-fic stories you'll have to also delete the records (that's a different submission). Another question: are the story introductions substantial in length and quality? Otherwise there should not be separate records for them according to current standards (look under "Story Introductions). But as the rules stated, that's a judgement call. If they are just "a paragraph" (as you describe them) then I personally can not see the point of having records for them. Mhhutchins 13:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to add: there's no reason to include the introduction, the yearbook, or the honorable mentions, because only the spec-fic of a nongenre publication should be included in the database (even though it's been pointed out to me that there are conflicting rules concerning this.) Mhhutchins 13:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Blood+ 02

I accepted your various Blood+ changes and noticed that all of the contained titles (plus the pub's name) still use "#02" in Blood+ 02. It looked like an oversight, so I figured I'd mention it. Thanks. --MartyD 10:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was an oversight, thank you. That and I have a tempature of about 100. My dedication to this site knows no boundries. MLB 10:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
:-) Hope you feel better soon. --MartyD 10:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Home and Finding Magic

That is the way I'd do it. :-) One minor thing: the binding should be "ebook" with no hyphen. I changed it. --MartyD 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For Finding Magic, I made a few changes:

  • "kindle" -> "ebook" for the binding/format
  • fixed the ISBN (you entered it as 873-... instead of 978-...)
  • added 2012-06-04 as the publication date, since Amazon gives that.
  • changed the publisher from "Del Rey / Random House Digital" to "Del Rey / Ballantine", based on the Look Inside. Random House Digital is just the distributor. Technically, I suppose it should be "Del Rey / Ballantine / Random House", but we seem to be using just "Del Rey / Ballantine", so I went with the flow.

The real trick is that the binding should be "ebook", and then you list the specific formats in the notes. There has been some debate about whether a page count should be used. Here, where the publisher provides a page count and the Look Inside is not extensive enough for us to tell if there is page numbering within, recording the count seems ok. --MartyD 11:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you very much, as I said, I've never done e-books before, I'll use your examples as a template. I was just looking up something by her on Amazon when I noticed this gap in her titles here, so I thought that I would fill them in. Now I just have to go back and fill in the title series. Again, thank-you. MLB 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, and thank you for the well wishes. MLB 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Answer to your question on the Help Page

I've posted a response to a message you left on the help page back in June here. Sorry it took so long for someone to respond to it. Mhhutchins 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I found another question you'd left on the help page and tried to answer it there. In this one I asked you for a bit more information in order to help you. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Abused -- A Daughter's Story

Hi. I have your proposed submission of Abused -- A Daughter's Story on hold. It doesn't appear to be speculative fiction to me, and it doesn't look like Bartlett is "above a certain threshold". I accepted the Resnick ones because the precognitive element is SF-ish. I don't see any of that in this one. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks. --MartyD 22:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I got only one comment, which confirmed my thinking that this should be out. In general, we don't record nongenre short fiction. So I'm afraid I'm going to reject this. I will leave it on hold until I hear back from you. You're welcome to bring the matter up on Rules and standards discussions if you disagree and would like to change people's minds. Thanks. --MartyD 10:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it's alright. I included it for completeness' sake. I'm a bit OCD, it's a good thing that people like you are in control. Cancel it, it's alright with me. Maybe someday when some of you moderators have some spare time, and you folks want to start the Internet Mystery and Suspense Database . . . MLB 11:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Pulp Review

Hi. I'm wondering why you decided to make Pulp Review #7 an Anthology instead of a Magazine. I see you have a couple of others already entered as Anthology, so apologies if I missed a discussion where this approach was agreed to. Your description makes it sound like a magazine, the badge on the cover says "Fiction House Magazines", and it seems to be presented very magazine-like with volume and issue number. If it were treated as a non-genre magazine, we'd get a grid for it.... ?? Thanks. --MartyD 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a two part question, part one first, When I started posting things on this site I was informed that facsimile reprints are treated as anthologies. I don't know why, maybe because they have possiblility of being edited for content, and the pulp or digest is set for life. Whatever, that's how I've been treating all of my facsimile reprints. Pulp review #7 is a reprint of an earlier issue. I have number fourteen onwards in their original (it's now called High Adventure and it is still quarterly) printings. As this is a reprint, with stiff glossy covers, and it is perfectbound (the original was saddle-stitched) I treated it as a facsimile reprint, even if it is a facsimile reprint of a facsimile reprint magazine. So, I was to understand, perhaps wrongly, original = magazine/fanzine while reprint of same = anthology. I don't mind being wrong, but, I was just doing as I understood it to be.
On the second point. The cover is a complete reprint, without alterations, of the first issue of Jungle Stories right down to the "Fiction House Magazine" logo. Which is why I listed the stories in the Note field and mentioned they weren't being reprinted. Fiction House is long gone, but on a trivia note, one of the last editors of their magazines was Jeremy Bixby. He discovered Phil Dick' (for Planet Stories), wrote the screenplay for Fantastic Voyage (novelized by Isaac Asimov), created Star Treks mirror universe (novelized by James Blish), and wrote the Hall of Fame story "It's a Good Life" (televised by Rod Serling). Too much info right?
Yes, Pulp Review/High Adventure is a non-genre specific magazine, but I'm not too good at doing your grids, last time I tried, somebody had to finish it. The directions as too how to do it aren't very good. Future issue, when I can find them around here have a long alternate universe war sequence reprinted from the magazine Operator X (see, which means I'm going to have to learn how to do super series (operator x then purple invasion). I understand Wildside press is reprinting them, but if I told you exactly what I thought of Wildside Press I'd be banned for life from this site, just remember this DON'T send them any money. I hope this answers all your questions. MLB 00:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I get it. Sounds like treating it as an anthology makes sense. Approving away.... Thanks for the explanation. --MartyD 01:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. The ANTHOLOGY typed is used for facsimile reprints of entire issues of a previously published fiction magazine. The issues you're entering of Pulp Review appear to be reprints of non-genre magazines that include reprints of previously published stories, not of entire issues. That doesn't negate the fact that they're still magazines. IMO, this should be entered using the [ non-genre magazine rules). MLB, if you need assistance on how to enter a magazine record into a magazine grid I can help you do it step by step. But if these issues of Pulp Review remain as an ANTHOLOGY type, they can't be entered into a magazine grid. That can only be done with publications of MAGAZINE type. Mhhutchins 20:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm just winging it here. When I first started posting on this site, it was explained, I think, that if a it was a facsimile (or reprint) of an issue of Startling Stories or of Planet Stories, for example, it should be listed (and was before I starting confusing everybody) as an anthology. Therefore, when I listed a facsimile reprint of a small-press facsimile pulp reprint magazine, in this case Pulp Review, I listed it as an anthology. And I listed only the speculative contents. The original, which eventually changed its name to High Adventure, you could subscribe to, the reprints you can't. The original was also saddle-stitched while the facsimile is perfectbound (which may be irrelevent). Now, I can relist them as magazines, but the new print-on-demand issues are reprints, I'm sorry if I got it all wrong, the rules seem rather fuzzy here. I'm not here to upset the applecart, even if it seems that way. I have some original, not reprints, to list in the future.
I'd be happy to be walked through the steps to list in in the non-genre magazines. Would I list it as Pulp Review/High Adventure or a listing for each title? It's just my hours are rather excentric. MLB 22:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How to add a magazine issue to a magazine issue grid

  1. Go to the issue's publication record and click on the name that's in the editor field. This will lead you to the editor's summary page and where you will find a list of all of the magazine issues for which he/she has been credited as the editor. Click on the editor record of the issue that you wish to add to a grid, or if there isn't a grid, to create a new grid.
  2. Once you're at the editor record of the issue, click "Edit Title Data" under the Editing Tools menu.
  3. Edit the series field of the editor record to that of the series under which the other issues have already been added. If there is no existing series, you can create a new one. The most logical name for the series is the title of the magazine, but do a search first. (Do a simple search, posted on the left menu of every database page, using "series", not "magazine".) If your search comes up blank, then use the name of the magazine as the new series name. If your search comes up with a series identical to the magazine title, it's possible that a) the magazine had other editors and the issues appear on another author's summary pages, meaning that a series for the magazine already exists or b) there's a non-magazine series already using the same name. In the case of a), use the identical title for the series as used in other issues of the magazine, or in the case of b), come up with a new name. This is usually done by parenthetically disambiguating the title, e.g. Jupiter (magazine).

In order to keep down the clutter on some editors' summary pages, we decided that the editor records can be merged into annual groupings. So instead of twelve records for each year that John W. Campbell, Jr. was editor of Astounding/Analog, there's only one editor record for each year of his editorship. Only that one record needs to be added to the series in order for all twelve issues to appear on the magazine's grid list. It is not necessary to merge editor records into a single annual record for many titles, especially if there were only one or two issues published in any given year. Each editor record can remain as a single record which is placed into the series, thus automatically be added to the magazine's issue grid.

To keep it simple: placing an editor record into a series (whether a new one or an existing one) automatically creates a magazine issue grid or adds the record to the existing magazine issue grid. If there is a magazine that you specifically want to add to or create an issue grid, let me know and I can step you through the submissions. But keep in mind: this only works for editor records of publications that are typed as MAGAZINE. The system does not create issue grids for the editor records of publications that are typed as ANTHOLOGY. Mhhutchins 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)