User talk:Marc Kupper/Archive4

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Race Against Time by Piers Anthony

Hi. In looking at my copy of Race Against Time, I came across your verified entry RCGNSTTMGR1985 of the 3rd printing. My copy is for the 6th printing, and I will enter it separately, but it dates the 2nd printing as October 1985. I know the date for the 3rd printing is just a pseudo-date, but using September 1985 as the base must be wrong if the 2nd printing is October 1985. I had thought of editing the existing entry, but I hadn't noticed it was already verified. --MartyD 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello MartyD. Thank you for the heads up. The pseudo-date was part of an experiment. The publications where I did this also include this note:
  • Note – the printing date for this publication is unknown. Rather than using 0000-00-00 this publication in ISFDB has been dated using the YYYY-MM of the first printing and the day of the month is set to the printing number to get the publication sorted into a reasonable spot relative to other printings for this edition.
This non-standard system works well if only the first printing is dated and the rest would be 0000-00-00. If any edition gets a date from a secondary source then we are better off converting the pseudo-dated publications to 0000-00-00. As you have a secondary source for the 2nd printing I've removed the 1985-09-03 date plus the note from the 3rd printing. I could not think of a good way to add a publication record for the 2nd printing as we don't know its ISBN nor price. I ended up adding a note to the title record. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is that dating style something I should be using for undated later printings? I had just been using 0000-00-00 if I had no other information to go on. --MartyD 01:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No - enough people have complained to me about it. :-) The initial plan was that we would add a printing # field to the publication record and I'd then hunt down the pseudodated publications and fix them to use the printing # field. The first part of the plan (adding the printing #) is moving slowly. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bright Star by Robert Louis Stevenson III

Since you were kind enough to offer an opinion about Rogue Warrior.... What do you think about Bright Star by Robert Louis Stevenson III? I see there's an entry for Torchlight. Here's a review on Amazon that will give you a good overview. --MartyD 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Off hand, I'd say it's not specfict. ISFDB:Policy#Contents/Project Scope Policy includes a definition for science fiction that states "... that deal with technological advances that were futuristic at the time they were published." The problem here is how futuristic is Bright Star? It seems like an Aegis Combat System on steroids and in that sense is a "technological advance" over what's publicly stated about today's weapons but not by much. There's also "Speculative fiction is defined to exclude techno-thriller, political thriller and satire works set in a future indistinguishable from the present(?)". The trailing "(?)" is part of the definition.
Something I've done with these cases is I include them in ISFDB but add a title note explaining how it's borderline specfict. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I won't do anything with it. Seems more like a techno-thriller to me than anything else. --MartyD 11:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A term that just came to mind is "tech fiction". In a science fiction story some aspect of science is either beyond or different then what we have. In tech fiction the science is the same but the technology is beyond or different than what we have. That would be a way to evaluate "in or out?" for a techno-thriller. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea. I suppose another distinguishing characteristic should be whether speculative aspects of the technology are one of the key underpinnings of the story. To use a movie analogy, something like Goldeneye really shouldn't qualify, while something like War Games should. --MartyD 20:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen Goldeneye, but in the James Bond category I'd have ignored Moonraker as originally published (plain old ICBM targeted at London by evil multi-millionaire) and included the movie ("Death to All Humans but us!" - from Space!). War Games was just too believable until the AI element kicked in - that and things like Demon Seed make me a bit wary of definitions. BLongley 22:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dagon and Other Macabre Tales

User:Rtrace would like to link a cover scan to your verified copy of this book. On hold for your reviewing pleasure. Ahasuerus 03:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that's the right cover though I'm wondering why I did not hunt down a cover on Amazon as I usually check there first and then scan/upload if needed. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Man in his Time

Added a cover image to [[1]] and deleted your note re:cover image. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bill. It was still in the queue and so I approved it. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW - I don't know if you know about {{p|record-or-tag|name}}. These all go to the publication record for Man in his Time.
{{t|###|title}} works exactly the same way for title records. There's no real benefit over using [] other than when in edit mode the strings are more compact than the full URL. I'm not sure if I like the green. It's ok for one or two links but if you do it in a full table it gets ugly. Some day... when I get to coding... I'll fix it so that links to ISFDB itself don't get decorated with the arrow thing. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but each of those involves typing for which I only have two fingers I can rely on (and not always!). The [] requires 'command c" then "command v" and it's done! As for the colors, I think there should be grades, each with it's own distinct color. Worst would be red for those aspiring editors who would screw up the universe if they could, all the way up to gold for the holiest of Mods. That way you would know who/what you were dealing with even before you opened a submission! ;-) ;-) ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So a Mac does not have [] handy? Amazing. I guess the people that developed wikitext did not know that. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Clear as mud, I are! What goes between the [] only requires the two 'command' moves.... This thing has more options than I can use and I'm always finding new ones. If making the colors takes all that below, I'll stick to black...! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
We (DES and I) deliberately chose the green to make people object to it and suggest something better. We're still waiting for suggestions. (Well, I am - DES seems to be a bit quiet recently.) I guess if he comes back we'll have to start a Civil War Drazi-style to encourage a resolution. (If he gets the Babylon 5 reference.) Or Marc knows how to make it Purple anyway, I'm sure. Or people could just make their minds up? BLongley 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Purple is cool. Let us do it! --Marc Kupper|talk 09:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Then make it so! BLongley 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Daw reference book

Marc, I just approved this book "Future and Fantastic Worlds: A Biblographical Retrospective of DAW Books (1972-1987)"[2]. Thought you would like to know about it unless you already do.Kraang 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool and thank you for the heads up as I'd never heard of it. A scan of AbeBooks finds were missing a few titles by Sheldon R. Jaffery / Sheldon Jaffery - always more things to do...
    • The introduction by Sheldon Jaffery explains the sub-genre of the "Weirds". Stories include: The Mole Men Want Your Eyes by Frederick C Davis; Mistress of the Blood-Drinkers by Ralston Shields; A Beast is Born by W Wayne Robbins; The Horror at His Heels by Wyatt Blassingame; and more. Starmont Popular Culture Series, Volume 1.
Non genre but the only one

DAW notes

Have come across another one of DAW's first printing text/later printing covers [[3]] I know we had a brief discussion about this regarding another pub that escapes me at present, and know this can't be easily explained/pigeon-holed, but is there a general 'feeling' about how to explain this in an easy note so future editors sort of have something to go on? This kind of thing seems a DAW-only circumstance, at least I haven't seen any other publisher that has been so 'lax' in allowing later printings to carry an incorrect copyright page. This isn't a critical thing, but something 'generic' might be helpful. Any suggestions? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The note you added looks fine other than the part about "It is unclear why DAW has, in several instances, issued second (or later) printings with different artwork than the first editions, yet have retained the copyright page from the first edition/printing." which is a general note about DAW and not that publication. I will usually add a title note explaining the issue so that future editors can be on alert that to check and document both the painting and credited artist.
From June 1981 to March 1982 DAW reprinted a handful of titles with different covers and also assigned new DAW Book numbers to them. One of my mini projects is to get copies of all printings of these titles as there's a lot of confusion regarding credited/actual artists, the DAW Book No., the stated printing number, if the actual book contents ever changed, etc.
  • DAW Book No. 146 and then 438 in Jun-1981 - Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said.
  • DAW Book No. 100 and then 442 in Jul-1981 - Hadon of Ancient Opar.
  • DAW Book No. 046 and then 447 in Aug-1981 - King of Argent.
  • DAW Book No. 154 and then 463 in Dec-1981 - The Birthgrave.
  • DAW Book No. 197 and then 475 in Mar-1982 - Flight to Opar.
Wish I could remember that other book, as it is not one of the five you have here. I will make a mental note and get back to you with any like this in the future so your mini-project has a few more bones to pick!! Went sleuthing and came up with Brunner's "Polymath", has new #UY1217, no DAW Books # and a Kirby cover with a DiFate credit, 2nd printing, CDN. A start...~Bill, --Bluesman 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
[[4]] One more for the list. --Bluesman 00:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Initially it looked like a reprint program where DAW was selecting and reprinting one title per month. Every single one of these titles has been a nightmare from a bibliographic view with Flow My Tears being a little worse as there's also a third cover... My notes on Flow My Tears have:
Order # DAW # Price 1st pr date Printing Artist
UW1166 146 $1.50 Apr-1975 1st Hans Ulrich; Ute Osterwalder
UW1266 None $1.50 Apr-1975 3rd Publication credits Hans Ulrich; Ute Osterwalder but is signed "Kresek".
UE1624 438 $2.25 Apr-1975 5th Oliviero Berni (printed in June 1981?)
UE1624 438 $2.50 Unknown Oliviero Berni
UE1969 438 $2.50 Unknown Oliviero Berni
You threw a minor monkey wrench into that list in that your UW1266 is a Canadian printing with a 1-??? number line. As the Canadians were generally better than the Americans when it came to keeping track of the printing numbers I'll suspect this really is the first Canadian printing though uses the cover from the American 3rd printing. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a title note. I don't think anyone will miss it. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad I only have a Granada edition. ;-) The Panther/Grafton/Granada/Triad mess is SO much simpler to deal with. BLongley 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Whipping Star

Your note for [this] pub is incorrect. The sixth printing has that ISBN, verified by Currey as it is the first edition with revised text. Found an image and have re-entered the pub into the DB. I did not adjust your note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Many things about the publication update I did on Dec 28, 2008 don't make sense to me at all. From what I can see in the edit trail. I trashed out a perfectly good record and left notes as though I was editing an entirely different record.
Is there an explanation of the revised text? I suspect we should have separate Whipping Star (1970) and Whipping Star (1977) titles. It's possible Berkley printed both at the same time. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't answer that. I do not have a revised edition. The Currey data and a real ISBN were the reasons for re-birthing of the pub. Doubt that Berkley had concurrent versions, though. Think, for now, a note about the revision might be sufficient until a verified copy turns up??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I figured out more of why I did the edit I did. It turns out I'd spotted a duplicate publication record for 0-425-06997-4 at $2.95. I hijacked one of those to create the publication record that matches my publication. That explains why I seemed to overwrite a perfectly good record. The mystery is still thick as my note said "Prior to verification this record used the ISBN 0-425-03504-2." The note is strange for a couple of reasons. 1) It's the wrong prior ISBN. 2) When I hijacked I also changed the price but did not make a note of that. 3) I would not have left a note at all if I knew I was hijacking a duplicate record.
Regarding the record you to added ISFDB - it looks like there are now three publication records for the 6th printing.
No date Berkley 0-425-02824-0 $1.50 176pp Stated 6th printing
No date Berkley 0-425-03504-2 $1.50 188pp Paul Alexander Stated 6th printing. Copyright page says 6th printing even though 0-425-03308-2 also says 6th printing.
Sep 1977 Berkley Medallion 0-425-03504-2 $1.50 188pp Alexander "Berkley Medallion Edition, September, 1977 / Sixth Printing." - Currey [Revised Text]
0-425-03308-2 This line is from the note for the second pub above. says this is the 8th printing. There is no ISFDB record yet.
I believe you added the third record in that list. It seems to duplicate the second record. I have e-mailed Don Erikson as he seems he has both of the sixth printings. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Don replied back. It turned out he had a typo. The record that used to say 0-425-02824 now has 0-425-03308-2. This allows his existing note on 0-425-03504-2 to make sense. I added a new record for 0-425-02824 which was for 95 cents. I also added 0-425-05515-9 at $2.50.
It turns out there are two publications marked "sixth printing" with one being the 1970 edition and the other is the 1977 edition. Don reports the differences as
It was definitely reset AND was set as with chapters, starting at the top of a page and leaving space at the end to start the next chapter atop the next page. Also they added fictional quotes & epigrams at the beginning of each chapter. Also there is one less line per page of text. All this takes up more room.
I thought about breaking this out into two separate title records but as it seems the story did not change I dealt with it by adding a title note. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dark Piper - Questions

Morning!. This . [5] , You are second ver and my copy does not match this opening statement. [The printing date is not stated. However, the advertising on the back pages are dated 8A-2-71, 25-6-71, and 6-71 and so a date of 1971-06-00 was used for this ISFDB record.]. I know I am going blind, but I have no dates on advertisement pages. Did you match the above? My copy has four pages top books are 89700 - 50¢ Witch World, The Big Time 06220 - 50¢, right side double column 81780 - 75¢ (over) A Torrent of Faces and Lords of the Starship 49250 - 50¢. I have no catalog adv dating. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - it's publishers messing with out heads again. Here's the pages
  • [1] Excerpt that starts "Returning home after ten years, ..."
  • [2] Andre Norton novels available
    05160 - 50¢ The Beast Master
    ...92550 - 50¢ The X Factor
  • [3] Title page / footer has "An Ace Book / Ace Publishing Corporation / ...
  • [4] Copyright page - rather plain. It credits Jack Gaughan
  • [5] I guess you would call this a chapter header. The page is blank other than "Dark Piper" floating mid-way down the page on the right.
  • [6] Blank
  • 7 Start of story
  • 220 End of story
  • [221] "Ace Science Fiction Doubles / Two Books Back-to-back for just 75¢" Books listed are 05595 to 81610. 15¢ handling fee. Lower-right corner has 8A•2•71
  • [222] Award Winning Science Fiction Specials. Books listed are 00950 75¢ to 94200 75¢. 10¢ handling fee. Lower-right corner has a "7"
  • [223] Andre Norton. Books listed are 69681 60¢ to 95961 75¢. 15¢ handling fee. Lower-right corner has 25•6•71
  • [224] Andre Norton. Books listed are 67555 75¢ to 66831 60¢. 15¢ handling fee. Lower-right corner has •6•71
The book prices are listed below. The numbers are the count per advertising page.
  • 50¢ 0+0+1+0
  • 60¢ 0+2+9+13
  • 75¢ 12+11+2+7
  • 95¢ 0+4+0+0
As you mention several 50¢ items your printing must be before mine. My prices are clearly in the 75¢ area. The four at 95¢ are likely the newest
A little curious given I'd estimated a 1971-06-00 date for the book. I don't have time to chase these down more.
Note that the advertising on page [2] is priced from 40¢ to 50¢ with one 60¢ (63410 from 1969-01). I did not include it in the tally above as it may not change as often as the advertising at the end. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm back - Something I'm thinking about is one, and maybe both, of us should clone DRKPPR1968. While the usual methods of distinguishing publications would make ours the same they are clearly different. I've invited Dave Sorgen, who did the primary verification, over. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
We are totally matched pages 1-220.
(221)Andre Norton's Brilliant Fantasy Series of the Witch World
(222)Classics of Great Science Fiction
(223)Ace Science Fiction Specials
(224)Ace Recommends . . .
40¢ 2+ 0+ 0+ 0+
50¢ 4+ 10+ 0+ 5+
60¢ 0+ 5+ 8+ 4+
75¢ 0+ 0+ 7+ 2+
95¢ 0+ 0+ 3+ 1+
pg 223 38120 95¢ The Jagged Orbit 1969(ISFDB ver). (first printing)
pg 223 47800 95¢ The Left Hand of Darkness Mar 1969 (ISFDB ver). (first printing)
pg 223 37425 95¢ The Preserving Machine 1969 (ISFDB ver). (first printing)
pg 224 17260 95¢ Dune unknown (ISFDB no ver). (reprint of 1965 story)
Just guessing at late 69 or early 1970 instead of 1971. Just keeping the ball spinning. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with that date though most likely it's mid-1969 to late 1969 with a small chance it's early 1970.
  • 1968 is still a possibility. The main thing against 1968 is none of those books are listed as "upcoming."
  • 1969 is the most likely.
  • 1970 is likely out otherwise you'd expect to see some 1970 titles unless Ace only advertises books already in print and it's early 1970.
  • 1971 is out for sure unless you find a 1970 or 1971 title.
Once Dave Sorgen pops in we should know which way to clone and date things. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. You have to wonder if the 'royalties' payments had anything to do with it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I cloned the 1971 version and changed the notation to reflect my copy difference. I found two copies available at the local book store. One of each type. Your version was being sold for $16.00, but it was priced quite some time ago, mine was $2.00. Nice aside, the owner is going to open up a storage shed and let me rummage. It will break me I am sure, but a quick look showed several thousand pbs. Please check my clone for thoroughness/completeness. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The new record looks good though I got confused by some of the wording. I edited that plus added a new bullet to both publication records[6][7] that explains that the other exists and links to it. Once Dave Sorgen pops in and comments I'll clean up this talk page section leave it as a publication comment at Publication:DRKPPRVHHX1969 and link to that from the publication notes.
Have fun rummaging through the shed. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Book of Poul Anderson

Locus #213 (August 1978) has a listing for your verified pub. It has the same catalog number and price and was published in June 1978. The only puzzlement is that yours says it was printed in Canada, and I don't think Locus would list a Canadian printing. I see there are three pubs listed under this title with the ISBN 0-87997-347-1, but one pub doesn't give the DAW catalog number, one gives UE1347, and one gives UJ1347. The Locus listing shows UJ1347 at $1.95, so I'll leave it to you to figure out which one it refers to. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated my publication to be June 1978. The UE1347 record is my publication and was in error. The correct catalog # is UJ1347. There is some evidence for a December 1977 printing and much more for a mid-1978 printing. The UJ1347 catalog # would be December 1977 in the numbering sequence. However, the advertising is for 1st printings in May 1978 and reprints up to November 1978. It's listed in the DAW 1978 catalog for June 1978. (one of my long suffering projects is to go through the catalogs and to date the reprints). lists it as June 6, 1978. I don't have one of the price list spreadsheets from Penguin handy to confirm that Amazon has Penguin's date but would assume it's correct.
The Canadian edition is something Bluesman verified. The Canadian editions use their own printing sequence numbers and are usually priced a little higher. Usually they say "Cover printed in the USA" meaning it's possible the Canadians did a 4th printing in December 1977 and DAW used the same covers for their USA 3rd printing in June 1978. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ace DBL D-491 [2]

Added links to individual cover images (way clearer than the double format) and artist credit to Emshwiller for the second cover (not sure who does the ACE Image Library data, but it certainly seems accurate) for [[8]]--Bluesman 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The double cover images tend to be a mess. I have not developed an opinion one way or another on if the Ace image library is accurate. The way you did it with citing them for the credit works well as then whoever is looking at the ISFDB record can decide for themselves if the credit is accurate. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarke SFBC

Hey, Marc! [This] pub raises some questions. My copy has the correct gutter code, but also has "First Edition" on the copyright page. (Mine has no cover). MartyD's copy has a cover and the gutter code and the "First Edition" and a price. There is a brief discussion on his page about this. I think the trade edition was printed by Doubleday for Harcourt. If your copy has no price on the jacket but has the "First Edition" on the copyright page, then that should confirm this. Can you check? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bill. It looks like you have a trade edition like MartyD. My copy has no price on the cover, "Book Club Edition" on the lower front flap, and the copyright page is rather plain. It starts out with a ten-line block of story copyrights, a three line paragraph with the "All rights reserved" notice, and finally one line with "Printed in the Unites States of America". There is no printing or edition statement. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek Reader

Replaced the image for [this] as I scanned in my SFBC cover. Also added a small note about this being the first HC appearance of ST8, per Currey. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I fixed the image link as you had it going to (a publication record). I assumed you meant this which is the image for that publication. I'm fine with the note you added though I don't agree with Currey that inclusion of a story in a hardcover omnibus, collection, or anthology, etc. counts as an "appearance" of that story in HC. Technically that is true but in *my* universe <g> it would need to be the main or only story in a HC to count as "appearing in HC." Maybe Currey has defined a distinction between something like "hardcover printing" and "hardcover appearance" that allows for this. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't change the 'designation' of the image when I have the SFBC and am using that image for the trade issue (or the other way around). They are not always identical (blurbs on the cover can change) and if I 'steal' the tag for the image then if the correct image comes along it means replacing that image and the 'tag' is already used. I have had difficulty making the DB over-ride an existing image like that so I just avoid taking the tag. The Currey note was for the entire collection "ST8", which did not have a hardcover printing until this omnibus. He has the hots for first hardcover anything, wish he had done the same for first PB editions, would have cleared a lot of biographical questions. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

THE GHOULS cover signature

My copy of this book is trimmed so there is a little more room at the bottom. I see the signature "A. Magee" and by looking at other Magee covers I'm 99% sure this is Alan Magee. I'm saying only 99% sure because sometimes that 1% can turn around and bite you in the ass.Don Erikson 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Don! --Marc Kupper|talk 09:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Star of Danger

Scanned in a new image for [this], the other one was from the ACE Image Library (we don't have permission yet to link to them, and I picked up a fine copy just today). Also added the interior art piece to the contents, and noted it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do have permission from the Ace Image Library now. But don't let that stop you improving on them. BLongley 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Bill for catching the int-artist. I also agree with "But don't let that stop you improving on them." For example, I'm uploading an image for another book right now even though a nearly perfect scan exists on Amazon. Part of the reason I'm doing this is it allows me to zoom in to see if any signatures are visible. The book credits the artist but as long as the book is sitting in the scanner I check to see if I can update the signature library. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Kudos! Another major image source!! Sometimes they are really great, sometimes not... Best thing is they have scans of all the printings, with, usually, a clear view of the catalog/price numbers. We can zoom images on the DB? or are you referring to your scanner? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Kevin Pulliam was the one that secured permissions, all credit to him. BLongley 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As to "zoom" - I think Marc must be referring to his scanner. I know I've used such to investigate a tiny sig that my magnifying glass can't cope with. But he may be referring to images here - sometimes you click on an Amazon image and discover the original is smaller, whereas I always try to make sure my scans here are at the 600 pixels limit. That's usually enough to be sure an (I)SBN is readable (prices tend to be on the back covers here though) but it would be rare to have a sig readable at that level. Maybe that'd be enough to point out where a sig actually is though. BLongley 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the zoom I mentioned before. I normally scan covers at 300 dpi. This allows me to blow up or zoom in on the image and I pan around looking for a signature. How much I zoom depends on how busy the image is. I also like to look at the pictures in detail as artist often hide little things in their works. As I'm in Paint Shop Pro both panning and adjusting the zoom can be done with the mouse (the wheel controls the zoom and hold-click drag pans). If I find the signature and have a reason to save it then I'll rescan that area of the cover at 1200 dpi. With both the full cover and signature detail I crop the image in Paint Shop and save it. When uploading images to ISFDB I first scale it to a maximum of 600 pixels high or wide using EZ Thumbs which I've set up so I just right click on an image, select Make Thumbnail, and it'll make the max-600 pixel high or wide file for me. I've found that at 600 pixels that the catalog number and price are usually readable. Amazon's 400 pixel images sometimes blur things enough that I'd only be able to say "it seems to match this known pattern." --Marc Kupper|talk 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DAW #19 - The Regiments of Night

Info for you. [This] record had a statement that there was no printing statement. The CDN edition does, but no number line. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I temporarily put it on hold while I think. I'll ask Don to take a hard look at his copy. The troublesome aspects are Don reported n.d./n.p. (no date, no printing) and I confirmed the same on a visit to a bookstore. Both of these were in late 2006 and it's quite possible we were not as picky about distinctions as we are now.
Do you have the Canadian edition? If so, then we should clone and make a new record that notes it's for the Canadian edition and presumably the price is C$0.95. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like another of the moderators missed the hold note and approved your changes. The notes used to say
  • Daw Book No. 19
  • Assumed first printing. The publication does not state a printing date nor number. The source for the date on this ISFDB record is unknown but is assumed to be accurate.
I sent an e-mail to Don asking about what his copy says. If it's n.d./n.p. then I'll clone and make a new record though would still like to know if yours is the Canadian edition as those did have the printing month/year in late 1972 while the USA copies did not. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Don replied back about the contents of his edition. I cloned the record and created a new one for the USA edition plus updated the record you verified to note it's printed in Canada and to make the price C$0.95.

Rabkin's Fantastic Worlds

There's a listing for the tp edition of this title in Locus #222 (June 1979), giving the publisher's price of $5.95. Being a university press and probably intended to be a classroom text, the price was probably not printed on the book. That way the publisher could gouge students raise the price at any time. MHHutchins 03:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add that they give May 1979 as the month of publication. They give the price of the hardcover edition as $15.95, so I don't know where the $22.50 that's currently on the record came from. MHHutchins 03:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've updated the verified publication record. I'd have to guess that $22.50 is from for a later edition or possibly a Canadian price. You are likely correct in that it's used as a textbook as Amazon still has it in print and priced even higher than last year. has a look inside for the 17th printing of the TP. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bug 2202918

When you get a chance, could you please check if Bug 2202918 "Python error on pub contents export" is still a problem? I tested, which is given as an example in the body of the Bug report, and it seemed to be OK. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fixes - I checked the other anthologies I'd tested against back when I filed the report and they all worked meaning the bug seems to be fixed. I did run into a minor issue in that for my test I did the exports and approved them constructing a test publication with 270 stories. I then went into remove-title, checked all 270 titles, but only the first 199 titles were dropped into the XML blob meaning I needed to do a second round to pick up the remaining 71 titles. I seem to recall that someone once said there was a 200 title limit and if so, it's been confirmed. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Bug 2830311, "Can't remove more than 199 Titles from a Publication" created, thanks! Ahasuerus 12:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

De Witt on R&S page

You might want to look at Rules and standards discussions‎#Spaces in Author names. I would ping Harry, his views would be worth while, but he has objected strongly to being invited into such discussions in the past, particularly by me. -DES Talk 21:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I forgot about the difficulty in parsing walls of text. Thanks for the heads up. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Best New Horror, Volume Twelve - "The Other Side of Midnight"

Can you re-check your verified copy of this anthology to see if the story by Kim Newman has a subtitle "Anno Dracula 1981"? I'm holding a submission that wants to make the title record a variant of the one with the subtitle. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like what the editor did was fine. The story was first published on as Castle in the Desert: Anno Dracula 1977 (verified via Google cache as it's no longer on the site) and also on the author's web site. Castle in the Desert was the title used in the first (and only) book publication. I suspect DES will notice this and start YAR&ST (Yet Another Rules & Standards Thread). :-).
FWIW - In the book the upper part of the first page has Castle in the Desert in large letters followed by a two paragraph author bio. There's a space, and then centered in bold body text size text is Anno Dracula 1977. The story immediately follows the "sub title." The TOC, copyright page, and page headers all use Castle in the Desert. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Visible Man

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks Willem H. 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Submission was accepted. Can you verify the artist's signature also, Marc? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Willem. Good eye in spotting that signature. Even when looking in the lower left I missed it at first as at first I thought it was one of the lines between the tiles. Both of my copies of the publication are fairly worn and so I don't bother with uploading a full cover image. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Collected Short Fiction C. J. Cherryh

Bought a copy of [this] yesterday, and went to the record to add my two ¢s. Interesting notes and bibliographic page! Since the notes were done two publications have been entered in the Db with the story MECH in them from '92 so I removed that note. At the beginning of the individual story notes is the statement: "The title banner for each story also includes the year in which it was first published." I read every page I could to find where that morsel originated and just can't. There isn't anything which speaks to those dates. Was there an outside source? I ask because without that assumption, then the notes that follow really have no 'source'. All but the story Cassandra do match ©date and the year in the 'banner'. Without any explicit reason/meaning for the banner dates, there isn't really any bibliographic 'conflict'. Thoughts? I like reading your notes, they always take me somewhere... ~Bill,--Bluesman 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The "morsel" itself came from me but it sounds like you are not seeing the dates? I'll need to dig up my copy of the collection. I recall I did not spot the dates when verifying but as I was reading the book I noticed them and so went back to update my notes. If you still have the book handy take a look at top of the the page facing the title page for each story. The dates were in a strange place. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I did see the dates, indeed looked for them after reading the notes. I just couldn't find anything in the book that addressed/explained them in any way. Hence the question. ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the book again and see what you mean. I revised the notes. Let's see if that version looks clearer to you.
I'd made the first printing date assumption as that's usually what they put in a collection or anthology when they note the dates. You are right in that they do seem to be the copyright dates except for Cassandra. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Good notes! (as always). Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Explorers and horizons

From Ommadawndk 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can there be created a connection between these 2:

I don't see how to do it. -- Thank you for your message, I can see the connection now, as I know where to look.

Bradbury's A Medicine for Melancholy

Can you recheck the title of a story in your verified copy of this title? I believe "The Sunset Harp" should be "The Shore Line at Sunset" as it appears in other editions of this title. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL - what happened there is I started to verify and in the middle of doing that started to read the book and got distracted... I fixed it to use The Shore Line at Sunset. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Other Log.....Fogg

Some DAW data on [this] pub. First Canadian printing, still no number line. Currey adds an odd note, most likely about the US edition: "First Printing, March 1973 on copyright page. Also, First Printing [through] Tenth Printing set in ten lines following the dedication on copyright page." Notin the CDN edition. Sort of have an idea what that means, but just passing it along. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a separate line for the Canadian edition to the DAW list. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Another DAW oddity: [this] pub, a Canadian edition, second printing, states "First Signet Printing, April, 1983". That is not a typo. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool! --Marc Kupper|talk 06:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Book of Leiber

[[9]] Another in the series of different covers than artists. All copyright page data would indicate a first printing, yet the cover is from the US 3rd. --Bluesman 01:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - and here's more on that. Your "3rd printing" cover is actually DAW's second USA printing. It was done in either October or November 1976. Amazon says October 19, 1976. The catalog # UY1269 fits into the lineup for November 1976. I don't have a USA catalog for 1976 and and so would go with Amazon's date. Thus both the date and cover artist are wrong for your publication. Note that the Canadian edition may not have come out out on the same date as the USA 3rd but it would have been either late 1976 or some time in 1977. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

SourceForge Project

I have created a source forge account under the same log in name 'kpulliam' - Could you please add me to the project? - Thanks - Kevin 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I added this a while back for Kevin. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Singularity Station

Scanned in a new image for [[10]] added the interior art and fleshed out the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived as I had a transient verification and in that case it was a pub I only had transient access to. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Creating the Kris Darkon pseudonym for Forrest J. Ackerman instead of uncredited

Hello Marc. As Bob Hall is not appearing on my watchlist and you are active, with some limitations due to RL, I need someone versed somewhat in the Perry Rhodan magverse. I have the PR's 119+ and entered them as uncredited, and it devils me. The reality is that Ackerman took a flier with subscriber funds to try and create a viable PR magazine. He failed rather quickly, but he 'dodged' some possible liabilities and responsibilities of an editor in order to hedge himself from financial loss. There are no real name people mentioned in the series during his attempt, except for the actual German author whose story is translated and a few letter comments from fans with no signed pseudonyms responses. There is though, a direct connection with a pseudonym name used in these issues. His Kris Darkon persona continued to be used for commentary in the magazine during both the Ace publication and the non-attributed Master Publications run. He strictly used it in Ace to hype his selling of PR material and events and continued that into Master Publications. My view is that this huckstering pseudonym is a valid connection between the publications and leads directly to Forrest J. Ackerman, even though he refrained from his usual practice of crediting himself, his wife and translators, etc. My proposition is that I change the uncredited to Kris Darkon. Enter the contents of a "Rhofan" subscriber post card and that KD is the only name used in association with the MP run. Thus crediting him/KD and then taking it one step further and making KD a pseudonym of FJA. I hope this seems a rational way of cluing in the db user to the clearly well known relationship. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonyms are dangerous in ISFDB at the moment as we can't change or undo them meaning whatever we do needs to be done right the first time. I believe it's pretty we'll established that Ackerman used many pseudonyms or at least someone went to the trouble to create a poster about it.
Agreed. The reason I and DES have a discussion going. I am trying to promote some intermediate stage, apparent to the users, for working the problem over time and through possibly numerous editors. Authors are difficult, editors tend to be worse and artist/others are like blowing bubbles in the wind. In a sense using a pseudonym for FJA is only an attempt to assign the lack of data mischief in the later PR printing to the culprit. Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
To me, Kris Darkon is more likely Wendayne, Forrest's wife, and as much of a fan of specfict as Forrest was. Forrest was into phonetic pseudonyms and Darkon seems to be a spin on Wahrman which was Wendayne's maiden name.
I totally support that Wendayne was a phenomenal support for FJA. In fact I doubt, he would have done a tenth of what he did without her. His 'whiny' rebuke to STF fans for not supporting his plans and contributing tons of money for him to do his thing was a 'real work of art'. She definitely was his charm. Harry, --Dragoondelight 13:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the best we can do is to keep tugging at the strings to see where they lead and documenting the trail. From time to time we may run across a real fact, vs. speculation. ISFDB can help in that it'll document when and where the various pseudonyms were used. For example, Wendayne was mugged in 1989 and I don't think was able to write up to her subsequent death in 1990. Thus Ackernymns used from 1990 on out would be by Forrest. Thus, what I do is to document the connection as best as possible. Reading Series:Perry_Rhodan#Perry_Rhodan_.236_-_The_Secret_of_the_Time_Vault over a year later shows I failed in some aspects in that I related my opinions but did not give more of the background facts that could support or deny that opinion.

PR is messy and Ackerman is more so

I take it as no, but filled in a little below, but no is not a problem as long as it is aired out, especially to someone who can follow up at a later date if new/better information occurs. That is why asked you to sit as a judge on my thoughts. As for your surmises and commentary on PR 6, I found nothing wrong with both the approach and the result. I think in some ways the DB is built for doing what you did and then adding/subtracting lines of inquiry as you go through the material. Unfortunately, I thing PR is especially messy. I found some material from a favorite author in 'Science Fiction Adventures' magazine and will start comparisons with PR in my reading of it. Never was a real magazine fan, but possibly I am developing. LOL. Putting your thoughts on what was happening in PR 6 and other books, you have done are (IMO) essential to developing future understanding of the material. Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I broke the drifting threads into their own sub-sections as I get confused by all of these indents wafting in and out.
I did not mean an absolute "no" but rather that the ISFDB database should be based on verifiable facts as much as possible. Pseudonyms are a hard one as it's rare that a reliable source such as the author or publisher involved publicity states in unambiguous terms that X is Y. It's worse for ISFDB in that author pseudonyms happen to be the one and only thing we can't undo once they get entered. Thus I like to make sure the fish are all in the barrel before I shoot.
I'm also in no hurry. If I have some evidence of something I'm content to just document it and perhaps 10, 20, or more years from now someone will dig up more evidence.
Finally, ISFDB publication records should be based, as much as possible, on what's stated in a publication. If the editor is uncredited for the Masters PR series then the publication record should say "uncredited". We use the variant title mechanism to link that the title record for "uncredited" to Forrest J Ackerman and ideally, as part of that linkage we would also document the evidence that Ackerman was the editor. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

note sources

So far in ISFDB we have not been in the habit of consistently documenting the sources for pseudonyms though presumably could do this on the wiki-bibliography page for an author or artist. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

post card

I added the post card I received when I secured my copy of PR119 from a vendor in the note field. After acceptance here [11].
I approved the post card addition to 904727 though am wondering at the usefulness of adding that as a note to a title type EDITOR title record. The only way people would find that record and thus see the note is via an advanced search. I thought about this and decided a better place to record research notes about a pseudonym is the author's page and so copied the note to Author:Forrest J. Ackerman#Kris Darkon. I also saw two typoes in the note and corrected them on the assumption they were data entry errors. If these typos exist in the original text then please revise the quote and add comments explaining the typos exist in the original publication. The typos are:
  • "...publisher of the Perry Rhodan series wrrote us to go ahead..." corrected to wrote.
  • "...hours in what int eh may turn out...". I took a guess and corrected this to "...hours in what in the end may turn out..."
I left the original note in the title record too. There's a mild concern about copyright issues which is offset in that we are clearly noting "this is something stated in the book and and thus the copyright for that section of the text belongs with them" plus the entire letter has relevance in this case as a source of reliable, and verifiable, documentation for the history of this part of the Perryverse.
I was confused by your comments. Post card? Please update Author:Forrest J. Ackerman#Kris Darkon to better explain the exact source of what is being quoted. At first I thought you were quoting something out of PR #119 as the title record you updated points to that publication but now it seems that at you received a used copy of PR #119 and with it was a postcard, mailed on on an unknown date to an unknown person but I suspect 1978. It's not clear who the post card was mailed to but I'm guessing people pre-ordered a book, possibly PR #119, and the postcard was sent to them. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Updated, I hope. Apologies for all errors. Floating cataracts, right eye, unbalancing eye sight. If still unclear will try again. Otherwise, I am comfortable that you have the gist of my commentary and will have to leave further steps, of which I am unsure are needed, to other editors. If understand correctly, the postcard and perceived intentions are now documented and someone at a later date can carry it forward if they wish. Sorry, but I will table this, unless there is a definite problem with the transcription as all wiki communication (mass writing on screen) is now annoying and I do not wish to strain the good eye. I will update only in order to shelve some books. If Bob Hall gets an active period, it could go to him as he has done a heman job on the PR series. Perhaps better tomorrow, though I will start no more long conversations. This is not a snit, in fact it is catching me flatfooted, words from doctors are words until it happens. Sorry, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Harry - I restructured Author:Forrest J. Ackerman to have separate sections regarding his home address and the Kris Darkon pseudonym. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia link on Master Publications imprint

I also checked the wikipedia and there is no Wendayne Ackerman page, but the Forrest J. Ackerman [12] has a section on Perry Rhodan. The next to last sentence is; "Forry later published translations of German issues #127 through #145 on his own under the Master Publications imprint." So, would that suffice?
Unfortunately, that comment on Wikipedia does not cite a source and so we have no idea if it's speculation on a fan's part or is based on something Forrest stated explicitly. These sorts of things are useful strings to pull to see if we can arrive at the facts and so I would document them as data points on the golden brick road while also acknowledging that they may be leading us in the entirely wrong direction. The postcard you found is an excellent clue that points Kris Darkon as being Forrest J Ackerman. If the post card is from Master Publications then that's even better.
FWIW, while Wikipedia does not have a Wendayne Ackerman page I found this though it's less useful than the Wikipedia article as the page fails to cite sources entirely. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

summary and notes on "uncredited"

Sorry for the nag, and possibly I did not fully understand your reply. I took it as a no, and a further no will leave me totally requited. LOL. In other words, just trying to find a solution to the 'uncredited' when we know better, but can find little ammuntition to do so. I am not trying to circumvent policy as such, but trying to give the users the tools to understand the why/what of this uncommon publishing situation. Of course, after checking the whole series I would rate Ackerman a D as an editor, because he left many questions and created round robin problems to deal with. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. The core thing to keep in mind is that we are trying to keep ISFDB, and particularly publication records, based on verifiable facts. 99% of the time the process is just a mechanical entering and double checking of author and artist credits, publisher names, etc. We try to veer as little as possible into speculative territory when it comes to what we enter into the database.
You would think that as a fan Ackerman would have been interested in organizing and tidying things up. The good news is that he was popular enough that people did save miscelania such as postcards, books, and other material he contributed too.
A solution to "uncredited" is to document what you know and to set up the variant titles based on that. Later, someone may disagree with your conclusions, will add evidence that supports their position, and would change the variant titles. Hopefully the pseudonym editor comes on line soon and we'll be able to change those as easily as the variant titles. I thought the code was already done but apparently it was never released. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Community Portal archive link

We actually already had a link to the archives -- when the link to the Development page was added, it was placed below the archive link. I have removed the redundant link.

FYI subpage links are enabled or disabled on a namespace by namespace basis. I suspect we have just accepted the default, which disables such in the "Project" namespace. Al or Ahasuerus could, i think, change this for any particular namespace, but it may not be worth the trouble. -DES Talk 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That odd - yep, there it is. I thought I did a search for the word "Archive" using FireFox but maybe I did a visual scan in the normal places and did not spot it tucked in above Development. I thought it was surprising the Archive link was missing as I knew it used to be there. I then checked the past couple of archives to see if someone had accidentally archived the archive-link...
Thanks for the heads up on the sub-page links. I thought I knew the syntax though am surprised it's /name vs. the more intuitive ./name as ../name is supported. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Garan the Eternal

Another piece of the DAW puzzle: the verified record of [this], by Mr. Longley, has the printing statement as one of those "First printing/second printing/..." types that were around in the very early editions. I just picked up a first CDN copy that has simply "First Printing, March, 1973". I have yet to see a single copy with the previous style of printing statement and am pretty sure the CDN printings never used that format. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and am pretty sure Canadian copies never used the spelled out "number line." I am surprised though that your March 1973 book does not have a number line. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, but then I don't have that many early DAWs, though I'm not sure. Do you have some kind of spread sheet yet that lists maybe the first couple of years? Maybe something like the SFBC pages, with columns for US & CDN printings. A lot of patterns are much easier to see that way. I know that WillemH has quite a number of DAWs, he figured over 450, and could probably add some data. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The first CDN DAW with a number line seems to be in April '73. I have #45 & #48 without and #51 & 53 with a number line. None previous to #51, and I find I have 15 CDN printings and about 10 US, have a printing line. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have a spreadsheet and just used the "mail user" function. If you get the e-mail then you can reply back and I'll e-mail it to you. Another option is I can post it on a web site. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Got your e-mail and responded, then realized your 'spam' filter might boot the message as my e-mail address starts with a number. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
My filters auto-whitelist anything that mentions what I call "interesting words." That includes ISFDB. They get dropped into a folder named "Possibly interesting mail from strangers." You should have the spreadsheet by now. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Martian Chrnicles - artist Ian Miller

Morning! This. [13]. Just to enliven our days I have the 60th above and you have the 61st, [14]. Problem is we have the same artist, though the art has changed. Would you please check your cover for a signature. My notes have what I found, which gives me some doubt that it is Ian Miller. Cheers. I forgot yours is probably stored, so I hope you have a small tbr list, there is NO hurry, as apparently the rules state that no matter the signature we must use the copyright page. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have that one handy along with the 42nd printing[15] which has different artwork. There's no signature on the cover of the 61st printing. The 60th printing is definitely Ian Miller work and the 61st is almost sure not to be. I've e-mailed Ian to see if he has ideas on the 61st.
"as apparently the rules state that no matter the signature we must use the copyright page" I added a note explaining why it's likely to not be an Ian Miller work. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Python Error When Review Deleted"

I wonder if Bug 1743295 is still a problem. Have you run into it lately, perchance? Ahasuerus 02:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That may have been the last time I deleted a review. There's enough detail in the original report that we could set up a test. As we have the date we may even be able to find the submission blob and do do the exact same delete on a backup copy of the db. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I ran a few checks on the local server and everything seemed to work OK. I suspect that the relevant parts of the application have been rewritten a few times since 2007 and the current version doesn't have this problem, but it's hard to be sure since we don't delete Review records very often. Ahasuerus 01:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DAW "spelled" number lines

I recently sent an e-mail to an AbeBooks seller regarding a listing of a "Tenth Printing" just to let him know about DAW's short-lived use of that scheme. Being a bookseller with a store and obviously too much time, he has confirmed that the "First" [through] "Tenth" system was in use at least until #47. He loves the site and was very grateful for the knowledge. Think we may have a new editor in the making...... FYI! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I knew about up to #47. for #48 there's no number line. I was browsing through a bookstore today and spotted this where DAW forgot to add the number line. It is an August-1982 printing per the order # (and stated printing August 1982). Other August 1982 books have the number line. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Siros vs Sirois

Hi, could you check the spelling of Al's name here I suspect this is A.L. Sirois AKA Al Sirois. Thanks User:Jonschaper|Jonschaper 00:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good eye. I corrected the artist credit so that it's Al Sirois. The publication has "Map by Al Sirois" on the copyright page with no evidence of "A.L." --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper |[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bug 1743289

Would you happen to remember anything about Bug 1743289? The description currently reads:

When merging titles the tags should be checked and any duplicates should be merged. At the moment duplicate tags are doubled up. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:38, 25 Mar 2007 (CDT)

I can't quite figure out what this may be in reference to. Publication tags are unique database-wide and shouldn't be affected by Title merges, but perhaps the term "tag" was used loosely (after all, it was March 2007 and we were all less experienced then) and refers to something else? Ahasuerus 02:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Popular Tags" aka the stuff edited by edittags.cgi. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see! Thanks! Ahasuerus 13:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Added Cover Scan Nebula 22

I added a cover scan to your verified [16] Nowickj 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Map of Compact Space

I would like to merge several title records which I believe refer to the same piece of interior art, entitled "Map of Compact Space", that is included in some of C. J. Cherryh's Chanur novels. You are one of the verifiers whose pub records (this and this) would be affected by the change. Before making the merge I need to make sure that all titles refer to the same piece of art. A scan of the map can be found here (link points to my personal website; once the issue has been resolved I will remove the scan so that no copyright is violated). Unless you think my proposal is a bad idea in the first place, could you please verify whether the scan matches the map you have in your publication? You may wish to read the help desk discussion leading up to this request. Thanks for your time, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with a merge
  • You asked about Chanur's Venture. I should be able to dig this one up tomorrow.
  • You also asked about Chanur's Homecoming. Unfortunately, I marked this as being on shelf #0 and am wondering where that is in the house. I looked above shelf #1 without luck...
I found these. All have the same art as your scanned image but without the speckling that's in your image. The background is solid white and the stars are solid black. Maybe you added this so that the image is more in line with "fair use" as far as copyright goes.
An interesting argument against living in a house (as opposed to living in a flat): Too much space for bookshelves :-) -- Herzbube Talk 11:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I can read the phrase "Too much space for bookshelves" but it does not compute. How can one ever have too much space? (Says the guy moving to a larger house just so he can fit more books in). BLongley 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The speckling in the image is not something I put there on purpose - it's just the lousy quality of the xerox/scanner machine at my wife's office :-) I have been thinking about buying my own scanner, but I only want something that is strictly plug&scan. No fiddling, no installing! If you happen to have a Mac and a scanner that you can recommend...Herzbube Talk 11:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've no idea how well it would work with a Mac, but I'm very happy with the Lexmark 6300 series. I got mine a few years ago as a long-service award from my employers, and while I don't use the printing capability a lot the scanning capability has been used several times a day for months now. BLongley 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
And finally: Yes, there are other verifiers involved in this whole issue, 5 others besides you and me, to be exact (Dragoondelight, Willem H., Rtrace, Dcarson and Bluesman). I have contacted them all, the only one I haven't got a response from yet is Dcarson. I will probably stay away from ISFDB the next few days to catch up with my other duties (e.g. find a new job), so the merge will have to wait a little bit longer. Thanks for looking into this, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with the job hunt. BLongley 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with the job hunt! Someone borrowed the Chanur's Venture you had asked for and I'm waiting for it to get returned. While looking for the book I ran across a 1st HC of Chanur's Legacy and it also has the map. It gave me sufficient linkage between the Chanur series books that I merged the remaining map title records and created 563765.
Thanks for merging, less work for me :-) In the meantime I have received feedback from all the people involved. Several of them have confirmed that the map appearing in their publication of Chanur's Venture also matches the image I have put up for comparison. I therefore took the liberty of merging the title "Chanur's Venture (map)" with the title record you created (563765). I chose 1985 as the date for the title record because this is the earliest publication date of the map that has been verified so far.
In case you still want to check the borrowed copy of "Chanur's Venture", and that copy contains a different map, I will have to create a new variant title or something, but I think that's pretty unlikely. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 02:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm also thinking it would be a good idea to upload a 600px your image and to link to it from the merged title record so that people know if it's the same image. I reduced it to 600px and it's definitely sufficiently low-res that it can't be used to make reproductions while being good enough to use for identification of the artwork. That should qualify it under fair-use. We can add a note that the image is for identification purposes only and that the original has a white background and is not speckled.
Good idea. I'm going to upload the image you sent me (it's my first upload, I first have to check guidelines/policies) and add a note to the title record. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 02:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, the image is uploaded here, but I'm stumped now: None of the available license templates seems to apply. Can I just put a descriptive blurb of what we intend on the image's wiki page? I have a feeling that this will not be good enough, esp. considering that I am no good with legalese English. Alternatively I could copy&paste the content of an existing license template and adapt it so that it doesn't talk about "book cover" and such. Any other ideas? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
We just need to copy one of the cover image templates. I'm not sure which one is the "best" one. I'm a bit tired and so will deal with this tomorrow. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I hacked up a copy of the cover image template and used this plus notes on Image:Map-of-compact-space.jpg. One challenge is that the intent behind the cover image template is that it's only used with one publication where in this case the artwork spans multiple titles and editions. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Marc, I greatly appreciate your help, this had definitely grown over my head!!! I have added a cross-linking note to the merged title, which hopefully concludes this map-of-compact-space business. Again, thanks a lot for your support! Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 10:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
One nice thing about the scanner you used is that it did a good job for a scan of the inside of a book. I have a flatbed scanner with a fairly wide margin around the glass meaning it's difficult to scan the inside of a book unless I'd be willing to either crack the spine or cut pages out. I don't have anything like the Kirtas APT 1200 scanner[17] or Google's system. :-)
I thought Google had got the pigeons to do it? ;-) BLongley 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tha Ancient and the Ultimate

I think that woulb be a typo in all occurrencies--ErnestoVeg 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I see you already fixed that one. I took a harder look at the story titles for The Tragedy of the Moon and fixed "Through The Micro-Glass" to be "Through the Micro-Glass" and "Down From the Amoeba" to be "Down from the Amoeba." --Marc Kupper|talk 20:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nebula Awards 22 pub date

In reviewing Don Erikson's newly submitted Nebula Awards 22, which was cloned from your verified tp edition, I found Locus lists the publication date as April, 1988, which may be more accurate than Amazon's March date. I propose changing the date to that and adjusting the notes in both pubs. Let me know what you think. Thanks. --MartyD 11:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:Don_Erikson#Nebula Awards 22 pub date. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

There seems to be duplicate entries for 2 Agatha Christie short stories:

[ The Last Séance (1926) and The Last Seance (1971)

[ The Lamp (1933) and The Lamp (1976)

(I hope this is the right way to draw it to the right persons attention.)

When I checked these had been merged. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)