User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2008

Delap's F & SF Review, February 1977

Michael can you check your verified copy and see what more information there is about Forbidden Planet (film score recording) [1] by Louis & Bebe Barron. Is this a book? Thanks! :-)Kraang 11:11, 1 Jan 2008 (CST)

This was a review of a recording of the film soundtrack composed by Louis & Bebe Barron. I've corrected the pub to show this review (only with two others) as essays other than book reviews. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:38, 1 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks for fixing it.Kraang 19:49, 1 Jan 2008 (CST)

Final Stage, Afterword

In (verified by you) Final Stage, the last text in the Contents Afterword (A Little Something for Us Tempunauts) has Type: SHORTFICTION. Shouldn't it be ESSAY? --Roglo 10:10, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

You're correct. Thanks for catching the mistake. I've corrected it. Mhhutchins 10:14, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Verified Pubs: F&SF 1974

I've modified three of your verified F&SF pubs: Jan. 1974, Feb. 1974, and Sept. 1974, adding cartoon captions, altering page count to include covers, and one reviewed book in Feb. 1974 to match the canonical title. Also added series links for book and film reviews.--Rkihara 12:05, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

When I verified those, we weren't as detail-oriented as we are now. Thanks for updating them. Mhhutchins 12:13, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Beneath the Shattered Moons

Moved catalog number from ISBN field of Beneath the Shattered Moons and put it in notes.

Beneath the Shattered Moons

Moved catalog number from ISBN field of Beneath the Shattered Moons and put it in notes. Dana Carson 00:30, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

"Kazaam Collects" in Science Fiction of the 40's

Could you please double check if the first word in "Kazaam Collects" in your verified Science Fiction of the 40's is spelled "Kazaam" or "Kazam"? It was "Kazam" in Stirring Science Stories in 1941 (title page, TOC, and throughout the story) but it may have been changed later on. TIA! Ahasuerus 16:43, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

No, it's the same spelling as the magazine appearance, just some sloppy typing on my part. Thanks for catching it. I've made the corrections and merged it with the original title. Mhhutchins 16:57, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks! Cleaning up half a million records, one typo at a time, will take some time, but we will get there :-) Ahasuerus 17:07, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Most Thrilling Science Fiction Ever Told and Great Science Fiction

I see that you have entered a number of issues of Magazine:The Most Thrilling Science Fiction Ever Told and Magazine:Great Science Fiction, some from primary sources and some from secondary sources. Are you in a position to enter the rest of them in the foreseeable future? If not, I may take a couple of stacks with me when I hit the road tomorrow and enter them later this month. I don't want to take any pulps with me because they are getting old and may not survive serious travel, but digests should be OK. And even if a few get damaged, it's not like these reprint magazines have much value, sentimental or otherwise. Ahasuerus 21:12, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

I've already entered all of my primary sources, but can enter all of the others up through 1972 from the NESFA indexes. I also have secondary sources of the remaining of the Thrillings except for June 1973. If I enter the rest over the next couple of days, will you have time to verify/complete them? Mhhutchins 22:07, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

Sure, I can take all Most Thrilling issues with me (about two stacks worth) and work on verification once you are done with data entry. No hurry, I will be on the road until mid-February and have plenty of other things, from scripting to backups, to keep me occupied for the next 6 weeks. Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:18, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

Great! Be sure to check which of the 1969 issues were credited as "edited" by Harry Harrison. (Should we create a pseudonym for Cohen as "Harry Harrison"? Ha!) Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:30, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

Just entered an issue from 1968 which had an editorial by Harrison, so maybe he was credited as editor for some of the 1968 issues as well. Mhhutchins 22:47, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

Good point, will check! Ahasuerus 10:44, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

Our Lady of Darkness

Correct cover? BLongley 08:11, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yep, that's the one. Mhhutchins 10:50, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

And for Orbit 12? BLongley 11:51, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

Two for two! Mhhutchins 11:51, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

Richard S. Shavers?

Could you please check if "The Shaver Papers" in your verified The Alien Critic, May 1974 is by Richard S. Shavers or by Richard S. Shaver? TIA! Ahasuerus 12:00, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

It should be "Shaver" of course. Thanks for catching that. I've corrected it. Mhhutchins 12:07, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

"duplicate" submissions

They weren't precisely duplicates, but rejecting them was fine. For the stub pub entered because of the review (the Fred S. Cook book), it gave me a warning because I hadn't entered the date in the right format, so I corrected & resubmitted. (Though I suppose that it might have come out as an actual duplicate, at that.) The other one was where I hit enter instead of tab navigating between fields, before I was done. (Since I had at that point only edited existing fields & contents, I didn't risk creating duplicates by going back & continuing entry.) Thanks. -- Dave (davecat) 16:29, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

I find it better to wait until a submission has been accepted before making an additional update to the same record. You'll get a warning when you make a submission with an invalid date, but the submission will go through (and 0000-00-00 will show as the date on the record). Then update the accepted record with the correct date. As for submitting early, heaven knows, we've all done that. It's just that nobody sees it when you're moderating your own submissions! Thanks for your contributions. Mhhutchins 16:37, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

I'm STILL seeing the warning about date not being in right format as a "Whoops! Will resubmit!" problem. I think this would be a good candidate for making it a true error (as in needs resubmitting, the first won't go through) or even better, accepted with a "We assume you meant THIS?" message on the talk page. It catches me out every few days, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that gets confused between "this was BAD, try again" and "this was BAD, but it gets through". BLongley 17:53, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

You're right, more precise (or specific) warning messages would be helpful, especially for new editors. And what the hell is that message after we've verified a pub? :) Mhhutchins 18:01, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

Changes to your verified pub, F&SF October 1977

Your verified pub was altered to add a caption to the cartoon, a link to the book review series, and the page count was changed to include covers.--Rkihara 21:14, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

Delap's F & SF Review, August 1976

Red Napoleon or Napolean? BLongley 08:28, 12 Jan 2008 (CST) Napoleon. Fixed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:40, 12 Jan 2008 (CST)

Science Fiction Review, November 1979

American Monolith or Monomyth? BLongley 12:52, 12 Jan 2008 (CST)

Monomyth. Fixed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:40, 12 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Most Thrilling Science Fiction Ever Told

Well, I started by cross-checking issues 1 and 2, which you had previously physically verified. There was a minor typo in a cartoon caption, I set up a bunch of variant titles for interior art records (which you may not have had a chance to do) and created an Editor series for the magazine, but otherwise looks good. I am still rather sick, so it will be slow going for a while, not to mention various other distractions, but I hope to be able to do at least an issue or two per day in the foreseeable future. Ahasuerus 01:04, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

I tend to jump over cartoons. As for art variants, not having the original publication I couldn't swear that they're the same pieces. But God knows Sol Cohen wouldn't spend a penny for new artwork. I've finished the Thrillings and have a few more issues of the Greats. Having created a few of these wiki pages for magazines, I'm puzzled as to why the issue listings are in reverse order by year. Wouldn't it be logical (at least to me) to start the listing at the top and proceed down to the last issue? I was constantly having to double check that I was linking the correct issue to the listing. (And I hope you get to feeling better soon.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:16, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

Oh, I just checked and saw that you meant you created variants for the artists' names and not the artwork itself. That makes more sense. I don't know what I was thinking! Mhhutchins 01:16, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

I agree that listing magazine issues chronologically would make it easier to enter the data, but I think the original rationale was to make the most recent issues of Analog, F&SF", etc readily available to our users at the top of each Wiki page. Granted, this reasoning is not really applicable to short magazine runs from dozens of years ago, but I guess consistency trumped data entry convenience in this case.

As far as art variants go, I have created variant titles for individual records (e.g. there was artwork by Mel Varga that was credited to "Varga", Virgil Finlay's work credited to "Finlay", etc) as well as Author pseudonyms for Varga, Blair and others. One area that I decided not to tackle for now was "L. R. Summers" vs. "Leo R. Summers" vs. "Leo Ramon Summers" vs. "Leo Summers". There were just too many records to handle tonight... Ahasuerus 01:40, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

Nos. 3 and 4 are done. I can already see that merging Frosty's "no caption" cartoon reprints with the originals will be tough since they are not dated :( Ahasuerus 15:21, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

No. 5 done. Silverberg's story merged with the original 1960 title, Dickson's story changed to a "Gordon Dickson" variant title, publication months added to all stories, Sol Cohen set up as the uncredited editor, a bunch of interior art and cartoons (and lots of notes) added. Ahasuerus 00:00, 15 Jan 2008 (CST)

Mefisto in Onyx

We had two records for Mefisto in Onyx, one for a novel and one for a novella. I have merged the two, making the resulting record a novella as per the Hugo/Nebula folks, and changed your verified publication to a Chapterbook. Ahasuerus 15:10, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

That's great. I wouldn't want to give Ellison credit for actually writing a novel. The world might come to an end. Mhhutchins 15:48, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)

Malcolm Hulke/Hukle

I'm pretty sure the author is Hulke for both Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon and Doctor Who and The Dinosaur Invasion in Science Fiction Review, May 1980, but maybe the typo is in the magazine? BLongley 13:15, 17 Jan 2008 (CST)

No, the typo was at the tip of my fingers. :( Did you notice how careful I was about entering the titles to EXACTLY match the pubs under review? Even going so far as to make sure the "T" in "The" is capitalized in some titles and not in others. I was so concerned that the reviews would be linked that I failed to notice the transposition in the reviewer's name! Thanks for catching it. Mhhutchins 18:18, 17 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, I noticed: the Doctor Who Universe is a bit of a nightmare really, we left it to an active editor who made it look good: and didn't notice the lack of regularisation of titles, or the use of real name rather than actual pub author name, Duplicated Pub tags, and GHU knows what else - lots of good work hiding some nasty idiosyncrasies. I'll have another pass over it eventually, but I need to scan 50 covers or so first though. BLongley 16:22, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Freedom Beach

Mike can you have a look at your verified copy of Freedom Beach [2]. It contains four shortfiction and the Locus listing [3] leads me to think it may be better classified as a collection. What do you think? Thanks. :-)Kraang 21:37, 17 Jan 2008 (CST)

Despite the fact that Locus provides page numbers for the various previously published pieces, this is definitely a fix-up and was marketed as a novel. There are many chapters that are titled but were not previously published. And "Sea Change" (a poem) is the middle of the chapter named "Freedom Beach". So there is no distinctive separation between the short stories as they were published and how they're presented here. So IMHO this is a novel, not a collection. And Locus admits that it's a "Sf novel rewritten from novelettes." Mhhutchins 21:51, 17 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks, it was the page numbers that caused the confusion for me.Kraang 22:09, 17 Jan 2008 (CST)

Keep in mind that much of the work on the Locus Index has been done by Bill Contento, who tends to list all constituent "fixed up" stories in his bibliographies going back to his pre-1984 index, so take it with a grain of salt.

P.S. Most Thrilling may be delayed since I appear to be getting sick -- for a third time in the last three weeks. Whoever came up with this "winter" concept anyway? To quote that immortal SF classic, "Plan 9 from Outer Space", somebody is responsible! Ahasuerus 22:03, 17 Jan 2008 (CST)

Science Fiction Eye, August 1988

I don't suppose you can find an extra "E." for the author of Trust Me On This? We have the pub but with the "E." BLongley 12:38, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Review credits him without his middle initial, but the cover graphic clearly has an "E". I'll change the review so that it matches the canonical name. Mhhutchins 15:39, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Science Fiction Eye, August 1990

David R. Godine seems by all other accounts to be the Publisher rather than author, can you check please? BLongley 14:21, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

You're right. The author of the books isn't given credit until the end of the list of books under review. I'll fix it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:41, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

It wouldn't have helped reduce the list since the author of the novels, John Banville didn't have any title records in the ISFDB. I've added the books under review. Mhhutchins 16:04, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ta muchly - although I'd like the problem Author list reduced down to a few entries that can be argued about, I have no problems with genuine new SF works. I suspect some of my additions will eventually be ruled out of scope for the Rules of Acquisition, but until we have some concrete examples of say, somebody reviewing a Nonfiction book about the making of a movie that was borderline horror but might be just a thriller, we can't really say when to stop recording "reviews" and making them "essays" that aren't expected to link anywhere. I couldn't bring myself to add publications for reviews of art books about Donald Duck and Scrooge McDuck, but did add some useful Bibliographies and Art collection books for SF/Fantasy artists. There's more UFOlogy than I'd care for really, too. Still, the big problem is that when we clear up the stray authors that only exist from reviews, we can start on the stray TITLES that only exist from reviews. And that list is likely to be much longer... :-/ BLongley 16:36, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

And likely to be even more helpful to the database. Since I add quite a lot of review 'zines, having better logic for linking reviews to the pubs is high on my wishlist. When I first started entering reviews I would occasionally omit a review for an obvious non-Rules book, but gave that up soon after when I came to the conclusion that completeness in entering the pub overrides any concern about the contents of the books under review. I think we have to admit that there will be stray reviews and let it go. As for making reviews "essays", I do that sometimes when the work under review is not a published book, but instead an audio recording, a film, a comic book, etc. I find that keeps some of these stray reviews from being created in the first place. Mhhutchins 17:06, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

As this is a relational database, I like the relationship links to work: the new Author directory having loads of things to click that take you to an empty page, with not even a "pseudonym of" entry, and even no "Titles" appearing if you clicked that, frustrated me so I tried to get that cleaned up. It seems to have worked quite well: so long as a project looks active, and not a truly Sisyphean task, people will join in. I'm sure I can improve even more on the presentation in future - having the problem records one click away seems to have helped a lot, over the plain lists of problems that make people copy'n'paste them into advanced search pages, I think. But I think on next refresh of some pub projects I'll include an indicator of whether something is verified, and make it clearer that the list should get SHORTER, not LONGER as people add "Fixed" comments rather than delete the problem.

I'm actually abdicating some responsibilities for the Stableford collection as it's frankly looking like an awful lot of work I don't actually enjoy. I've started sending parcels to Denmark where the physical publications will be more treasured, and am bribing the Danes into activity by not charging them for the postage on items they'll actually enter here. OK, it'll cost me a few quid but hopefully they can enter the reviews that encourage me to go hunt down missing publications. And as I get to choose what I send, and when, I can make them concentrate on the British pubs I find we're missing entirely, more often than US titles. (OK, I'll send them the Australian SF Reviews and suchlike as well, and eventually the US review 'zines: I'm keeping some of those back as I don't mind double-verifying your entries.) I'm quite happy to have them repay me for the non-genre stuff's postage though, but want that done by them buying stuff for me rather than sending me cheques - ideally I'll have them finding things from my wish-lists on Amazon and other book-sites, so I get want I want (more books!), and also, as a side-effect, packaging that can be reused to parcel up more stuff for Denmark! BLongley 18:03, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

When I first found out about your having the Stableford collection, I thought how nice it would be to have a similar situation happen to me, here in the US. A big-time pro will be looking to get rid of years of unwanted publications, and me with my ass in air like the frat boys in Animal House shouting "Thank you, sir. can I have another!" How much more punishment can I take, knowing I have hundreds of issues of pubs that don't even have title records here on the ISFDB, much less indexed with contents? At least, it gives me something to look forward to in retirement! Mhhutchins 21:04, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

<contemplates adding a sentence about his fanzine collection to his will> ;-) Ahasuerus 22:37, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

I really should consider that myself. :-/ As it stands, my relatives are likely to donate my entire collection of books to charity unchecked, and send the less-professional looking works for paper-recycling. BLongley 13:46, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

My relatives would probably do the same to my magazine collection, so making some sort of arrangement to dispose of them in a satisfactory manner has been in the back of my mind too. A lot libraries seem to be interested in fanzines, but few that I've heard of are interested in pulps or digests. I remember reading that Harry Warner, Jr. had meant to give his collection of fanzines to a suitable library, but he died before specifying one in his will. I think in his case, the relatives had some idea of their value. I never heard what the final disposition of his collection was.--Rkihara 14:27, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

I could waste a lot of time specifying where each book or fanzine goes: e.g. this should probably go to The Australian Science Fiction Foundation as they're lacking that issue. Perhaps we should just get Al to add a "beneficiary" column to the pubs table? BLongley 15:12, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Donald Moffit or Moffitt?

For two reviews in here. BLongley 13:27, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Books credited to Moffit, both in the heading and throughout the review. Obviously a mistake since there's a graphic of both covers with the two Ts. I'll change the reviews and place a note in the pub to that effect. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:58, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks again! I'm beginning to form some mental images about reviewers/editors (in the publication credits sense, not the ISFDB-worker's sense) that can't be trusted to write/print the right words in their own fanzines/magazines... still, such suspicions just lead to more checking so I'll not go hunting them down especially. BLongley 16:43, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Study War No More

Regarding your verified publication.

You verified "27 • The Dueling Machine • (1963) • novella by Ben Bova and Myron R. Lewis" but I can't see a credit for Myron R. Lewis in my copy. A little confusing as there's

• The Dueling Machine (1963)
• The Dueling Machine (1963) with Myron R. Lewis
  • Variant Title: The Perfect Warrior (1963)

I've e-mailed Ben Bova as I could not find an explanation about this.

I also switched your pub to use the Ben Bova only title. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:24, 21 Jan 2008 (CST)

I found this image, ASF_0390.jpg that shows both names. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:30, 21 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks for changing that. You're right, this edition only credits Bova. The pub record already contained the story contents when I was verifying, but I failed to catch that error. Mhhutchins 17:59, 21 Jan 2008 (CST)

Change to verified pub Good Neighbors and Other Strangers

The length of "Pick-Up for Olympus" in verified pub has been changed from shortfiction to shortstory.--swfritter 17:16, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

Verified pubs: Galaxy, Dec./Jan. 1978 to July 1980

Your verified pubs between these two dates were changed to add cover images, interior illustrations, departments, repagination to include covers, and publication months.--Rkihara 11:47, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks. The parameters for what was considered "verified" have changed in the months since those issues were verified. It's good to see someone doing a second round of verifications for these older pubs. Again, thanks. Mhhutchins 15:52, 24 Jan 2008 (CST)

Starboard Wine, 1984

In your verified pub Starboard Wine one of the essays is 81 • Science Fiction and "Literature" - or, The Conscience of the the King with repeated 'the'. Was it printed this way, or should be fixed? --Roglo 12:00, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

The version in Starboard Wine has only one "the", but someone has merged it with the piece in Analog. I'm certain both are incorrect. I'll fix the title record and it should be correct in both pubs. Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:10, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ursula LeGuin

Ping. I have responded to your question on my talk page. -DES ^Talk 19:47, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Most Thrilling Science Fiction Ever Told, Fall 1968

Numbers 1-10 are now done. Interestingly enough, although the NESFA index lists Harrison as the "editor in name only" and the author of the essay on page 2 (according to your Note), his name is nowhere to be found in the issue and the essay is uncredited. So far, his name has been used only once, on the cover of Issue "No. 9 - Summer 1968". Ahasuerus 23:25, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

I double-checked the NESFA index and it credits Harrison as the author of the editorial. (BTW the index doesn't credit editors in any of the pubs they list. That note referred to Ashley's statement in his history.) I'm not sure why NESFA would do that if it's uncredited in the magazine. Maybe it was just a assumption on their part (with 3 years between their index and the mag's publication) knowing that Harrison was credited as the editor of the previous issue. Maybe the confusion about Harrison editing two issue of Most Thrilling was caused by his getting credits in two issues, Spring and Summer, 1968 of Great Science Fiction. So by the fall of 1968 his name didn't appear on any of the Ultimate reprints. I still wonder who wrote that editorial in #10 though! Mhhutchins 15:44, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Just checked Ashley again. He states that Harrison wrote two editorials for Most Thrilling. Undoubtedly he's confused those with the two editorials credited to Harrison in issues 10 and 11 (Spring and Summer, 1968) of Great SF. That clears it up a little. Mhhutchins 15:44, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks, that makes sense. As far as the editorial in No. 10 goes, I hope it wasn't Harry Harrison. He may not be the greatest SF writer who ever lived, but he was a solid professional at the time and the editorial was almost embarrassingly fannish in its gushing praise for Leinster. Cohen, perhaps? Ahasuerus 16:30, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Your verified pub "The Fantastic Universe Omnibus"

"The Robot Who Wanted to Know". Felix Boyd is a pseudonym for Harry Harrison as documented on his website.--swfritter 20:45, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks for the info, but, honestly, I'm not sure what my verification of a pub has to do with the authorship of one of the contents. Verifying a pub means that the contents are exactly as credited in the pub. Making a variant of a title to account for a pseudonym doesn't effect the pub in which that title is printed. (Only in how the ISFB displays it.) I don't think it's incumbent upon the editor who verifies the pub to account for any pseudonymous work it might contain. Of course, there are differences of opinion about what verification entails. :-) In any case, I'll keep an eye open to any further use of the Boyd pseudonym. Mhhutchins 21:29, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

I'd rather err on the side of caution and there is the possibility that this could be one of those cases where Harrison was credited in the anthology but somebody's careless edit changed the credit. I notified CoachPaul to. I dread the time when I have to notify twenty people of a more significant change - and it could happen.--swfritter 22:04, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

You know, that never occurred to me. I have gone back to previously verified pubs to find that someone had merged a title record with the wrong author credited. (But then the moderator should have caught that!) I checked my copy of this anthology and fortunately "Felix Boyd" is the author credited for the story. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:12, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said

I've added an image to your verified publication. This one is more complicated than most as DAW went through three different covers in about as many printings. Please double check the image when you get a chance. Thank you. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:40, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yup, that's the one. Mhhutchins 15:23, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

Changes to your verified pub - Analog, December 1964

I made these changes:

• added canonical date to The Reference Library title
• changed page count (from 96 to 100)
• added pub notes - if the one about the British price is not correct for the copy you verified, I will remove it.
• added review of The Pilgrim Project (buried in opening essay)
• made variants of Freas illustrations

Let me know if something's not OK. Thanks. -- Dave (davecat) 14:31, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks for the update. Mhhutchins 15:32, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

Same Merwin, Jr.?

In verified fanzine. Sam Merwin, Jr.?--swfritter 20:36, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

Fixed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:13, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Last Election

Does the review of The Last Election really credit Peter Davies or Pete Davies? BLongley 14:56, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Book is credited to "Peter Davies". I changed it to Pete and made a note to that effect in the pub's notes. Thanks. And guess what? I just changed a review from its title page!!!! When did that happen and how did it escape my attention? Hurray!!!! Mhhutchins 16:03, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Al changed it a couple of weeks ago and mentioned the fix on his Talk page as part of a Reviews discussion. We should probably ask him to post major fixes and new functionality in a more visible place since Wiki has been so active lately. Ahasuerus 16:40, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Aw, and there was I thinking I was selected for a private super-secret beta-test! ;-) It's a good new feature though, and so long as I remember when I'm editing the reviewed pub AND the review, and get the approvals in order, it works well. BLongley 17:04, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Lori Koefoed/Koeford

Can you check the surname for the illustration in Realms of Fantasy, October 2003 please? It seems the weirder name may be correct. BLongley 09:45, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

It should have been Koefoed. I've corrected it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:53, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

Foundation, February 1983

I suspect The Nonborn King is by Julian May rather than Julian King? BLongley 16:42, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

Your suspicions are right on. I supposed my mistake is only slightly better than The Nonborn May by Julian King. :-) I fixed it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:44, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

Dark Valley Destiny: The Life of Robert E. Howard

Added a cover image[4] to your verified copy. I've also changed the pub from a novel to non-fiction.Kraang 22:22, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

Transience/Transcience

You approved a merge from Roglo of these titles, but the "Transience" variant does appear in my verified pub, as noted. Can you recall if that's the only verified pub affected? I see you verified the one above, maybe that could do with another check? BLongley 14:05, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

Also here - I see you have the same problem with duplicated short stories as I do! BLongley 14:18, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

I don't recall exactly what I approved with that merge. When there's a conflict it's usually pretty obvious, but it's possible that I overlooked it. Is there a way to look back and see the original submission? The pub that I verified has the story spelled as "Transience" and now it's wrong. I also checked the Day index which has the first appearance in Startling Stories as "Transience" as well. Contento is wrong also, listing all the reprints of the story as "Transcience". Is there a way to go back to an earlier version of the database to see how all of these stories were spelled before the merge? Does Roglo recall the original merge?

I can't see much of the original submission apart from this. Yes, Roglo did recall a bit and used backups to check. If Contento is wrong, then we can at least send him a useful update rather than rely on him for once! (He's so annoyingly RIGHT more often than me that I love to find these exceptions!) BLongley 17:12, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

As for the problem with the duplicate titles, I remember seeing that two of the titles were actually group titles and considered removing all of the individual titles (or the group titles themselves), but the situation is so convoluted I chose to let sleeping dogs lie. The database just isn't equipped at the moment to handle group titles. Maybe you have an idea about how it could be handled? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:56, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

Can "group titles" be handled as a series or sub-series? -DES ^Talk 17:03, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

Group titles? No, not yet. It seems similar to the "Review Column" essay titles that cover several Review entries. That workaround is enough for me for now. (It applies to the "In Memoriam" question I posed yesterday as well - none of the essays is actually entitled as expressed here.) I'm letting the Magazine Mods find the faults with their approach for now. ;-) BLongley 17:12, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

Actually, I'd agree with DES and say that a group of stories should be handled using a series. I'm mid-day through verifying From the Ocean, from the Stars which contains Transience and there are a couple of named groups of stories. ...

... I changed my mind on this - This publication contains two groups of stories, The Other Side of the Sky and Venture to the Moon. I guess they could be considered to be "collections" in that it's a group of stories under a common heading but there's no introduction or other text associated with the group itself.

It looks better to represent this with both a title record (shortfiction will do) and as a series. The main complication is that as there's no text with the group it starts on the same page number as the first story and ISFDB tends to sort it out of order when it's displayed. It is an example where it would be nice to have more control over the display results so that the individual stories could be indented under the group. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:34, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

Errata sheet for my copy of Day says 'Transcience read Transiense' for the Startling Stories appearance. Guess I'd better get out the yellow hiliter and mark the other errata.--swfritter 20:45, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

My 1982 revised edition of Day spells the story "Transience" in both the author index and the title index. Mhhutchins 20:58, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

The Most Thrilling Science Fiction Ever Told, No. 12 - Spring 1969

I wonder if by chance you might remember if anything unusual happened when you were entering The Most Thrilling Science Fiction Ever Told, No. 12 - Spring 1969? By the time I was done with the interior art and with Editor merging, there were two publication records on file with the same tag and identical data, which was wreaking havoc with the display logic. I am not sure if it was something that I did with the data or whether there was a pre-existing problem, so any additional information may help us create a meaningful bug report for Al. I doubt we'll get far since I have already deleted the problem record, but it doesn't hurt to ask :) Ahasuerus 23:19, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)

I don't recall anything specific about this particular issue. I do remember that I had to go back and change the tags on several issues in order for them to conform to the links that I created on that title's wiki page. But, changing the tags wouldn't have created two records, would it? Mhhutchins 10:52, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

ISFDB-2 inherited tags from the original design and they can be flaky, but the only serious problems with them (that I know of) is that the software allows us to manually create duplicate tags, which, like duplicate author names, create problems. All tags on the Wiki page for The Most Thrilling Science Fiction Ever Told look unique, so it's probably something else. Oh well, I'll just have to keep it in mind going forward as I continue entering the rest of the issues. Thanks! Ahasuerus 13:19, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

The Bicentennial Man and Other Stories

I've updated your verified publication

• I added the note "Gutter code H03 - January 1977." One issue is you dated the publication 1976-09-00 and so could you please check your edition as I may have a second printing?
• I've added more notes and a cover image but assume those would not conflict with what's stated in your publication. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:30, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

My copy has the same gutter code, but I can't swear that I purchased it the month that the book was the monthly selection. I do have the SFBC announcement for September 1976 and this was the alternate selection. Locus #194 (September 30, 1976) backs up the date and price. So my copy could also be a second printing. The cover image and your additional notes apply to the verified edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:17, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thank you - What I did was to clone the thing to THBCNTNNLM1977 with a January-1977 date and added a note to the first record asking people to look at the gutter code. I'll leave it up to you on if you want to leave the verification stamp on the first record or you can shift it over to the new record that's for gutter code H03. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:00, 10 Feb 2008 (CST)

Placeholder numbers in my held edit

The discussion on placeholder page numbers is lively and my be fruitful, but like many such discussions seems unlikely to reach a final consensus soon. In the mean time, the edit that adds contents to this publication is on hold. There are already other ebooks with placeholder page numbers -- indeed there are at least two that I submitted for othe works by the same author that have been approved. Can you approve the edit pending the result of the debate? I promise, when consensus is reached, ro re-edit this and any similar publications I have submitted to confirm to the agreed standard, whtever it may be. If you feel strongly, i will refrain from using placeholders in future submissions until the matter is resolved or at least discussed further. -DES ^Talk 11:42, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Sure thing. It's approved. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:12, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks. -DES ^Talk 17:23, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Another "thank you"

Michael, The notes to remove the book reviews which should have been (& which I made) halves of Ace doubles were to remind me & help me to track them down & remove & then delete them. I see you approved the pub-change submission that included those title changes, & that the removals & deletions appear to have gotten done in my absence, so I'm assuming you're the one to thank. I certainly don't want to discourage you (or anyone else) from doing my work for me! Thank you! Dave (davecat) 19:50, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

You're quite welcome. I know you're conscientious enough that you would have gone back and removed the pub contents (as well as deleting the stray title records), but I had a few minutes. It was your placing the notes in the titles that made me aware of your intentions, so I was glad to help you out there. Sometimes it's easier for a mod who can go ahead and approve his own submissions. (That's one of the perks!) Mhhutchins 20:09, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Most Thrilling -- last missing issue done

I have entered December 1973, which was boldly subtitled "a new collection of leading S-F writers", arguably a true statement for certain values of the term "new" :) At this point we have the fiction content entered for all issues, but it will take me some time to do the rest of the contents properly since an issue takes me anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much merging and data massaging I have to do. I'll resume working on Most Thrilling once I am back on the road on Tuesday. Easy does it :) Ahasuerus 00:48, 15 Feb 2008 (CST)

SFBC (BOMC & Book Club)

Michael if you search for these alternate references you get more book clubs. Are the BOMC the same as the SFBC. My knowledge of these different classifications is limited.Kraang 20:51, 16 Feb 2008 (CST)

The BOMC did produce book club editions of science fiction (even some original omnibuses like this one) but they never called themselves the Science Fiction Book Club. And you'll also find clubs ran by Doubleday other than the SFBC (Doubleday Book Club, Literary Guild, History Book Club, Military Book Club, you get the picture). But there's only been one club in the US (1953-present) with that title and another in the UK (1953-1982, began by Sidgwick and Jackson, later absorbed by Readers Union which ran other genre book clubs). Now if a pub record cites the publisher as "Book Club" we'll have to do some research to determine which one. If a pub record cites "BOMC" then it could be an original publication (they used this imprint) or it could just be a reprint of another publisher's book without giving the credit. This is also the case with records citing only "SFBC", meaning we have to research so that the original publisher can be credited. When the SFBC did original publications they used the "Nelson Doubleday" imprint (later Guild America, but that's another story...sigh.) Up until the 90s (when I was financially able to buy the trade editions and stopped my membership), the SFBC always printed "Book Club Edition" at the bottom of the inside flap of the dustjacket. There was never a printed price, never an ISBN and the catalog number was printed on the back side flap of the dustjacket (later on the back side itself.) In the past ten years or so, they occasionally use an ISBN, sometimes original, sometimes using the ISBN of the original publisher, so they can be tricky. I try to leave those alone since my knowledge of the field hasn't been so widespread for the past decade. Hope this helped. Mhhutchins 22:19, 16 Feb 2008 (CST)

Adding links to SFBF

I would recommend that you use a template rather than adding a link table to every page such as Publisher:SFBC 1970-1974. See Publisher:DAW/1-99 where the template is {{DAW:Links}} which pulls in the contents of Template:DAW:Links. It makes editing the table easier (only need to change it in one place) and also gets rid of clutter at the top of each of the pages that uses the template. You can also add the "Back to the Main Page ..." text here too. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:06, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

I'm not familiar with the use of templates. I was basically winging it in the creation of these pages. I like how you've linked the DAW pages, so please feel free to change the SFBC pages using the same method. I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:23, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

I know wiki templates fairly well, and will be glad to assit with them if I can. -DES ^Talk 20:30, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

If either of you guys can do, you have my permission to take a whack at it. I'll look at what you've done, and maybe I'll learn a thing or two. Again, thanks for the assistance. Mhhutchins 20:37, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Done. The two templates are Template:SFBC Links and Template:SFBC Link Table. The latter is what would need to be edited to change the layout or contents of the table. Both of these are very simple templates, using no parameters. Basically they are just fragments of wiki-code and text that get copied onto a page. More complex templates can use replaceable parameters and various tricks, but mostly we shouldn't need anything overly complex in this wiki. I think that my current implementation leaves the look & feel of the pages unchanged, while making the page code simpler. When you create a new page in this series, jut be sure to start it with "SFBC Links. -DES ^Talk 20:48, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks. Now I'll do a little experimenting with the template. Mhhutchins 20:50, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

I like the new horizontal layout. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:18, 21 Feb 2008 (CST)

Here Abide Monsters - Andre Norton

You verified [this publication] and I had a question. My copy states on the copyright page "PRINTED IN CANADA COVER PRINTED IN U.S.A.", and on the title page, at the bottom, has "Published by THE NEW AMERICAN LIBRARY OF CANADA LIMITED". Does yours have this as well? The cover can be seen [here] --Holmesd 20:27, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

No, my copy was printed in the US. But the cover is the same as you've linked to here. Does your number line begin with "2"? That was usually DAW's Canadian printing. If so, you can enter it as a new pub. Mhhutchins 20:36, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

DAW only started the numberline at "2" for its Canadian printings around Oct 1980, that would be after book #406. Up until then the US and Canadian printings both started with a "1". Other than the printing statement both books appear to be identical, except for the cover price after July 1978. The first DAW book(Canadian printing) to display a different cover price in Canadian dollars, but not stated as such was book #299(July 1978). Hope this helps.Kraang 20:52, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Yes, that helps a lot. It also helps to explain how two covers with the same catalog number and collectors number would have two different prices! Mhhutchins 20:55, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

Except in this case, they actually have the same price and the only difference is where it's printed. I'll clone it and make notes -- Holmesd 22:31, 18 Feb 2008 (CST)

This case is no exception, the books numbered between 1 and 298 are all priced in US dollars the only difference is the two different printings. The first known Canadian printing with an actual Canadian dollar price starts at book #299.Kraang 07:01, 19 Feb 2008 (CST)

Caitlín R. Kiernan's "Andromeda Among the Stones"

I have merged two "Andromeda Among the Stones" titles by Caitlín R. Kiernan, but some of the involved dates look a little strange. The Title date is 2002-00-00, but we have this story listed in The Mammoth Book Of New Terror (2004-12-00) and Subterranean, Issue #2 (2005-00-00). Since you verified the second pub back in July, I was wondering if perhaps you may have it lying around and could check whether the copyright page says anything interesting about the story's history? TIA! Ahasuerus 22:22, 23 Feb 2008 (CST)

The magazine doesn't credit a previous publication, and the only copyright is for the entire magazine. But I found this interesting note on Contento's 2004 Locus index "Andromeda Among the Stones [Dandridge Cycle], (nv) Burton, MI: Subterranean Press 2002; originally published as a standalone chapbook by Subterranean Press that was distributed with the limited edition (only) of J.K. Potter’s Embrace the Mutation, ed. William Schafer & Bill Sheehan." So it makes sense that Schafer would reprint the story in his magazine. So it would appear that the date of the title record is correct. We just have to add the chapbook. MHHutchins 23:32, 23 Feb 2008 (CST)

Oh, good catch! I had checked the Locus Index for 2001-2003, but not 2004-2005... Ahasuerus 23:47, 23 Feb 2008 (CST)

P.S. I have created a publication stub for the chapbook, but it's bare bones at the moment since I couldn't find its page count or ISBN online. Sometimes these "extras" have a separate ISBN, but mostly they are ISBN-free or share an ISBN with the main course. Ahasuerus 00:13, 24 Feb 2008 (CST)

Publisher/Imprint?

Michael, a quick check of your edits appears that your using the Publisher/Imprint formula with no spaces is this correct? I'm going to ask Bill this question and if he's the same I'll switch how I'm doing it in the future. When we can change Publisher's title I'll go back and do a quick fix on the first lot I did. Thanks!Kraang 22:41, 23 Feb 2008 (CST)

I chose not to use the spaces around the slash to distinguish it from a book club edition. For example if a Berkley/Putnam book is reprinted by the SFBC I record the publisher as "Berkley/Putnam / SFBC". Following this pattern, if the book were a book club reprint of a Berkley edition, it would be designated as "Berkley / SFBC". At this moment all SFBC editions have the spaces around the slash.

I'm currently working on the Timescape imprint and changing "Pocket / Timescape" to "Pocket/Timescape" (and "Timescape/Pocket" to "Pocket/Timescape".) I feel that removing the spaces, for no other reason, aesthetically creates a closer relationship. I have already changed all hardcover editions published by Timescape to "Timescape Books" which is EXACTLY how every book of this imprint in my library is designated. In doing this I removed all indications of Simon and Schuster as the publisher, because, again, every one of my books show S&S as the distributor, not the publisher. (Just as St. Martin's distributed Tor we wouldn't show St. Martin's as the publisher of Tor, when actually Tor is an imprint of Tom Doherty Associates. But that's getting off the track...) I kept the "Pocket/Timescape" imprint because Pocket was the publisher and distributor of all of the Timescape paperback editions.

I saw you were working on Cosmos, Prime and Wildside imprints. Because I don't know enough about them to know which is the publisher and which of them are imprints, I couldn't say whether you should use spaces around the slash. MHHutchins 23:19, 23 Feb 2008 (CST)

The Best of Astounding

I have a copy of one of your verified publications and have a couple of questions. and comments.

• The title page lists a sub-title of Classic Short Novels from the Golden Age of Science Fiction. Do you generally not include these on publication records? I went ahead with adding this.

I normally don't add generic subtitles, but this one is marginal enough that it should have been added. MHHutchins 08:22, 2 Mar 2008 (CST)

• You listed the pub-date as 1992-08-00. That matches Amazon but my copy only says "1992" on the copyright page. Did you miss that or is there some other source for the "08"?

My original source was Locus1, and I should have noted that. MHHutchins 08:22, 2 Mar 2008 (CST)

• I added some publication notes as I also have the three-volume series that was abridged to create this publication.

The notes are great. MHHutchins 08:22, 2 Mar 2008 (CST)

• I linked to a cover image that was already on Amazon. It's not a particularly good image but it's enough to show what the publication looks like. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:27, 2 Mar 2008 (CST)

Dorothy de (Di?) Fontaine

Could you please double check if the map in your verified 1987 edition of Dune is attributed to "Dorothy de Fontaine" or "Dorthy Di Fontaine"? TIA! Ahasuerus 18:46, 2 Mar 2008 (CST)

Credit is based on signature which is definitely "Dorothy" with a second "o". Actually, it's not really a signature because it's in the same script as the lettering of the geographic titles in the map itself. The "de" could be "di" (not "Di") but there is no dot over the second letter like the one over the "i" in "Fontaine", and it looks more like the "e" in "Fontaine" as well. MHHutchins 21:03, 2 Mar 2008 (CST)

Sorry, "Dorthy" was a typo, we currently have Dorothy de Fontaine and Dorothy Di Fontaine on file. There is only one verified publication (yours) with the "de" version of the Dune map and 3 verified publications with the "Di" version (all of them Kraang's), so I wondered if yours may have been in error. However, now that I have run a couple of Google searches, it looks like the consensus at Dunenovels is that her name was "de Fontaine". Let me drop Kraang a line and see if he can join this discussion and check his pubs. Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:08, 2 Mar 2008 (CST)

I just had a better look with a magnifier and it's "de" not "Di". The "e" looks like an "i" without a dot, but on closer inspection it's an "e". Should have had a better look the first time. Will make necessary change. :-)Kraang 17:41, 3 Mar 2008 (CST)

Excellent, thanks! <mutters something about the darn elusive de Fontaine> 18:50, 3 Mar 2008 (CST)

More Adventures in Time and Space

You Verified this pub with Tuck as the reference. I have since Cloned another edition of the pub and changed the Metadata to be the same as this pub to save my having to enter the individual short story data. Could you please remove your Verification and then delete the above pub since it is now a duplicate with less information then the new record which can be found here. Since I don't have the Tuck reference, I don't want to just add it, but you can. CoachPaul 20:31, 4 Mar 2008 (CST)

Done. Thanks. MHHutchins 14:47, 5 Mar 2008 (CST)

Great Science Fiction, No 1

The first appearance of 'First Love' in Amazing is credited to Lloyd Biggle. Biggle or Biggle, Jr. in this pub?.--swfritter 11:51, 22 Mar 2008 (CDT)

It's has the Jr. on the contents page, but not on the title page. I suppose that by the time this was reprinted Biggle was using the Jr. so that's why it was used in this newly created TOC. But since they were using the original pages for reprinting it didn't have the Jr. I'll change the pub record to show no Jr. Thanks for pointing this out. MHHutchins 15:04, 23 Mar 2008 (CDT)

"Shayol #1, November 1977" and "Fantasy Book, March 1984"

When you get a chance, could you please check whether the author of "Spawn of the Ruins" in Shayol #1, November 1977 is "Mark Laidlaw" or "Marc Laidlaw"? Also, is Laidlaw's co-author of "Kelpie" in Fantasy Book, March 1984 "C. A. Dador" or "C. A. Cador"? "Thanks! Ahasuerus 12:46, 23 Mar 2008 (CDT)

In Shayol #1, the story is credited to "Mark" on the title page, in the table of contents and on the contributors page. I'm assuming this is the same person as "Marc" because the short bio mentions his being a Californian. So I'll create a variant for that. In Fantasy Book, I mistakenly entered "Dador" for "Cador". I'll correct that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. MHHutchins 15:09, 23 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Fantasy Book

Just noticed as I was working on #3 that you had just added #6. Have any more issues to add? I also have 6 + 3, 4, 7, 8 and will hold off entering them so that I can make them consistent with whatever entries you make. Some of the other issues do not have whole issue # but rather vol #, issue # so I wonder if we should go with them instead as is done in the first issue. At least we are not working on the same issue at the same time I hope. That happened to me once when I was doing an issue of Fantastic.--swfritter 16:16, 24 Mar 2008 (CDT)

I might also note that both Tuck and Ashley give the month for #6 as January.--swfritter 16:24, 24 Mar 2008 (CDT)

The only issue I have is #6. (I'm a big fan of Cordwainer Smith and wanted this first appearance of his breakout story "Scanners Live In Vain".) Please feel free to go ahead entering the remaining issues, and adjust my entry for consistency with those issues. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:04, 24 Mar 2008 (CDT)

I had the first issue entered a few weeks ago and was going to get the rest of them done when I had access to my collection on 2008-03-15, but the ISFDB was down that day. I'll try to do the rest of them this coming weekend. They also have a number of full page ads by SF dealers, so they are mini-treasure troves of obscure biblio data from the late 1940s :) Ahasuerus 20:14, 24 Mar 2008 (CDT)

I will enter the issues I have - add as much additional data and make as many modifications as you want. That should give you a little time to add some other your other rarities.--swfritter 13:56, 25 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Thanks! I see that we have all Astonishing Stories issues entered, but not verified. I have a complete set in an easy-to-get-to location, so I could start working on it unless there is a higher priority project. Hm, we seem to be missing Gamma and I have a complete set i nmy collection, but it's spread across numerous boxes and floors :(

P.S. There is a good chance that I won't be on the road (much) this summer, which should help a great deal. Ahasuerus 14:16, 25 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Fantasy Book, Vol. 1 No. 6

Just a note that I have added two bullet points to the Notes field in this issue as part of my review of all 1947-1951 Fantasy Books. Ahasuerus 22:14, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)

I noticed the incorrect listing for the Bleiler & Dikty anthology because I had to search the DB to determine which of the series they were reviewing! The "Erlich" slipped pass me. I must have corrected the spelling by instinct. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:18, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Actually, this was one of their more accurate review columns -- in the next issue they managed to mangle the titles of 3 reviewed books and, as an added bonus, Heinlein's middle initial :) Ahasuerus 22:26, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)

The Twenty-Second Century

You Tuck-Verified the Panther edition but it seems the stories "Breaking Point" and "The Rather Improbable History of Hiliary Kiffer" are "Breaking-Point" (with hyphen) and "The Rather Improbable History of Hilary Kiffer" (only one "i" in Hilary). Can you double-check please? (Although I'm still not sure what to do when Tuck is wrong!) BLongley 14:13, 9 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Tuck gives one content listing (presumably for the Grayson first edition), and lists all three editions without noting any differences in the titles. Keep in mind that Tuck wasn't as strict with these slight variations as we at the ISFDB are. He only notes changes in contents when a story is added or omitted from a subsequent edition, or if a story is completely retitled.

The first appearance of "Hiliary" occurs in Avon F&SF Reader, April 1953 which was primary verified, alas, by Alibrarian. (We might ask swfritter to check the copy that I'm sure is in his collection.) Tuck agrees with this spelling, but the Strauss MIT Index gives an even third spelling of the title: "Hillary" as does this Biblio.com listing and this Amazon listing (which may be from the same dealer). And to throw another variant into the mix, the Fictionmags Index shows the story first appeared in Magpie #7 in October 1951 as by "Samuel Youd" and as "Hilary" AND in The Twenty-Second Century as "Hiliary" MHHutchins 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can believe "Hillary" as opposed to "Hiliary" which just plain looks wrong: I've only seen "Hilary" so far though. We don't actually have a "Samuel Youd" yet but I can believe that too. Alibrarian is active again, but we've still not attracted his attention. :-( Swfritter IS active and responsive though, so we can ask him. BLongley 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, is your verified copy of the collection titled "The 22nd Century" on the title page, as the cover I came across in my research. I think I may have created more headaches with my answer! MHHutchins 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's "The Twenty-Second Century" in full internally - I've added a note so that I don't get asked questions by pesky kids. ;-) And that's the right cover - I had to wait a while to add mine as Amazon UK are slow and Amazon US didn't have a copy to update. I sometimes forget to add Coverart Images even after I've uploaded them, so if I've verified a pub but not added Cover-Art feel free to check whether I've uploaded to Amazon UK and prompt me to update the pub, or to go scan the pub. (I'm not sure how far behind I am - I've 500+ scans on Amazon US and 900+ on Amazon UK, but those overlap, and I'm happy to use others, so I don't know how many I've left to do.) BLongley 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The spelling in Avon F&SF Reader is Hillary (double l - single i) on both the table of contents and title page. William Vine is the author.--swfritter 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Engines of the Night: Science Fiction in the Eighties

Is it a safe assumption that "Mark Clifron: 1906-1963" is actually "Mark Clifton: 1906-1963" in your verified The Engines of the Night: Science Fiction in the Eighties? :) Ahasuerus 02:41, 10 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for catching that. I'll change both pubs since I cloned the new edition from my verified first edition. MHHutchins 22:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oath of Fealty - Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle

Your verified copy of [this] has a price of $2.95. My copy has a price of $3.95 but says it is printed in Canada. Do you have a typo or do I have a different publication? Thanks -- Holmesd 03:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My copy is the "First Pocket Books printing August, 1982" and "Printed in the U.S.A.", with a price of $2.95 on the front and the spine. No mention of Canada, so yours must be the first Canadian printing and the price must be in Canadian dollars. MHHutchins 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Professor Dowell's Head

When you get a chance, could you please check whether the page count in Professor Dowell's Head is "157" or "viii+157" as OCLC (record 5831451) claims? TIA! Ahasuerus 03:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I missed those pages. Strangely though, I included Sturgeon's introduction from those very same pages. I've made the correction (and added the cover art too.) Thanks. MHHutchins 04:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I am trying to straighten out Beliaev's bibliography tonight and it's even worse than I expected. When two different editions of the same translation use different spellings of the author's name, you know you are in trouble :) Ahasuerus 04:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just blame the Russians for their insistence on using a different alphabet than the rest of the civilized world. :) MHHutchins 04:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Russian alphabet is not too bad, at least compared to various monstrosities like the perfective/imperfective aspects or even their soft consonants. The real problem is that the Russian alphabet is a subset of the Cyrillic alphabet used in a number of mostly Slavic countries. There have been numerous attempts over the last 150(ish) years to come up with a universal system of unambiguous transliteration between Latin and Cyrillic, which led to a bewildering variety of overlapping and highly confusing transliteration standards.

Oh well, back to Beliaev-Belyaev-Belayev-Beliayev. I have changed your Tuck-verified Arfor edition of The Struggle in Space to reflect the non-standard (or rather even-less-standard-than-everybody-else) spelling of the author's name and made a note about Tuck's spelling in Notes. Ahasuerus 05:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Heroic Visions

Michael when you have a chance can you check Heroic Visions[5] and see if the short story by Alan Dean Foster is titled "Thunder Mother" his web site and a later collection(my verified pub) have it as "Mother Thunder". Thanks.Kraang 01:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He must have retitled it when it was reprinted in his 1990 collection. All mentions in Heroic Visions (copyright, TOC and title page) are as "Thunder Mother". It appears that the creation of a variant is called for. MHHutchins 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kraang 01:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Masterpieces of Terror and the Supernatural

Your verified pub, Masterpieces of Terror and the Supernatural includes "Riddles in the Dark" by JRRT, presumably Chapter 5 of The Hobbit. Now this chapter was the one most extensively revised for the 2nd ed of The Hobbit, where the "revised" story of Gollum and the finding of the Ring emerged. It seems likely to me that this publication uses the revised version, but in that case the title should not date to 1938 (the date of the original Hobbit). Can you check if the revised text is present? (If the Gollum section ends with "Thief, we hates it forever" it is the revised version).

The reason I am asking, this same chapter was included in two "audiobook" LPs I have just entered, and I am unsure if they should be merged, as the audio works do use the revised text. -DES ^Talk 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the original version and that's made clear in the editor's introduction. It's also subtitled in the TOC and on the title page "(Original version, 1938)". Hope this helps. MHHutchins 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrated or Cerebrated Jumping Frog

Celebrated or Cerebrated? BLongley 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be "Cerebrated". Thanks, it's been fixed. MHHutchins 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[The] Pacific Book of Australian Science Fiction (Ed. John Baxter)

Hi, Just letting you know I am about to edit [this publ] that you verified against Tuck. As well as adding page numbers, I'm changing the title to put "The" at the front (as per the title page of the book), and putting the story "All Laced Up" as by Bertram Chandler (currently is by George Whitley - I think someone has done some dodgy title merges recently on this story, 'cos another instance got messed up.) (& in this book it isn't A. Bertram). I'll note other changes if I find there are differences. --j_clark 07:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Later: The Frank Bryning story has Frank G. on the title, but just Frank on the TOC. I haven't done anything about this 'cos the database has Frank B. for some of his other stories, so Frank G. might be a typo. I did change the date for the Bryning story after poking around & looking in my Paul Collins MUP Encyc of Aust'n SF&F". The John Baxter story is just "Beach" (title page of story & TOC); I've put a new story title with this & will remove the other in due course. I have some doubts on the dating of the Frank Roberts’ story "It Could Be You"; it could be earlier than 1964 (Merril Annual 10 cf MUP Enc vs source in The Pacific Book), but I haven't changed it. The date in ISFDB for the Colin Free story is earlier than what The Pacific Book states ("Squire", June 1965), but I haven't changed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clarkmci (talk • contribs) .

If you have the actual pub, please proceed to make all necessary changes. Tuck doesn't have the initial "The", but he makes a few mistakes (comparatively rare). As for the Bryning story, typo or not, go ahead and record the author of title record exactly as it appears on the story's title page, per ISFDB standards. We can then create a variant once a canonical name as been established. Tuck doesn't list dates of original publication of book contents (only the date of the book itself), so change any dates which you can verify through primary sources. And as for pseudononymously attributed stories, I agree. I've often gone back to books that I've primarily verified to find that someone has mistakenly (though unintentionally) merged story titles, thus showing incorrect authorship. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Conscience Interplanetary"

Just a note to the effect that your verified Doubleday edition of Conscience Interplanetary has been converted from a Collection to a fixup Novel as per the note in the DAW edition ("The following stories, in a rewritten form, have been incorporated in this novel") and this discussion. I have moved the list of stories that this novel was based on to the Title level and also created a Series for all related Titles. Ahasuerus 23:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but I would have sworn that when I was working on the Data Consistency project this was one of the fix-up titles in which I converted all of the extant pubs to novels and placed links to the source stories in the title notes. Either I've a faulty memory or someone changed them backed to collections. In any case, it's fixed now. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if we lost some edits during the move to the new host, or during problems with the last one. Some of my Wiki edits got misplaced with the move of Publishers to their own Namespace, but I recovered some of those and maybe I just never confirmed some others - I am really bad at confirming previews at times. But if there has been some loss of edits I'd prefer to know that it has happened rather than mistrust my own memory. BLongley 22:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking up Publisher-specific SF

I see that you have added a couple of SF publishers to your to-do list. I am not sure how familiar you are with mining for publisher specific SF data using the FirstSearch interface, so as an FYI, I did a writeup for Bill a few weeks ago. Ahasuerus 04:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I get a 404 error at the site that you provided a link to. Is a password required to access the FirstSearch database? Thanks. MHHutchins 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the link changed since the writeup was done, the link now given on the Sources of Bibliographic Information page is http://www2.zblibrary.org/cgi-bin/Webscript.exe?zbpl.scr which works for me as of yesterday. -DES ^Talk 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All the good interfaces move around a bit - I suspect we're not really supposed to be using them. When you find a good one though, there's a lot of useful stuff - not just publisher search. For instance, I just entered Author Bio data for Virginia Hamilton from the same source: it has more than Wikipedia or the "Official Virginia Hamilton Website" which still offers you the chance to "tell Virginia something". (Fortunately a Microsoft OLE DB error prevents such unnatural "talking with the dead" practices.) BLongley 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill is quite right, when a library subscribes to FirstSearch (one of OCLC's many subscription services), it is supposed to limit access to its patrons. This particular library, however, lets anybody with an internet connection access FirstSearch through their gateway, which OCLC may not be aware of. I suppose there is a chance that OCLC will find out about it and "take appropriate measures", but the service has been active for over a year now, so there is a decent chance that it will stay up for a while. No way to be sure, of course, so grab those publisher biblios while you can! :) Ahasuerus 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, our using it heavily - while we still can - may alert them and get it closed down faster. So I use the Official interfaces unless I need something special. Although as we seem to have found the money for the new host, I wonder how much more it would take to acquire better (full?) access to OCLC for our editors? I know I've been tempted to buy the official ISBN list at times rather than try to work out the SF-relevant ones from entries here, but the last time I checked it was still only available on paper - so not really saving me much time. But I'm willing to throw money at a problem to make it go away, at times. So far that's buying penny books on Amazon (with 2.75 postage, unfortunately) for troubling titles, but I've acquired the obligatory Clute/Nicholls and Clute/Grant and resisted Tuck so far (Mike WILL complete entering that eventually!). I also have Weinberg for artist credits but not really used it much. BLongley 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Can we make this page invisible to robots so we don't give away this secret knowledge too easily? BLongley

I don't know how much it would cost to subscribe to various databases that are available via the FirstSearch interface, but US librarians typically complain that most OCLC services are rather pricey. Also, keep in mind that we are mostly interested in the data stored in the WorldCat catalog. OCLC owns (or provides an interface to) many other catalogs, e.g. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Index to 19th Century American Art Periodicals, SCIPIO Art and Rare Book Sales, etc, etc. Some of these catalogs may contain a few records that we would be interested in, but even if we could afford a full blown subscription to all OCLC services, it would be a tremendously inefficient way to spend a few hundred K :) Ahasuerus 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I wouldn't worry too much about us being found out, either through robot sniffing or through our heavy use of this resource. For all we know, this library may be doing it legitimately -- apparently, it is a part of the Illinois library network, which, AFAIK, has a long and complicated relationship with OCLC. In either case, que sera sera :) Ahasuerus 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub If sep-oct 1970

As per Help changed '/' to '-' in date. Changed $.75 to $0.75. Also had to modify the title of book being reviewed to "The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume I" in order to match lexically. I was tempted to make make the Laumer title a variant. Help says what is entered on the title page takes precedence but I am starting to think that the least reliable source in the magazines. I don't think a mistake by a graphics artist should take precedence over editorial/authorial intent as is indicated by TOC and footer info. Also changed cover artist reference to Gaughan, as credited, rather than Jack Gaughan. I will probably be making similar changes to other issues and will let you know of any significant issues different than the above.--swfritter 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem about making changes that fall within the current standards. The "rules" about verification have never really been fixed, so that now it simply means "I've got this pub, so feel free to ask me about it." That works well with books as it's simply a matter of completing the fields, but when it comes to mags it seems to have evolved into another matter. It's good to see a small cadre of folks who dedicate so much time and effort to the magazine side of the ISFDB. Eventually I hope this issue of reviews matching titles can be put to rest, so that I can start entering all of these ominously threatening stacks of reviewzines that have gathered around my computer. :) Thanks. MHHutchins 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am holding off entering my relatively small number of fanzines because of the reviews issue - also letters. In many cases that's about all you might find in a fanzine. I was actually kind of glad that somebody else recognized that the title on the title page is not always the best choice. But try to explain such a rare case in Help in less than three sentences without confusing the reader even more.--swfritter 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If, Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr

Other than similar issues as above I changed the titles to If. The magazine does not become Worlds of If until the March-April 1972 issue.--swfritter 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If70's American/UK editions

Of course, I was likely to get to this little nightmare eventually. Since these issues have almost identical contents I assume the plan is to merge the entire contents of corresponding issues, including the columns, artwork, etc. - this being one of the rare cases where this will not have the potential of totally screwing things up. The only other minor thing I have dealt with in recent issues is the assignment of an author for "Hue and Cry". In a number of cases Jakobsson makes a closing comment signed with his last name and I have so credited him. My intent is to make all of the corresponding American/U. K. issues identical and to place a comment in each pub to the effect that the issues should be viewed in tandem. If it hadn't been that there were earlier non-identical U.K./American runs of If I think I would have lobbied for a the single pub concept. Did you do some of the issues with stealth cloning? Any problems?--swfritter 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think merging is necessary, since I "stealth cloned" those issues that I verified. All content records were auto-merged by this process, and it is quite an involved process, requiring several stages of changing TYPES, cloning, adding EDITOR records, reverting to the original TYPE, and merging EDITOR records with the magazine SERIES. I have three more issues in this series of UK reprints: Sep/Oct 1973, Jan/Feb 1974, and Sep/Oct 1974, which have not been verified (or even created maybe.) I can wait until their corresponding US issues have been verified and then clone them, which would save a lot of time by not having to merge the content records. Or if you know how to clone mags, don't hesitate to do so. MHHutchins 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! At least this doesn't happen very often and I have never had to clone a mag but it might be entertaining. Luckily most of the changes I have had to make are minor cosmetic changes which are done for the sake of consistency. It looks as though there are seven that haven't been cloned and May-Jun, Jul-Aug 1972 UK issues seem to have been created other than by cloning.--swfritter 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If July-August '72 thru July-August '73

Credited Jakobsson as author of "Hue and Cry" where in columns where he signed names - these were merged so both U.S. and U.K. entries were affected. One of the instances was shortfiction rather than essay. The Jan-Feb and Jul-Aug '73 covers were credited to David Hardy rather than David A. Hardy as cited in the magazines. I did not change the UK issues. Jul-Aug '73 issues - page numbers for "The Meaning of the Word" and "Support Your Local Police" were wrong in the U.S. issues. Did not change in the U.K. issues. Also in Jul-Aug '73 issue changed the U.S. page count to 180. Did not change U.K. issue. Since it is our standard to always include covers in the page count I do not mention where the internal page count starts. The artwork for "Freezeout" in the Sep-Oct '72 issue in my U.S. edition is 84 rather than 85. Did not change U.K. issue. If you have the issues handy and want to double check any of these items, let me know. Otherwise I can go ahead and synchronize the data. It would be kind of interesting if we actually found some differences. Odd thing with the reviews - when they are merged only one pub is listed when you pull up the book being reviewed.--swfritter 16:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the differences you mention are actually the same in the UK issues. I went ahead and changed them myself. I've come to the conclusion that this series of UK reprints has identical contents to the US edition (which is noted in the issues I verified). I'll let you magazine guys figure out how the pages should be counted, since I can't understand why a magazine would start its page numbering with the cover in the first place! Interesting discovery there about the reviews, perhaps a result of cloning? MHHutchins 22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The page count issue was very confusing to me in my early editing days. I suspect the magazine publishers thought a greater page count made the mags seem longer; which is why they also often exaggerated the length of stories. The early issues of Amazing Stories actually continued the page count through all the issues of a volume. The first story in the March 1927 issue starts on page 1086. I have not even the slightest doubt that the contents of these issues of If are identical. My guess is that the reviews are retrieved by title and then by pub with only the first merged pub being returned. Thankfully there do not seem to be any stories with multiple illustrations and the illustrations nearly always share the starting page of the story.--swfritter 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tales of Wonder

Is the publisher for this Schocken or Shocken? BLongley 18:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be Schocken. It's been corrected. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If May-June 74

Three of the stories classified as 'novelettes', "Cantor's War", "Aura of Immortality", and "House Divided" were only 12 or 13 pages long. They would have to be at least 15 pages to even be considered as novelettes. Found the same thing in the previous issue where three stories were anywhere from 1500 to 2500 words short of the mark. All three are listed as short stories in Contento and the Silverberg as listed as such on his website. I used Baen, as credited, on Hue and Cry and editorial appeal. Would also make sense to use the editor's name as credited on the TOC. If there had been only initials I probably would have gone with that method and documented but I also wanted to be consistent with the treatment of instances where Jakobsson signed with only his last name in many previous issues. If this seems to anyone to be a too literal an adherence to the standards I can go the other way with all such instances in the If mags. The artwork for "House Divided" is listed as 33 and the start of the story, as per the TOC, 34. I can't remember any other instance where I've seen the artwork for a story not be on the facing page of a story or have some indication, (title, footer, etc.), that the art relates to the story. If the illustration truly is for the story then the start page of the story should be 33. The illustration seems fairly consistent with the text of the first page of the story.--swfritter 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The classification of stories will always be a contentious area, especially when an editor is trying to build up the contents of the mag. Later issues of Galaxy are egregious in this regard. Check this one out, where Jane Gallion's "complete novel" is slightly more than thirty pages in length. I usually classify them as they're labeled in the TOC unless something obvious stands out. Yes, the placement of the artwork for "House Divided" is strange and unique. Thanks for changing the editor credits in all the instances. I'm not that much a stickler for giving credit "exactly as printed", especially when the masthead credits the editor by full name. As long as it gets back to his summary page, it's fine with me. MHHutchins 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've shown this word count calculator to a couple of underwhelmed editors but you might be interested. You will have view permission only on google docs but I can share it with you by sending you an email. It allows you to select samples of as many lines as you designate on as many as 12 pages of a story. I generally don't make the effort to check story length unless it is pretty obvious that the existing designation is off. It is remarkable how far off an eyeball only analysis can be. This morning it was a Leigh Brackett story in a pulp that was only about 60 pages long. I guestimated it at about 34,000 to 36,000 words and it was actually about 42,000. Many short words.--swfritter 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the spreadsheet with data from the story "Cantor's War" in the May-June 1974 issue so that it might make more sense. The sample lines for each page are a word count of the first four lines in the left hand column of the listed page.--swfritter 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting calculator, but how would I go about entering the info in order to get the word count? At the moment the spreadsheet doesn't appear to be editable. Or am I suppose to save the spreadsheet locally, then fill in the fields? I'd really like to test it out on other stories. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Descent

Found a story for an author before they were born on a book that you verified. The Dark Descent Is this the correction? Ray 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Existing - 864 • What Was It? • (1859) • shortstory by Oliver Onions

Proposed - 864 • What Was It? • (1859) • shortstory by Fitz-James O'Brien

You're correct. Author is Fitz-James O'Brien. It's been changed. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If Nov-Dec 1974

Same little picky things plus Hoagland was credited as Dick Hoagland but that was only true on the TOC - Richard C. on the title page of the article. I added the letters for the previous issue - some of them were by big names. I usually add only VIP letters in pulps and very significant letters in digest but I think it might be a good idea to do it here before cloning. Sound a like a good idea? Now I need to go back through all 176 issues and do some trivial clean-up and series stuff. Think goodness you have the revival issue. Only one issue available at Abebooks and with a price of nearly $70.00.--swfritter 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'd never have expected a digest from the 80s would be worth that much! Sure thing about making all the necessary changes before cloning. That would make it so much easier than creating new records and having to merge them with the old ones. And thanks for catching the Hoagland byline. Sometimes I work from pre-existing pub records and am not as thorough as I should be about checking the title page against the TOC. MHHutchins 23:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for giving me access to the word count calculator. I tried it out and it worked pretty good. I'm sure it will come in handy in the future. MHHutchins 23:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I will be taking my time on the US/UK issues. Kind of tired of looking at them but will finish off a little at a time - probably one of them a day as soon as I've had a little break. The other clean-up stuff is mostly trivial but will be time consuming because the editorials were so inconsistently signed, often by The Editor which I will have to treat as a pseudonym - and the editorials did not use consistent title throughout. I have started going through my book collection and find that probably more than a third have been verified by you. Out of the first 300 I have only added three new titles and a printing.--swfritter 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Same thing happened when I started verifying my collection. I'd say that half had already been verified by Scott Latham, which lead me to believe that we had similar tastes. But then, there are certain books that every reader of SF should have, the proverbial six-foot shelf. The last time I counted my shelf had grown to about 200 feet, and that's just counting the hardcovers on shelves. The garage is stacked with paperbacks, magazines and fanzines.

No rush on the IFs. I'm not as fastidious in my entries when it comes to editor attributions, which is evident in my entering of the Richard Geis's fanzine Science Fiction Review. He often signs pieces as "The Editor" or REG, but I credit everything to "Richard E. Geis". Shoot me, but I'd rather see all of the records on one Author's Summary Page, without all of the [as by..]s cluttering it up. Maybe I shouldn't be admitting this, but since I'm taking the time and effort to enter all these fanzines, I think a little leniency on my part can be forgiven. MHHutchins 22:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

proposed change to your verified Hart's Hope

In submission #981031, User:Rhschu proposes to note your verified Hart's Hope as a first printing by number line. Is this true of the copy you verifeid? I am about to put the submission on hold, pending your resposne -- feel free to approve or reject it as you like. If you do reject, please point the user to the wiki, which it seems he has yet to find. -DES ^Talk 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's correct. I've approved the submission. Thanks for letting me know. MHHutchins 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The History of the Science Fiction Magazine

In The History of the Science Fiction Magazine, Volume 2: 1936-1945, is it "Hermit of Saturn's Ring" by Neil R. Jones or "Hermit of Saturn's Rings"? BLongley 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Michael/Mike Ashley pseudonym arrangement is incomplete - my two NEL paperbacks are by Michael, with Introductions by Mike, and uncredited (but clearly by the editor) Appendices and Bibliographies. I don't want to fix those until you've double checked yours though: I suspect ALL the "History of the Science Fiction Magazine" titles are by Michael externally, but internally it's more informal. BLongley 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally, do your editions suggest there should be 5 of them in all? I can only find 4, and no paperback edition of the 4th. BLongley 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be "Rings" (I'll correct that.) Cover and title page credit "Michael", but the preface is signed by "Mike". The Appendices and Bibliography are actually uncredited, but obviously the work of the editor. I probably just kept the original record's credits as is. I can't find anything in the first three volumes in my possession of Ashley's intentions about the extent of the series. MHHutchins 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers: I've adjusted mine to "Rings", but this cover suggests "Ring" is the original so I've not messed with any others (not even the prior NEL printing of my book, which is only PROBABLY like mine). I've moved this series to Michael and created Variants back to Mike, but not changed the internal essay credits for the uncredited. The mystery of Volumes 4 and 5 can wait: Amazon UK lists "The History of the Science Fiction Magazine Part 4 1956-1965", which fits: but there's another series "The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-fiction Pulp Magazines from the Beginning to 1950", "Transformations: Volume 2 in the History of the Science Fiction Magazine, 1950-1970" and "Gateways to Forever: The Story of the Science Fiction Magazines from 1971 to 2000" which may have replaced the earlier one before it was completed. BLongley 18:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, do you think there's enough of them to create an Anthology series? I've never really sure where the cut-off point should be for sets that stay on the author's page anyway. Obviously if someone else wrote Volume 5 we'd need one, but this seems short enough to leave alone for now. BLongley 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This last series by Ashley is actually the "History" that the first series implies but is really not. The first series were anthologies with interstitial material and appendices. I don't believe a fifth volume was ever published. And I feel an Anthology Series should be created for the four volumes of the first series. MHHutchins 12:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, created. I've not found out much more about the fourth or fifth, except that the Spanish version of the fourth seems to have the same contents as the English one. BLongley 14:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Robrt Bloch

Can I assume this letter was actually by Robert Bloch? BLongley 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. MHHutchins 13:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuck

I've joined you in Tuck ownership (Volumes 1 & 2 anyway) and tried it out a little. I can see you're well through the B's but I'm not sure where you've got to, nor whether you're only verifying or adding from it? I'm not going to be using it too often - I prefer Primary verification activity - but I can see the use of it, and there are still SOME days when I'm not receiving new books (Sundays for instance!). When I find that's all I can do though, should I just start at Z and work backwards, or are there other Tuck-verifiers working on other areas? BLongley 23:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I both verify and add, if necessary. If there's an ISFDB record for a Tuck listing I check to make sure that all fields match Tuck, then Tuck-verify it. If this ISFDB record has been primary-verified, I note if there are any differences (very rare). If there is no ISFDB record I create one, using Tuck as the source (adding more info if necessary from other sources), then Tuck-verify it. I don't create or verify foreign editions that are listed in Tuck. (You have to draw the line somewhere!) I'm currently up to "Bri-", but there are dozens of instances where, in researching a title, I've verified pubs of that title listed later on in the book. For example, when I added my Easton Press edition of Lest Darkness Fall by L. Sprague de Camp, I went ahead and added all of Tuck's listings for the title. MHHutchins 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If - Ltd.

I noticed that the UK publisher is entered with an Ltd while my issues have an Ltd. appended. Probably a copy and paste replication; I recently did a whole bunch of Sam Merwin, Jr. pseudonym changes and forgot the '.' on all of them. Unless there is some sort of UK convention involved in usage I intend to change them all to have the '.'. The cloning process is fairly painless.--swfritter 20:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The House on the Borderland

Just a note that Don Erikson has added "E. Salter" as the cover artist to your verified Manor Books edition of The House on the Borderland. I have approved the submission, but if you can't find Salter's signature in your copy, we may want to ask Don what the source of the attribution is. Don is familiar with many SF artists' styles, so perhaps he just recognized Salter's work. Ahasuerus 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the book's cover, and the signature "E. Salter" is quite visible. He can't have established a style as this is the only entry under that name in the database. I'll update the notes about the visible signature. Thanks. MHHutchins 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible to have such a distinctive style that you won't be asked to do another cover for the rest of your life :) 15:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to see this cover to believe it. Top half: brownish-orange sky with a tiny orange sun setting in the distance behind a farm house and barn with a single tree; bottom half: orangish-brown cracked field with a single ear of corn filling up this half of the cover. As H. P. Lovecraft proclaims on the cover "Authentic Gooseflesh", he couldn't have foreseen the feelings a 1970s bookstore browser might have about this cover! When I replace my kaput scanner, this has to be one of the first covers to scan. MHHutchins 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And to think that this sui generis talent was forever lost to the genre! :) Ahasuerus 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If Nov-Dec 1974

Visco say the UK edition was not printed and/or distibuted? The actual issue has both publishers listed so, before I saw Visco, I put a placeholder in with the intention of cloning it. The two choices are to not clone it and make a notation in the U.S. edition that the UK edition was not printed or to clone it and say the UK edition does not exist. I am inclined towards the first option.--swfritter 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Universal-Tandem British subsidiary was up for sale at that time and as the magazine business didn't transfer to the new owners along with the book business (as far as my publisher researches so far have determined) there were quite possibly some magazines published in the US covering a British edition that was never actually released. I have the (suspected last) Sep-Oct 1974 edition and it was allegedly printed in the USA, it's perfectly conceivable that they didn't bother printing the British edition that Howard and Wyndham wouldn't distribute. Or maybe it was printed but never distributed here: it might be worth checking US editions to see if anyone has the proposed British edition repriced for the US market in a "waste not, want not" way. Although if 1970s SF magazine collectors are like comic collectors, any suggestion of it being British in any way probably devalues it immensely rather than adding value through sheer rarity. BLongley 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Magazines from the sixties on up are not especially valuable anyway. I sell like new copies on eBay for slightly more than you can buy a current copies of F&SF, or Asimov's. Only an obsessive American collector would collect foreign re-issues. Most of the British editions are esthetically awful, poor print quality, small print, and amateurishly repainted covers (Astounding). Then there are the missing or edited stories.--Rkihara 20:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

From a VERY limited sample of magazines, I agree that the UK editions are often inferior. In this case though, the US printers would have to be blamed - I can imagine a US quality controller saying "this is awful, ship it to the Brits". Like the British car industry reserving the "Friday Afternoon specials" for export only, that ruined our reputation abroad. (My initials are still a laughing stock world-wide due to "British Leyland". :-/ ) The missing/edited stories are my biggest complaint though, British stories are hacked around for the US market and vice versa, and copyright issues mean omissions either way. Now we have truly Global publishers you'd think it was better, but I just find that the same books are marketed worldwide and customised locally and we're duplicating entries or misclassifying them. I am VERY tempted to stop entering anything after the mid-1990s. BLongley 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the British editions of some American books are quite often available a month or so before the American editions I supposed because the print runs are smaller as is the distribution network. There have been a couple of books that I was tempted to buy early from Amazon UK - which has been the source for a few CD's that I absolutely had to have especially one which had both The Eagles (UK 60's band) and the Kestrels. The Eagles did the theme song for the movie "Some People" and although I only heard the song once the lyrics and tune stayed in my head for nearly 40 years.--swfritter 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've often found myself considering buying the US edition for a British Author that was supposed to come out earlier overseas, but in fact the Amazon dates were just wrong and it wouldn't have helped. I've just received a book from Amazon that isn't published till tomorrow for instance: I suspect US readers are reading their version as well, even though it's not going to be published for another five days there. BLongley 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Eagles (UK 60's band) - I can't say I know of them, but the Eagles (US) are now fairly cultishly known for "Journey of the Sorcerer": theme tune for Douglas Adams' "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" on radio and TV. "Shiver down your spine" music and as I know of no way to play Air-electric-banjo all I can do is "Mad conductor" wavings that a man of my age shouldn't really inflict on people. But it's up there with the themes for 2001, Star Wars, X-Files, Twilight Zone, etc as "It's music for some weird Skiffy thing that is actually quite good at times". BLongley 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If cloned

I have also added cover art from Visco which, as Rkihara will tell you, is usually not high on my priority list. I put a note in the Nov-Dec 1974 US issue indicating that the UK issue was probably not printed and definitely not distributed in the UK. Did not clone that issue as I do not want to replicate for someone else the annoyance factor I had of trying to track down a couple of non-existent issues of magazines that Contento listed. Now for the series - the editorials will not be fun because of the pseudonymous way they are signed and because most from the 60's onward are not titled.--swfritter 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Starwater Strains

User:Willem H. submitted updates to your verified publication STRWTRSTRN2005 to change the page number for the story Golden City Far from page 163 to 183 and the page number for the story Golden City Far from page 208 to 308. http://www.locusmag.com/index/yr2005/t48.htm#A2540 confirms that these are correct and so I've approved the updates. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre(!) Mystery Magazine

I have finally entered Bizarre Mystery Magazine, November 1965, so we are missing just January 1966 now. I am about to hit the road again and won't be back until June 27, but if you want to add the last issue from secondary sources in the meantime (as you mentioned earlier), we will be as complete as we can be. Until somebody finds the last issue, that is :) Ahasuerus 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Info on the last issue as been entered from the NESFA Index. I also added cover images to all three issues, including your two verified issues. The Wiki page for the title has also been updated. MHHutchins 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely James H. Schmitz wrote "Faddist" rather than vice versa? ;-) BLongley 19:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Entering all of these Loci are beginning to addle my brain. This usually is a strong indication that I should switch over to another project. I only have two weeks to enter 200 issues before returning these volumes to the library (unfortunately, one can't renew an inter-library loan item!) MHHutchins 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Let them go, and switch then! You can presumably get them back later if nobody else is interested in the work? I switch projects a lot, sometimes several times a day when the main project is making me word-blind. It keeps the brain active: e.g. this weekend I tracked down some artists (Peter Elson was a sad example, he seems to have died unappreciated in the town I grew up in), a few pseudonyms (Eric North may be the name here, but his other name is relevant), added some British TV novelisations, and finally found myself adding missing magazines and testing the new(ish) image upload capabilities here. There's plenty of OTHER things to do, including checking on when other mods are getting tired! ;-) I see you're uploading images as well, I'd appreciate another view on how it works for us (so far, not well). BLongley 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Silver Metal Lover

I have updated your verified publication based on AbeBooks seller listings.

• Added cover image - I believe that cover is the Dec-1999 DAW edition but it's the same as the much earlier SFBC edition.
• Added note - Gutter code L44 on page 215 which would translate to a late October 1981 printing.
• Added note - Jun-2008 - The cover image is from Amazon ASIN/ISBN 0809950006. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cover and gutter code match my verified copy as well. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect - BTW - does the copyright page say "Published by arrangement with DAW Books?" I'm trying to untangle DAW's printing history. See Author:Tanith Lee#The Silver Metal Lover. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It states exactly that on the copyright page (title verso page). MHHutchins 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A Treasury of Great Science Fiction

You verified one edition of this, & I'm still not sure enough of issues relating to books as opposed to magazines to just go in & change some things, so I'm asking you. A few (somewhat) connected questions here:

1. In ISFDB the two volumes of this have these titles: A Treasury of Great Science Fiction, Volume 1 & A Treasury of Great Science Fiction, Volume 2. My copies of the books, though, spell out the volume numbers ("Volume One" & "Volume Two"), on both the title pages & the spines. (I didn't think there ever were dust jackets, but maybe I'm wrong; one of the pubs for v. 1, the one you verified, lists an artist. And SFBC usually had dust jackets. So I'm guessing mine just vanished somewhere. Probably we got these used, though Grace thinks not.) So one of my definite questions is: shouldn't our data say "One" and "Two"?

   Title page says "One" and "Two" so that should be changed. And there are dust jackets, just as David describes below. Neat looking set when they're on the shelf!

   Thanks. I will change them, everywhere I find them (pubs & titles). -- Dave (davecat) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2. My copy (or copies) of these just say "Doubleday & Company, Inc.", though that spaceship-&-book logo is SFBC, I think. They give only a copyright date (1959); the ones you verified say Feb. 1960, but the database also lists an edition of each in 1959. Is there some substantive difference? I didn't really think Doubleday put in printing/edition info back then, but maybe they did. (So a more nebulous question here: am I really looking at the same pub as either of these?)

   Up until the late 90s, no SFBC edition actually stated that, only "Book Club Edition" on the front inside flap. (Read my article on the SFBC for further info in identifying SFBC editions.) We (or at least I, because no one else seemed to take any interest in establishing a standard for SFBC editions) have determined that the best way to show that a pub is the SFBC edition is to place the info directly into the publishers' field as a sub-imprint of the original publisher. Thus, "Doubleday / SFBC". I've decided (since there's been no standardization of publisher names) that any form of "Doubleday" since the 40s (when the "Doran" was dropped) should be simply "Doubleday" (but that point's debatable.) Also, this set was the selection for February 1960, thus the date shown in the pub record. It's not printed anywhere in the book itself. Another standard that I established on my own.

   Thank you; that is really helpful. The gutter codes in mine say "D6", which (if I understand correctly) means February, 1962. (Again, if I understand correctly:) It would be appropriate for me to enter these, as pubs in their own right, correct? -- Dave (davecat) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3. There's a (title) note in each volume saying "This was only available as a two-volume set, so it is questionable why there are separate listings of each volume." That's probably a good question, but as I know I've seen the things for sale separately (used), my own gut reaction is that it's more reasonable this way. But have standards on that kind of thing crystallized in the past year?

   Actually they're only on sale separately from used book dealers. At the time of publication, both the trade and book club editions, were only sold as a set. I'm not sure if the database can handle a two-volume set without the creation of two pub records. Maybe we can ask Al.

   Thanks. I'll leave the note, I guess. -- Dave (davecat) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Both pubs give "Before the Curtain..." with "..." not " . . ." - that's one of the things I'd change if I have at this).

   A standard about whether to space between ellipsis has never been firmly established. I don't think even Strunk & White or MLA has a standard! In either case, I personally feel it doesn't matter. When we start making variants based on whether a space is between ellipsis, I'll start thinking about finding a better waste of time.

   We did discuss ellipsis spacing recently and there wasn't a majority in favour of changing the current standard, which is with spaces. Whether swfritter has finishing changing all the ones he entered the "wrong" way I don't know. BLongley 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   What? Most of them were already entered the wrong way. When researching the ellipsis issues nearly all the references said spaces - if I can remember correctly I could only find one reference that indicated that there might be an emerging standard - based upon incorrect usage.--swfritter 19:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well, there was a lot of "incorrect" usage here - maybe we were the ones creating the emerging standard then? We're still only half "fixed" too. Mike, I don't think there's too many variants on spacing but "Breeds There a Man...?" / "Breeds There a Man . . . ?" looks to be a possible start. There's others where the author changes as well, but the spacing hasn't been regularized. BLongley 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   I've been following the pub-editor help, & adding spaces when I come across a title with no spaces. Just for what it's worth. -- Dave (davecat) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   Looks like a job for Web API.--swfritter 20:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'll have a look at Web API this weekend I think (I've caught up on new arrival books mostly): but even if we can now automate corrections a bit better, the moderator aspect isn't going to get easier. :-/ BLongley 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   The Web API is reasonably robust at this point, although, as Al pointed out yesterday, it accepts all properly formed submissions, but doesn't check for internal consistency, which can be dangerous. I expect that in the future we will be writing 2 kinds of data cleanup scripts. The first, "Fixer", kind will be looking for "no brainer" issues in the database -- e.g. identical Title records -- and creating automatic submissions to fix them via the Web API. The second kind will be doing what I have been doing for the last year, i.e. looking for non-trivial discrepancies in the data and creating Wiki Project pages which will be then analyzed by human editors. In expect that the "Fixer" logic should prove useful since bypassing the submission creation processing and going straight to the submission approval process can save quite a bit of time. Ahasuerus 01:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

5. My copy of v. 1 lists "The Children's Hour" as being by Henry Kuttner & C. L. Moore, as does the pub you verified; I note that the other gives that, but as by Lawrence O'Donnell.

   The pub record for the trade edition is wrong. Doubleday used the same plates for both editions so the story should be by Kuttner & Moore. The trade edition should be changed.

   Thanks. I'll take care of this one, too. (Add/remove, then merge.) -- Dave (davecat) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

6. Both of the existing pubs (of v. 2) show The Other Side of the Sky with a subtitle ("Stories of the Space Stations by Arthur C. Clarke"), & show as essays by uncredited. That just seems bizarre. My copy shows no subtitle at all, but certainly not that.

   This is a case where a moderator allowed someone to change the name of a story and it affected every publication in the database. Sad. My copy does not have the subtitle and it wasn't in the pub record when I verified it.

   Do I change it back everywhere, then? Or only here & in the paperback edition I own? (That "ESSAY" certainly appears to be just plain wrong, but it's possible that someone really published an essay with this title, by uncredited, & someone was correcting something, I guess.) No, I see your answer on this, down lower; I will fix only the ones I can personally verify (in these pubs, & the pb I own of the Clarke book). -- Dave (davecat) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Finally, there are no page numbers in the 1959 pub of v. 1, but are in that for v. 2. (Your verified 1960 pubs have page numbers, of course. And they agree with my TOC at least.) Page counts for v. 1 agree between the two pubs & between them & my copy.

   That's because the trade edition hasn't been verified. So the page numbers haven't been entered. As I stated above, both editions were printed from the same plate so the page numbers would be the same. Sorry about messing up the list numbering, but I can't figure out how to respond to each of your points and not mess up the numbering. I'm sure David, our resident WIKI authority, can give me some pointers on how to respond and keep the bullet points. MHHutchins 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   I just fixed that, see Help:Wiki-numbered lists for details, but in general, each paragraph must include a # sign somewhere in the stuff at front to not break the sequence, if the # is followed by one or more colons, that paragraph doesn't get a number, but is a part of a numbered section starting with a previous paragraph. -DES ^Talk 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks, David, for pointing out that WIKI help page. Bill and Stephen's responses about ellipsis spaces messed up the numbering again, so I was able to repair the list myself. MHHutchins 00:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   OK, then, I'll add page numbers to the trade editions -- Dave (davecat) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several overt & implied questions in all that. I guess my real questions boil down to these:

1. Is there any good reason for me not to think that I've got the 1959 edition, & to verify it, fixing up Lawrence O'Donnell & the Clarke title, adding page numbers for v. 1? ("Fixing O'Donnell" presumably means adding a new content, removing the old one from the pub, making it a variant, & merging. The make-variant step may not be needed.)
2. Is it OK for me to fix up the ellipsis in "Before the Curtain . . ." and the Clarke title (affecting your verified pubs & who knows how many others)?
3. What about the "1" & "2" vs. "One" & "Two" issues?

Thanks (as always) for any advice/instructions you have for me. (Whatever you4 answers, it may be a few days before I get to actually doing anything.) -- Dave (davecat) 22:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer these last questions: 1) Check on the title verso page, just above the copyright. Does it state "First Edition"? Also check on page 527 of Volume 1. What is the the gutter code? If it has an "A" along with a high number (between 26 and 52) you may have a trade edition. Otherwise you have a SFBC edition. 2) Fixing the ellipsis is a moot point IMHO. You can fix the Clark story, but be careful not to make the same mistake as another moderator. 3) Yeah, change the titles to "One" and "Two" for both editions. And you can add the page numbers to the trade edition. MHHutchins 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

1. My copies of these book have dust jackets, i'm not sure how the volume numbers were printed.
2. My copies were surely SFBC, because I bought them directly from the book club. I don't know if there was a non-BC edition or not, they were featured in many book club ads for many years.
3. The book club never sold these separately as far as I know, the DJs were printed so that the images on the spines worked only when they were shelved side-by-side, at least in my copies.
4. I don't know what edition I have, i know I bought my copies from the SFBC somewhere between 1974 and 1978.
5. My copies are not right to hand, but can be found if urgent.

I hope this info helps. -DES ^Talk 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My gutter codes are both D6, apparently Feb 1962. I'll make the changes I've indicated above. Thanks very much. -- Dave (davecat) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Ultimate Frankenstein

Could you please double check whether "I, Monster" in The Ultimate Frankenstein is attributed to "Loren D. Estelman" or to "Loren D. Estleman"? Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Should have been "Estleman". I've corrected it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. MHHutchins 14:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Farrar Straus & Giroux / SFBC" minor change to name

Michael I've changed "Farrar, Straus & Giroux " to "Farrar, Straus and Giroux" and I'd like to update the SFBC [6] publishers title to be consistent. Since the your more involved with the book clubs I thought it would be best to check with you first. Thanks.Kraang 23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure no problem with the name change. Just be sure to include spaces on both sides of the slash, i.e. "Farrar, Straus and Giroux / SFBC" . Thanks. MHHutchins 00:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a beginning of a new standard? E.g. if the three of us are agreed Book Club follows Original Publisher rather than vice versa, and slashes need spaces each side, I could change "SFBC/del Rey" to "del Rey / SFBC" for instance. (Although in that case I think the capitalisation could be improved too.) BLongley 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A one-man standard, I suppose. When I brought this up within a few weeks of working on the DB, no one was able to tell me if there were a standard. So I started my own. I think it makes sense to place the "SFBC" after the publisher, because only the publisher is printed in the book itself. Placing the spaces around the slash makes it more clear (at least to my eyes) that this is not an imprint (e.g. "Berkley/Putnam" or "Arbor House/Morrow"). I'm still mired in the early 80s of the SFBC, so I haven't reached the time when books actually had "Science Fiction Book Club" as the publisher (probably mid-90s). And yes, if I had reached the point where there was a "SFBC/publisher" I would have changed it as well. And all "del Rey"s should be "Del Rey" when it refers to the publisher (not the author). I think the system automatically gave it a lower-case because it was already in the DB. Other instances where this happened is "Macmillan" and "Macdonald". There are more than a few "MacMillan"s and "MacDonald"s where there shouldn't be. The last time I tried to change them, the system wouldn't accept it. MHHutchins 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Publisher edits now work on capitalisation, and so do merges once they're exact. We're now back down to "Del Rey / SFBC" and I corrected "Dell / SFBC" too while at it. I'll leave "Ballantine Del Rey / SFBC" to people with more insight into why the Ballantine name should be included or not. BLongley 20:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't like the Publisher/Imprint (no spaces around the slash) or even Imprint/Publisher versions. When there's a decent SF imprint, I want to be able to find all of those in one search even if it changed publisher several times, e.g. Target or Questar or Orbit or Sphere. It's going to be a nightmare to explain the reasons for such preferences though, which is why I'm just reshuffling imprints and publishers for now - I don't want to LOSE any data, and am not yet ready to "tell" editors what's right. I suspect the British publishers and imprints are going to be even worse than the US ones (e.g. Panther / Granada / Grafton / Triad) and if printing-number support arrives soon I'm going to have to explain a LOT of oddities. I'm afraid I'm resurrecting the "how to record invalid ISBNs on a pub" discussion at the moment though (as that's just a reshuffle of data rather than losing any) and the publisher and imprint questions can wait a bit, as I suspect those will need software changes eventually. BLongley 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the imprint/publisher situation is a tangled mess. Even if we're recording what's exactly printed in the book, it would still be a mess. That's why I've pretty much stayed out of the debate on how imprints should be recorded in the pub records. There's one particular editor who insists on entering "x, an imprint of Y" which doesn't really fix the problem, but it's as good as it gets until some other solution arises. Will we wind up with something like this: "Tor, published by Tom Doherty Associates, Inc, distributed by St. Martin's Press in the US, distributed by H. B. Fenn and Company, Ltd. in Canada" as is printed in the first book I pull from the shelf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhhutchins (talk • contribs) .

I am pretty much in the same boat re: tweaking imprints since the risk of losing data is quite high and there doesn't appear to exist an obvious path out of this labyrinth :( Ahasuerus 03:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that at some point we will simply have to decide on some conventions by fiat, at least for the larger publishers, and then impose them even knowing that in soem cases data will be lost, but hoping that it is relatively minor data that will be lost. -DES ^Talk 03:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the simple partial solution I was hoping for when Al reworked publishers recently was that he would copy the Publisher field on every pub over into a new field, and we could keep one as "as stated on pub" and use the other, regularised, to construct the hierarchies (as I see them) of imprint/division/subsidiary/company or whatever people wanted. The Wiki could hold such information until we decided what sort of publisher-related objects we wanted, although we have to mix a few entries in the meantime (e.g. a publisher gets taken over and becomes a subsidiary, then the subsidiary is fully merged and only the imprint remains, or the imprint is sold on, or even (in the case of Panther) lapses as a trademark and gets used afresh by a totally different company!) You can see the sort of thing I mean with the Publisher Wiki entries I've created so far: they could still do with a lot more linking, and I haven't tackled too many yet. But start and end dates and ISBN ranges and ownership information all looks good to me. I'm not so interested in addresses or distributors but feel free to add them. The more information we gather the clearer it becomes what's useful. I'm not too worried about losing some of the information from the database to the Wiki temporarily e.g. 'X, an imprint of Y' can be reduced to 'X' in many cases, so long as "X was an imprint of Y between MMMM and NNNN" is recorded in X's and Y's Wiki pages. (I don't think the Publisher Notes we have now are sufficient, we need to link X to Y and vice-versa.) But I still wish we could keep the "as stated" field separate for the editor's preferred display option, this fear of data loss is hampering us. BLongley 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rakehells of Heaven

Right cover? (I also added the suspected cover-art commentator, feel free to question him or remove my addition, I just didn't want to get into a 3-way verification.) BLongley 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the cover. Note on cover artist looks OK. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help clearing and setting up Great Tales of Science Fiction

I appreciate your assistance with this turkey. It would have taken me at least two more edits to get it into proper shape. I've added a comment to explain its connection to the unabridged version. For the life of me, I can't figure out why a separate edition was published with just ONE story omitted (barring copyright/permissions issues). And so it goes... --Dsorgen 01:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. When I saw your note in the original submission, I knew what your intentions were. Knowing that, I thought it would be easier if I just went ahead and made the changes you had planned. FYI, omitting a single story is a common practice for "instant remainder" publishers (Galahad, Bonanza, Avenel) when reprinting anthologies. By omitting one story, they've essentially created a "new" anthology, and often retitle the new pub. These new editions are lower-priced and are found in the bargain bins at your local bookstore. MHHutchins 02:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Paradox Men

Right cover? BLongley 16:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC) And here?BLongley 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC) And here? (You can probably spot the pattern by now...) BLongley 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) And here?BLongley 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC) And here?BLongley 17:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC) And here? BLongley 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC) And here? BLongley 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

All correct. Now that we've got the publisher pages in the Wiki, it might be a good idea to create a listing for this series. If you're too swamped to do it, I might be able to squeeze it onto my "to do" list. MHHutchins 22:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have checked first. You've already done it! Two great minds... MHHutchins 22:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there more than the ten I found? I often start such publisher series and they peter out incomplete as I haven't got the last editions with cross-references. BLongley 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You got 'em all. There were only ten volumes published. Neat round number. MHHutchins 23:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you've nicely formatted the page as well - Thanks! I'll leave you to deal with the SFBC reprints though. BLongley 00:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction - DES formatted it nicely. So fitting the SFBC versions in might be harder. I'll STILL leave the SFBC ones for someone else though. BLongley 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what info you wnat included, and I'll be happy to see about the format for them also, as time permits. -DES ^Talk 00:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry Turtledove's A Different Flesh

Some time ago you asked about this on the ISFDB:Verification requests page. i have just verified the "revised" edition, and it doesn't look particularly revised to me. see my comments on the verification requests page. -DES ^Talk 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on that, David. It had been so long that I asked for that verification I forgotten all about it. Since you've verified that the two editions are the same, would you feel comfortable removing the "revised" designation from the Baen edition? You would also have to delete the variant title, and merge the Baen pub with the original title record. Thanks again. MHHutchins 22:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That is what I would prefer to do, buit I didn't want to do it unilaterally without discussion. -DES ^Talk 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. -DES ^Talk 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

your verified pub: The Other Side of the Sky

Please consider verified pub The Other Side of the Sky. It looks as though the entry for the collection The Other Side of the Sky is replaced by an essay, "The Other Side of the Sky: Stories of the Space Stations by Arthur C. Clarke". (See above discussion of The Treasury of Great Science Fiction; this is the one other instance I can check myself.) I was going to add the collection entry back in, but then wondered (having read a recent discussion somewhere) whether the problem is that the whole volume is a collection, so there's a problem trying to include a collection in a collection. I see that "Venture to the Moon" (another collection, right?) is listed as a short story.
I'll let you consider what to do; if you want me to be the one to do it, let me know. Thanks.
(I admit that I'm having trouble making sure that what I've got is the same pub, exactly. It's Harbrace, but includes no identifying info about when it was published, except maybe the date on Clarke's intro.) -- Dave (davecat) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[conflict with CoachPaul's edit] This happens too frequently for me to get too upset, but it does bug me. Maybe two or three times a week I see that a story in one of my verified collections has been attributed to a pseudonym from an original publication. Cases like the one above are not as frequent though. I wish there were some kind of warning (similar to the one we have for verified pubs) that a change in title record will effect every record in the database. Perhaps that will make the moderator stop and think before approving. The fact that the title has been changed to an essay is even more unsettling. I wonder why they didn't make the same changes the "Venture to the Moon". Admittedly, this is a strange situation that the database doesn't seem to be able to handle very well. I'll see what I can do about the Clarke story, when I get a chance. Thanks for pointing out the change in title. About the dating, I think it came from Tuck. Let me check. No, Tuck gives the date of the first Harbrace paperback as 1968. I don't know how I got the 1967 date, unless that was part of the original record that I updated. Let me do more research on that aspect. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Clark's preface ("Bibliographical Note") is dated 28 October 1967, in the copy I'm looking at anyway. -- Dave (davecat) 21:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's what made someone think it was published in 1967. That late in the year for writing would almost guarantee that it was published in 1968 (unless they were quicker about getting books into publication than these days!) At any rate, I've changed it to 1968 to coincide with Tuck, who's rarely wrong. MHHutchins 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I pulled another copy of this off of my shelf that was awaiting Verification, and it has the same problem too. I would just like to go ahead and delete this Title Record, but that wouldn't help, it would just make things worse. If you read the note it's for sure not an essay. The problem is, is that there appears to be an Essay titled this that was printed in the Infinity Science Fiction, October 1957 Issue, so just deleting the pub record wouldn't work. That issue was Verified by Mike Christie, who doesn't come around much any more, and has a Transient Verification by Swfritter. Maybe he will read this and give us a clue. If not one of us can ask him. The more I look into this, the more I think that someone merged an Essay Record, with a Short Story Record.CoachPaul 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. According to the note in the title you cited:

• This is the heading under which Infinity Science Fiction published three of Clarke's stories in the October 1957 issue: "Freedom of Space", "Passer By", and "The Call of the Stars". All six were published as a unit under the same overall title in several collections and anthologies. These are the second three of the six; the first three were published in the September 1957 Infinity.

My guess would be that there is not in fact such an essay, but that this group of three stories is that "essay". But I don't really know. Bleah. -- Dave (davecat) 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read that note, my reasonings for thinking that there might just be an Essay is the fact that the Title in question is credited to "uncredited" , and not Sir Arthur. Also, on the Infinity Science Fiction, October 1957 page, it has what we have currently marked as an Essay starting on page 55, while the first story Freedom of Space isn't listed as starting until page 56. Let's just ask Swfritter and find out for sure.CoachPaul 21:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to a state that I like. Who can say how long it will stay that way? I added the cover art, so see if it matches your copy. MHHutchins 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the 1958 bibliographical note and replaced it with the 1968 one, since it's obviously a newly written one. I bet later editions contained this note as well. MHHutchins 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My copy seems to have suffered from all the cross-edits too, so I'm adopting Mike's solution too and removing the covering Essay and Shortfiction that aren't actually there: the pub notes and series info should be enough, when DES lets me get back into those Wiki entries. BLongley 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm done there, just putting in a couple of links using Template:Series and a little wiki formatting. -DES ^Talk 19:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm done there now, but someone might want to comment on how Wiki-to-Wiki links and Wiki-to-ISFDB links should be presented. When both are present on the same page, it should be clear which is which, but I don't really mind which is displayed which way. BLongley 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have had only wiki->db links on those pages, but that is a judgement call. You can always hover over any link and see where it goes. Also, links outside the wiki normally display the small "arrow" symbol (whilch looks to me more like two squares, offset, but the wiki software calls it an arrow). This is normally present in most url-based links form a wiki page, and is intended to show that the uder woill be taken out of the wiki by the link. Tghis is an authomatic feature of teh wiki software. It is a small distinction, however. If you would like, wiki->db links that use the linking templates could be automatically formatted in almost any way we please: different color, different typeface, what have you. Formatting liknks put in as raw urls would have to be done one at a time. -DES ^Talk 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As we're also now split between people using the dummy titles' notes and those using the Series Wiki, there may need to be some more copying of data between the two to keep them consistent. BLongley 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, what's the clue that makes the 1968 note clearly different from the 1958 one? I can't see any evidence in my version, there's no later dates mentioned particularly. BLongley 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's signed "Arthur C. Clarke / New York City / 28 October 1967" Also, he makes a reference to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (the 1967 film). MHHutchins 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's no such signing or comments in mine so I guess the 1958 edition was still being reprinted in 1974 here at least. BLongley 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wizard

Right cover for Wizard? Dana Carson 08:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cover art added to Asimov's July-aug 78

I added a cover image to your verified pub. Correct? -DES ^Talk 03:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And also to the Nov-Dec 78 issue. -DES ^Talk 04:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Both correct. Thanks. MHHutchins 11:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bridge of Lost Desire

I have checked my copy of Delany's The Bridge of Lost Desire and added a Note to your verified pub. Could you please check to see if it matches your copy when you have a minute? Thanks! Ahasuerus 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the note matches my copy. Thanks. MHHutchins 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Pennterra

Could you please check whether the cover art on your verified copy of Pennterra is attributed to "Byrn Barnard" or to "Bryn Barnard"? Thanks! Ahasuerus 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The record was incorrectly spelled. The book credits "Bryn Barnard". I've corrected the record. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny that two separate verifiers would make the same mistake when dealing with two separate publications! :) I have corrected the other pub and left Scott a note (although he doesn't seem to be checking the Wiki any more), so the mysterious Byrn Barnard is now gone. Ahasuerus 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cosmos SF (1977) wiki page

Did you create a wiki page for this mag? I entered the issues and created a wiki for the 50's title of the same name and if there had been a wiki page with the same name it should have popped up when I made the initial entry in the main magazine wiki so is it possible it is out there under another name. I was just about to enter these and luckily I double checked to make sure they had not already been entered.--swfritter 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't create one. At that point in time I'd only been editing a few months, and wasn't familiar with the magazine wiki pages. I'll go ahead and create one, and try to keep it from being confused with the 1950s title (with the exact same name and lasting the exact same number of issues!) Do you have any suggestions for the name? MHHutchins 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How about Magazine:Cosmos (1970s) or Magazine:Cosmos (1977-19XX)?

It's done. Because it was only published in one year, I named it Magazine:Cosmos (1977). When I was looking at the issues, I noticed that I had not entered the interiorart, which at the time wasn't being done. I'll need to go back and add the art when I get a chance. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! Luckily I learned a long time ago to check if magazine issues had already been entered even if there were no wiki links.--swfritter 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Galactic Empires

Added covers to both Galactic Empires, Volume 1 and Galactic Empires, Volume 2. Right ones? Dana Carson 23:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike Conner

Last (1979) by Mike Conner from New Dimensions 9 is listed as shortstory, but run from page 191 to 219?

The total page count for the publication should have been 212 pages, and the story starts on page 193, and is introduced on 192. (I've corrected the pub's page count and the story's start page, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'd used the table of contents which is incorrect.) I kept the original story-length designations which was probably entered from the Locus listing by the original editor. Again, thanks. MHHutchins 21:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Complete Science Fiction Treasury of H. G. Wells

Regarding your verified publication.

• I changed the printing date from 1978 to 1979 as I could not see a source for 1978. My copy is copyright 1979 but does not have a printing date. My copy also has what seems to be a printing number line "p o n m l k." Assuming this is a number line and that they started with "a" that would this the 11th printing. More curious is that this is a variant title of a 1934 collection published by Knopf. Wells' preface starts out "Mr. Knopf has asked me to write a preface ..." implying the preface is for the the original 1934 Knopf edition. I can't see anything in the book that looks like it was written or drawn in 1979 and am not sure why it has a 1979 copyright other than to better convince people there is something "new" in the book. Maybe it's for the jacket illustration... FWIW, the ISBN links to Amazon which reports this as "Random House Value Publishing (June 24, 1987)".
• Minor correction - I moved The War of the Worlds from page 165 to 265.
• I changed the title of The Food of the Gods to The Food of the Gods And How It Came to Earth to match the title page and juggled the variant titles.
• I added a cover image. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My copy states the following on the title verso page:

This edition was originally published by Alfred A. Knopf

This edition published by Avenel Books,

distributed by Crown Publishers, Inc.

a b c d e f g h

AVENEL 1978 PRINTING

Manufactured in the United States of America

This is followed by Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data which includes the following: PZ3. W465Hab 1978[PR5771.5]823'.9'12 78-58095

I think the foregoing makes it clear that my copy was published in 1978. I'll remove my primary verification from the record you changed, allowing you to verify it. I'll then create a new pub record based on my edition and verify that one. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted the page numbers of my verified copy to reflect the novels' title pages. The table of contents records the pages on which the stories begin. MHHutchins 05:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that my edition doesn't have a copyright date. Also the Amazon listing is obviously incorrect. And I changed the date of the Preface to 1934 as it's apparent that this is identical to the Knopf edition of Seven Famous Novels (this being a photographic reproduction of that edition). MHHutchins 05:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I took another look at my copyright page. The 1979 date is "Copyright © 1979 by Crown Publishers" and further down is "This edition is published by Avenel Books, distributed by Crown Publishers, Inc." I would guess Crown took over Avenel in 1979 and automatically started putting their copyright on things. I documented the LOC block at Publication:THCMWLLS1E1978 and it agrees with yours meaning you have the 1978 1st printing and I have an undated 11th printing.

I believe the Amazon listing is correct and that it also means my edition was published on or after 1979 and before 1987 when Random House must have gotten involved.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I adjusted the page numbers." In my copy the TOC page numbers point to the first page of each story. Preceding each story are illustrations but either the illustration captions are wrong or they only used illustrations from a few stories. My copy does not have a "title page" for each story. One story ends, there's no special indicator, is followed by two or three pages of illustrations, and then the next story starts though the top of the page is a "banner" that serves as a title. I have:

• iii • Preface
• 3 • The Time Machine
• 67 • Illustration for The First Men in the Moon captioned "So far, not the slightest attempt has been made to interfere with me."
• 68 • Illustration for The First Men in the Moon captioned "I...perceive they were the carcasses of moon calves being cut up, much as a moored whale might be cut up by the crew of a whaler."
• 69 • The Island of Dr. Moreau (you have this on page 67)
• 158 • Illustration for The First Men in the Moon
• 159 • Illustration for The Food of the Gods
• 160 • Illustration for The First Men in the Moon
• 161 • The Invisible Man (you have this on page 159)
• 263 • Illustration for The War of the Worlds
• 264 • Illustration for The War of the Worlds
• 265 • The War of the Worlds (you have this on page 263)
• 389 • Illustration for The First Men in the Moon
• 390 • Illustration for The First Men in the Moon
• 391 • The First Men in the Moon (you have this on page 389)
• 529 • Illustration for The Food of the Gods
• 530 • Illustration for The Food of the Gods
• 531 • The Food of the Gods And How It Came to Earth (you have this on page 529)
• 689 • Illustration for The Food of the Gods
• 690 • Illustration for The Food of the Gods
• 691 • In the Days of the Comet (you have this on page 689)

I don't have time at the moment to go through and document all of the captions but it seems like your edition did not include the illustrations I have on pages 67 and 68 and that the entire book is shifted by two pages. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The only illustrations contained in my edition are "spot" illustrations at the beginning of each chapter of the various novels. To "illustrate" what I mean by "adjusted the page numbers": page 66 is the last page of The Time Machine, page 67 is a title page with only the words The Island of Dr. Moreau, page 68 is blank, page 69 contains the first page of text for The Island of Dr. Moreau. This pattern continues for each of the novels. My TOC states that The Island of Dr. Moreau begins on page 69, when the actual "title page" is printed on page 67. So I adjusted the page numbers because they are all at variance with the TOC. MHHutchins 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add that I still maintain that Amazon is incorrect, in that it states that the ISBN in my edition was for a publication in June 1987 with Random House as the publisher. Both, obviously, not true. MHHutchins 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the "spot" illustrations too but this copy also has full page illustrations apparently taken from early book or magazine appearances of the stories. You had mentioned "this being a photographic reproduction of that edition". My copy does not use those words but does have "All illustrations in this volume are courtesy of the New York Public Library." Here arephotos of pages 66-67 and 69-69. It sounds like between your printing and mine that the publisher removed the title and blank pages, replacing them with the page illustrations I have. The copyrights on these illustrations have expired which must be why they are not credited on the copyright page.

I agree that Amazon does not match your copy, nor mine, but I believe it's quite possible the book got reprinted using the same ISBN by Random House in 1987. If you look at AbeBooks there are many "Random House" copies. Some of those will be dealers pulling the data from Amazon but a few "Random House" listings seem to be hand-made and would reflect what the publication states. I also spotted a 4th printing (d e f g h) and e-mailed that seller to see if this copy is closer to yours or mine in its layout. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose yours would be the preferred edition, having the illustrations. Perhaps you might want to note the illustrations in the pub record of your edition. Are the illustrators credited? MHHutchins 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I heard back from the seller of the "d e f g h" edition and it seems identical to mine with the full page illustrations and 1979 Crown copyright meaning the switch was done after the 1st printing and before the 4th. I'll figure out a way to insert a notice so that people adding/verifying future copies know what to look for. Yes, the illustrators are credited. For example here's what's underneath the pictures on pages 158, 159, and 160:

• “We seemed to be marching down that tunnel for a long time.”
  Drawn by E. Herring, 1901 for The First Men in the Moon.
• “Redwood fell in love with that great nursery.”
  Drawn by Cyrus Cuneo, 1904 for The Food of the Gods.
• “I stood for a moment struck by the grotesque effect of his soaring figure.”
  Drawn by E. Herring, 1900 for The First Men in the Moon.

You can see two illustrations and how they are captioned in the photos I uploaded for pages 66-69 above. Googling for the caption text finds it's straight from the stories. What I'll do is to add interiorart credits to my copy. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Publication dates for Unearth

Mike Ashley in Gateways to Forever gives the publication months as January for the winter issues, April for the Spring issues, July for the Summer issues, and October for the Fall issue. Contento gives the same. Great to see even more coverage for secondary titles.--swfritter 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

None of the issues that I can physically verify have months of publication. Even when a researcher can verify, through secondary sources, the actual date of the magazine's appearance, is it not ISFDB policy to record WYSIWYG? It's the last week of July, but I just entered the September issue of Asimov's. We all know that the month of printing and distribution isn't necessarily the publication date. :) I'll make comments in the pubs' notes concerning the dating by Ashley and Contento. Strange though, that a publication that had financial problems and distribution difficulties (according to Ashley and Tymn's History) was able to maintain such an orderly schedule. MHHutchins 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

An approximation for the month is better than nothing - but it needs to be documented. If a publication month can be narrowed down in any way at all, even to within three months, it gives a better idea of the relative date of appearance of a story in an author's bibliography. From Help in a section specifically dealing with magazines: "Information can also be drawn from bibliographic sources when useful, but this should always be noted in the "Note" field."--swfritter 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also a practical aspect. The series data, including the Editor series, will not sort correctly]. Note how 1977 sorts Summer, Spring, Winter, Fall when it should be Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall. To my mind this is a horseshoes and hand grenades issue.--swfritter 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand it will make certain pages look better, but why alter or add non-standard info just to make the database look pretty? Wouldn't it make more sense to allow an editor to create a sort? I have practically no idea how databases work, but it would be nice to be able to create any sort. (I hate that undated pubs appear before first editions, but I'm not going to create approximate dates just to make the list appear chronological.) How did this editor record (or this one) get a chronological sort? None of the magazines have a month of publication, but they're in order on the editor record page. Is it based solely on the order in which the records were created? MHHutchins 18:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The only control an editor has over sort order is by entering date information. The data will often, but not always and not dependably, appear in the order in which it is entered. For this same reason co-authored stories sometimes do not appear with the authors in the same order in which they were entered.--swfritter 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is "ISFDB policy to record WYSIWYG" (regularization issues apart), but I don't think it's stated anywhere that we have to state it in exactly the database fields provided. So long as it's noted, I'm fine. That's why I like ISBNs to work, even if the one in the Catalog ID field has to be different from the actual one that ends up in notes. (We couldn't cope with recording WYSIWYG there anyway when there's disagreements between title-page(s) and cover for instance.) I'm happy to add dates to books from secondary sources to override what's on the pub, or we'd have THOUSANDS more "0000-00-00" pubs - but I'd still note that we didn't have that stated on the book. I'd even support minor adjustments to dates to enable correct sorting, but agree that some of the experiments have not worked, e.g. putting a 19th printing as "19" in the day part of a date, when the year and month are still massively wrong. But if people want to assign a number to Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter to get them to sort within the same year correctly, that's fine by me, but you'd have to pick numbers that work when a publication switches from bi-monthly to quarterly or suchlike. (Not easy when Winter may be the first publication of a year or the last of the one before - and when some otherwise identical issues are "Fall" and others "Autumn".) The value of the ISFDB for me is that we can use it as a database should be used, and "bad data" prevents that use when we know what the useful data is. There's no way a database can work easily with incomplete data - if we can put useful dates on a record, it means we don't have to add a sequence number as well. And I really wouldn't want to have to put a whole series of books and/or magazines into a numbered series just because one entry wasn't sufficiently distinguished from another on the pubs themselves. BLongley 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, bit of a waffle there: but basically it's far, far easier to make MINOR adjustments to exceptional data to make things like sorts work, than it is to provide additional data fields that will make them work at the expense of even more data-entry, and expecting software to understand notes about what data "should have been" is a non-starter. (No computer yet reads and understands English, let alone OUR abbreviations.) You really, really don't want to know what "allowing an editor to create a sort" means work-wise... BLongley 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, "undated pubs appear before first editions" is a problem that can easily be solved in most versions of SQL, just by switching the default '0000-00-00' to '9999-99-99' (or '9999-12-31' if you prefer a valid date) for instance. There's already coding for '8888-00-00' - but note that that requires us to avoid "as stated" and adopt a convention that will never be seen on a pub, or in any normal reference to a pub. The database works because we DO make compromises: adding suffixes to author names when there are multiple authors with the same name, etc. I don't think anyone's asking you to STOP recording What You See - it's just that where you record it can have major issues when physical books or magazines have a mistake or insufficient data. BLongley 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] If you take a look at the Unearth issues, you'll see in the notes that I recorded swfritter's information, within minutes of receiving it. I'm not against placing additional information in notes. That's the purpose of the notes field. When I verify a pub, I'd like to have sources to backup what may not be printed in the pub I'm holding in my hand. I'm flexible with that as well. If Locus says an undated Ace printing of Arthur C. Asimov's Childhood of the Gods Themselves appeared in March, 1979, I'll change the date field, and record my source in the notes. I just don't think we should be manipulating data so that it sorts well and looks neat on the page. Just my 2 cents worth (at least double what I can actually get for it!) I like the idea of "9999-12-31", just glad I won't be around when all the records have to be updated! MHHutchins 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that the decision to display all 0000-00-00 Publications before the properly dated Publications was a conscious one, made by Al based on a survey of then-active contributors a while back. I never liked it myself and if we have a different consensus now -- a couple of years and hundreds of thousands of edits later -- we may be able to get Al to change the logic fairly easily. Ahasuerus 02:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to keep 0000-00-00 records, but display them at the bottom? MHHutchins 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. At one point Al posted a poll along the lines of "Would you prefer all 0000-00-00 Publications to appear before or after all dated Publications for a given Title?" and a majority (2 to 1? something like that) voted for "before". My guess is that it should be almost trivial to change the code to display them at the bottom. Ahasuerus 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If we want to re-open this issue, perhaps another poll on the Community Portal would be in order. Ahasuerus 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have mentioned elsewhere invalid dates (especially 0000 for the year) have a tendency to choke other database applications. I have to run scripts on the data before I can even display it in Java apps. 0000-00-00 should probably be converted to null which is a symbolic indication that the data is indeterminate. Bogus values should at least be valid dates. As far as display for nulls values and 0000-00-00 - definitely after. As far as dates for pubs without months: Many of them are documented with moderately accurate precision that is at least less inaccurate than nothing. Thanks Mike for putting the data in the notes. That will at least give the users some idea of when some generally respected researchers estimate the pub appeared during the year. It will save them doing additional research.--swfritter 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tactics of Conquest

Just a heads up that User:Bluesman would like to make a change to your verified edition of Malzberg's Tactics of Conquest. I have put it on hold until you get a chance to review it. Ahasuerus 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that 0-515-33303-4 appears to be a valid ISBN for this pub, at least amazon and ISBNdb.com list it under this ISBN. -DES ^Talk 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ISBN printed in the book is invalid. (The notes that I placed in the note field is clear on that.) That's why I used the catalog number printed on the spine of the book, and used the # sign prefix. Accepting the edit by Bluesman would place a catalog number in the field that is not printed in the book (he retains the # sign). If you accept that the ISBN should have been 0-515-33303-4 then place that in the notes. Don't change the catalog number. Or remove the # sign in Bluesman's edit and place a note in the field that this ISBN is not printed in the book. I prefer it stet, but I will defer to any rules or standards of which I'm unaware. MHHutchins 20:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the agreed standards are for this, the last discussion i saw was inconclusive. My view is that when we can establish what the "correct" ISBN is, we should record it, without a # sign, in the ISBN field, and document in the notes that it isn't in the book, what is in the book instead, and how we determined the correct ISBN. This would make the ISBN-based links work, while still documenting what was in the book. But to the best of my knowledge there is no consensus behind that position, and I am not about to impose one unilaterally. You are the verifier on this book, and i am not going to try to override you under these circumstances. I wanted you to be aware that the number Bluesman submitted appears to work at at least two online sites, for whatever value that information has. I think I rease the point in general again, and see whether we can come to an actual decision on how to handle such cases in future. I won't touch the submission from Bluseman, you and Ahasuerus should do whatever you think best about it. -DES ^Talk 21:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As part of cleaning up my held submissions, I have added the "reconstructed" ISBN to the Notes field. If we decide to do a wholesale change of invalid ISBNs, it will be easy to find them with a script. Ahasuerus 02:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Terry Dowling - Rynosserros

I've added a cover image from Amazon to the pub. you verified [here]. (Based on info on author's website.) --j_clark 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No Enemy But Time

I've just entered the second and third printings of your verified pub (feel free to copy the artwork if it's the same), but I wondered if you knew where the August Month comes from? There's no month in mine but I've left them dated the same as yours so they don't come before it. They're all 1983 though so I didn't want to make them 0000-00-00, but 1983-00-00 might be better even if the sorting doesn't work then. BLongley 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

August date came from Locus, but on checking my copy I notice the line "Reprinted twice (1983)". So which printing is my copy? Also I notice that you've verified two different records: here and here; both third printings; one with a cover, the other without. MHHutchins 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have the same third as me: I've deleted the unexplained third as a duplicate (thanks for the pointer). Which leaves us without a true first, I guess. :-/ I'd hoped you had one. BLongley 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the verification from the first printing and added a transient verification to your third printing. What's amusing (and perhaps embarrasing) is that I've been working on Michael Bishop's bibliography for more than 25 years, and I had no idea that there were at least three printings of Sphere's paperback edition. Now I've got to go hunting for that first printing! Thanks (he said, sarcastically) MHHutchins 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring you the bad news. I can send you the second Sphere printing if you like, until you find the first? It's on my swap-pile for now. I do hold on to multiple copies of the same title when there's significant differences, but same year, ISBN, price, cover-art, etc, are not enough for me to keep both. BLongley 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bishop is the only writer that I try to collect all editions, but not every printing. Thanks for the offer of the 2nd printing, but I'll pass on that for now. Does it then state "Reprinted once (1983)", or something along that line? I'll do some inquiries for those listed on abebooks.com to see if any of them are true first printings. MHHutchins 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simply "Reprinted 1983", as opposed to "Reprinted 1983 (twice)". I don't think any publisher would add "(once)", but I'm sure there's an exception. I'll keep an eye out for a true first - if I do find one, it's still likely to be pocket-change price here. BLongley 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dare

Correct Cover? BLongley 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. MHHutchins 01:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your verified pub: Analog Science Fiction and Fact, November 2000

Victoria Green is listed as a cover artist in this issue. Are you sure she is the artist? She is usually listed as a maker of the cover design (in every issue), not as a maker of cover art. I made mistake putting her as an artist, and noticed it by change. Of cource it is possible that she has worked also as an artist. Tpi 17:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong. The artwork is credited to Kim Poor, with the design credit for Victoria Green. Thanks for pointing out the error. It's been corrected. MHHutchins 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tales from Planet Earth

I don't know if you ever noticed that you were short-changed in your US edition of Tales from Planet Earth ? Yes, you finally got "The Lion of Comarre" but look at what you lost in comparison! Anyway, my query is actually over the Preface(s): yours makes it sound like a collaboration, mine is more "Challenge and Response" - did Asimov get a comeback in the US edition after Clarke volunteered to write the preface for Isaac's next book? I can imagine that bantering expanding throughout reprints... well, not any more of course. :-/ BLongley 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a collaboration. It's exactly as you describe your UK edition. I'm going to change my preface into two pieces and merge them with yours. Here's the kicker (and hold on to your socks): I was just looking at this and was heading over to the rules and standards page to start a discuss about "collaborative" essays, when I saw my talk page had changed. Freaking weird! MHHutchins 23:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We do seem to overlap a lot, your commenting on my "Depression or Bust/Dawnman Planet" pub overlapping with my commenting on "Fahrenheit 451" was weird... I guess as we are the top two verifiers it should be expected though. What proportion of yours are books rather than magazines/fanzines? BLongley 00:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been years since I was able to tell anyone how many pubs I have. When my first harddrive crashed back in the mid-90s without a backup I gave up on a personal database. I was literally sick for days, and swore I'd never let something like that get me so upset. Back in the late seventies I even had a cardfile for records of short fiction appearances (magazines, anthologies and collections), because it was harder to keep track of those than novels. When Contento appeared I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. I spent hours at the library pouring over it, until I could somehow find the $28.00 to purchase a copy of my own.

If someone put a gun to my head, I'd estimate about 3000 hardbacks, about 1000 paperbacks, and about 5000 issues of magazines/fanzines. But if I had to count them, they'd have to pull the trigger. MHHutchins 00:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I have an accurate list of my comics/graphic novels: as I catalogued them and boxed them up for sale when I decided to give up collecting such, I just couldn't part with them though. They're still in the "spare" room. I had a fairly accurate list of my books in 1998, computerised too! I'd just moved house and wanted to see what I'd still got after the move. I tried to keep the SF list mostly updated with new acquisitions, but two more moves and people borrowing stuff made that inaccurate... Basically, I think my Verified list on ISFDB is closer to what I have than any other records I have, even though other people have verified books I have before I could. A lot of details are moot though: I am quite happy to acquire different and/or better versions of things I already own, and as I'm a paperback collector a lot of those are cheap. I've acquired another 200 paperbacks in the last fortnight for instance (I've been on holiday): a hundred will go for swapping/donations to charity pretty fast. Fifty SHOULD but won't till I squeeze the last bibliographical detail out of them. At this rate of turnover I can only guesstimate I have 3000 to 4000 paperbacks. About a hundred hardbacks, and another one or two hundred trade paperbacks maybe. But I continually TRY to downsize a bit. BLongley 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And I honestly feel the US edition is better than the UK edition. It's the first appearance of "The Lion of Comarre" in a Clarke collection, and the three stories which takes its place in the UK edition have all appeared in Clarke collections. Take that (I'm directing my tongue toward that sceptred isle at this very moment.) MHHutchins 23:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been spoiled - I know I'll have to decide which "The Lion of Comarre" to keep at some point. But in the meantime I can turn round and say if I hadn't bought both editions I'd never have been able to confirm the artist on the other. I'm really trying to lose near-identical publications, but until I can fully explain why the same book started as Panther, is the same book when published by Granada, and then again by Grafton, I won't hold out much hope for "printing number" support to work for UK books. So my cleaner/book organiser will just have to find space for them all somehow for the moment. BLongley 00:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Verified Pubs - Galactic Empire Volumes 1 and 2

Can you confirm that your copies of Vol 1 Vol 2 have the words "One" and "Two" on the dust jacket and spine, but "I" and "II" on the Title page? Also I think you might have left off the front-matter pages on One, because my copy has xii+305 pp, while the one here just has 305 listed. Lastly, (if you confirm your copy shows both title variants) was it a conscious choice to use 1 and 2 instead of one and two, or is there a guideline I haven't found, or was it the luck of the draw that you looked at the TP, while some folks have input this title using the cover name? Which do you think is more correct? (My first thought is that the author only probably only saw galleys and didn't pre-approve the dust jacket and spine lettering, but my second thought is that people 'see' the cover and spine.. and it get's ingrained that it's spelled out) Thanks kpulliam 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. These were verified from the original records and I overlooked those items. I've updated them with the corrections that you pointed out. Concerning how books should be titled, from the help pages:

• Title - The title of the publication. The title should appear exactly as published, even though this may be different from the canonical title.
• Books. For a book, use the title page to get the title. This is typically the page with the copyright information on the back. Don't use the title on the cover, spine, or page running heads.

Before learning the standards, most editors would probably enter from the cover (as you've surmised). That may be why some editions of this title have the volumes spelled out. I can't say exactly how the Weidenfeld first edition was titled. Thanks again for the heads-up. MHHutchins 02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Verified Pub - Campbell Letters Vol 1

I was looking at this pub and thinking of entering the essay contents Letters. I don't want to enter all the letters but the other entries are all essays by one person or another, and there is that Freas essay that I think might interest some people to know it is hiding in there. Plus they actually credited all the interior artists, and I was thinking of adding them (not for every doodle, but one credit per artist) Thoughts? Do you want to do this? Thanks! Kevin 02:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea (as I thump my head trying to figure out why I missed it.) Go ahead and add those essays and interiorart credits, and take over the verification as well. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably because someone (like me) broke something and you spent 2+ hours chasing it down and didn't pick the book back up the next day :) Kevin 03:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will happily admit that I've never spent that much time trying to fix a single problem, but I wouldn't want to think about how much time if they were all added together! What probably happened is that I went off on a tangent which led to another tangent until I'd gotten so far off that I didn't remember where I started. (That's happened more than a few times!) Thanks for catching it. MHHutchins 03:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tangents are so much fun Kevin 03:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your improvements to Help:How to enter works published under a pseudonym‎. It is significantly better now. -DES ^Talk 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I mainly wanted to add the information on how you can obtain title records for a pseudonymous author, because ordinarily the summary page would not list any titles at all. MHHutchins 00:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Science in Fiction

You Tuck-verified this pub. It appears to list each item in its contents twice. Does it actually contain two different excerpts from each work, or is this an editing error, or what? -DES ^Talk 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the book, so I can only verify what is stated in Tuck's listing, which follows: "It contains one complete short story...("The Star")...and 11 episodes (titled by the compilers, but not given here) from books..." Tuck then proceeds to list the 11 novels that were excerpted. As he states, he doesn't give the titles that the compilers gave to each piece (which would have been nice.) It appears that an editor has added 11 new records giving the date of the original novels' publications, and forgot to delete the records which were created with the pub so are dated the year of this edition's publication (1957). Please feel free to delete those records from the pub. MHHutchins 02:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the Fall of Night

Is your Beyond the Fall of Night really packaged as a Novel internally? Locus seem to count it as a collection of two Novellas, my UK edition seems to be two Novels based on a quick sample word-count. They're certainly credited to separate authors in mine though. BLongley 17:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This edition is published as a novel. There is a foreword by Clarke (which I will add to my verified record), followed by "Part I", a "Prologue", followed by 18 numbered and titled chapters, "Part II" which includes chapters 19 - 36 (all individually numbered and titled). The title page states:

BEYOND

THE FALL

OF NIGHT

ARTHUR C. CLARKE

AND

GREGORY BENFORD

The copyright is 1990 by Arthur C. Clarke and Abbenford Associates. There is no other copyright notice and no acknowledgment of any other title. Other than in a front cover blurb, "Against the Fall of Night" is mentioned only in Clarke's introduction, which implies ("I'll leave you to enjoy both.") that his story and Benford's solo-written continuation is included in the book, but there is no distinction within the body of the book itself about who wrote what. In fact the cover states "Based on the novella AGAINST THE FALL OF NIGHT by Arthur C. Clarke". It doesn't state that Clarke's novella is part of the book. The front flap explicitly states that Clarke and Benford "team up to tell a riveting and moving story". Maybe tag-team! MHHutchins 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag-Team I guess - but I'm not really in the mood to go see if Clarke revised his part once again. We seem to count the collected version as the Gnome Press Novel version - but not always... BLongley 09:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The John W. Campbell Letters

Please see submission 1024245 which adds a lot of stuff to one of your verified publications. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin had asked if he could add some interior contents to this pub. I'll go ahead and approve it (but I'll have to change that strangeness for page 605!) Thanks. MHHutchins 02:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Martian Chronicles

You verified a 33rd printing. I'm about to verify a 42nd printing (October 1976) and noticed that the existing publications with contents are split into two groups based on if the story And the Moon Be Still as Bright has a leading dash/hyphen. Can you re-check your copy to see if it has a dash?

For the record I've added Author:Ray_Bradbury#The_Martian_Chronicles to help track the printing history. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That paperback is currently MIA. This happens sometimes between moving boxes up from the garage to be verified and returning them later. I'll keep looking and let you know when I find it. It's got to be here somewhere! MHHutchins 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No hurry - I've moved the table to Author:Ray_Bradbury#The_Martian_Chronicles. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Intangibles Inc. and Other Stories

Bluesman submitted a pub-delete of NTNGBLSNCN1971 which was verified 2007-01-23 by Unapersson. Mine is similar except there's no comma between "Intangibles" and "Inc". Can you check your edition please and see what Corgi did then? (Also, have you found a cover-scan for that yet? We've got over half the SF Collector's library covers found now, and I'd quite like to do a Gallery of the complete set when we have them.) BLongley 09:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My record was incorrect. It should not have had the comma in the title of the title story. I've corrected it and merged with the non-comma titles. Also I'll soon be loading a scan of my copy of this SF Collector's Library edition. MHHutchins 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The cover has been uploaded. Because of the textured paper the thumbnail looks a bit wonky, but the full image isn't too bad. I have about ten others in the series. I'll check out your page for the Library and see if I can fill in the gaps. MHHutchins 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw you didn't have the cover for Billion Year Spree and uploaded it. This is easier than I thought it'd be. What have you gotten me into here, Bill? MHHutchins 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the upload log, into a LOT of work! Yes, it's pretty easy when you skip the templates and just upload and use. BLongley 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose eventually someone might have to go back and add all the disclaimers, etc., but you're right, it's easy if you just upload and let go. MHHutchins 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this edition looks suspicious: the other Faber and Faber edition matches bookseller listings rather better, but this one looks as if it's cloned from an entry like yours and had SBN adjusted - but not price or page count. I'm tempted to delete it - what do you think? (Shame it's the year after Tuck finishes.) BLongley 09:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that one should be deleted. MHHutchins 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, zapped. BLongley 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Variable Man and other stories

Since there is no image and Ace is sometimes terrible in showing it's reprints. My copy has ACE|86050|$1.50 on left middle front cover. 441(over)86050(over)150 on spine. Copyright 1957 Ace Books on title page. No other dates except the individual copies copyrights. Would you confirm this as the image?
tp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VeS0MUOxL.jpg Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the correct cover for this edition. You can go ahead and add it to this record. MHHutchins 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Your Verified Pub Amazing Stories, May 1990

Publication dates for two poems, "SF Cliches: . . ." changed, and linked to series of same name. Added image link, changed pagination to include covers. Added volume information, circulation figures, and cover illustration title to notes. Added essay column "Inflections." Modified title of Robert Frazier bio for consistency with previous edits.--Rkihara 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rissa Kerguelen

I just read your excellent breakdown of this and have the second edition also. Is this the image. [7] . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the same artwork, but that's the cover for the first printing. If you want you can link the image to that record. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Verified pub New Dimensions 3

There is a publication month entered in the pub but the stories have a zero month. OK if I modify the publication month for the stories to be the same?--swfritter 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Same for Interfaces.--swfritter 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Those were instances where I updated the existing pubs (which were originally not dated by month) and failed to update each of the content records. Feel free to update the dates on those stories. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Synergy: New Science Fiction, Number 2

Locus Index has this entry: Synergy: New Science Fiction, Vol. 2 (HBJ Harvest 0-15-687701-5, Apr ’88, $7.95, 225pp, tp) Original anthology of 5 sf stories plus poetry. OK to change the date, book and stories, for the pub?--swfritter 18:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no month of publication stated in the pub, but I have no objection to your updating the record. Just note that the month of publication came from Locus. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know if there might be some other consideration with books. I want to get James Tiptree, Jr.'s works fixed so I can read them in the order that they were published, although her biography lists them in the order they were submitted and I may end up using that timeline.--swfritter 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tuck lookup request

I was wondering if you could check Tuck for me. I am trying to determine the canonical name for "Neil Bell" aka "Stephen Southwold" aka "S. H. Lambert" aka "Paul Martens", born as Stephen Henry Critten (But later changed legally to Stephen Southwold). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy (Clute) seems to have settled on "Neil Bell" as his "best known Pseudonym", even though it is where I got the fact that he changed name to Southwold. He apparently published under every name but his birth name. I will check my 79 & 95 Enc. of SF and see if Clute has an entry for him there as well, but I wanted someones opinion other than Clute for this tangled web. Thanks Kevin 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tuck lists three of his books (as by "Neil Bell"), but all in the entry for Stephen Southwold. I wouldn't let that be the determination of canonical name, as all of Cordwainer Smith's books are listed under Paul Linebarger, John Christopher's books are listed under Christopher Samuel Youd, John Taine's books are listed under Eric Temple Bell, Hal Clement's books are listed under Harry Clement Stubbs, etc. You get the picture. When it's pretty much established that authorship is under a penname, Tuck will list titles under the real author's name. I don't particularly like that. Al von Ruff and the creators of the ISFDB must feel the same as that's probably why the database establishes a canonical name. In this case, I'd go with Neil Bell as the canonical name, as that appears the name he used the most for his spec-fic work. Tuck marginally mentions a juvenile fantasy (The Tale of Joe Egg) published under the Southwold name, but doesn't provide a listing for it. He doesn't mention the Critten name at all, only that Southwold was born in 1887 in Britain. There's also no reference to "Martens" or "Lambert". Hope this helps. MHHutchins 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You looked that up faster than I have gotten around to digging out my reference books! Kevin 04:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Both 79 and 93 'Pedias agree with Bell as the canonical name, with cross references appearing under both Martens (The pseudonym of interest at the moment) and Southwold his legal name. Just thought I would post the rest of the research here incase anyone searches the archives later. Thanks again for checking Tuck. Kevin 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A Touch of Strange

Regarding your verified A Touch of Strange. I have the Doubleday/SFBC edition and the first story is The Pod in the Barrier while you verified The Pod and the Barrier. I doubt they'd change the name for the SFBD edition. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. This is among the first of my verifications, and I wasn't very good at catching any errors in titles that I was updating instead of entering from scratch. Looking at this makes me think that "The Pod in the Barrier" should be the canonical name as that was the title of the original magazine publication, and its the first collection appearance. I also have to wonder about the story's title in Starshine (even though there are several verifications) and the later DAW reprints of A Touch of Strange. MHHutchins 17:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looked like the variant title was backwards. I flipped it. I suppose we can poll the Starshine verifiers though all three of them are generally reliable and presumably someone at some point set up the variant title meaning they were paying attention to it. I set up the DAW edition contents pretty recently and so changed them to use The Pod in the Barrier. I probably should have documented where I saw it but the DAW editions are full reprints of the original hardcover while Starshine does not include all of the stories and apparently renames one of them too. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Doubleday & Company logo

I'm wondering if the thing I called the Doubleday logo on Publisher:Doubleday & Company, Inc. is the logo or if that's just a title illustration for this story. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that's the Doubleday logo because I've never seen it in any other pub. If you look closer at the chest of the male character in Mugnaini's cover drawing you'll see a similar pattern. I'm certain that the spaceship out the book was the Doubleday Science Fiction logo in the fifties and sixties as I've seen it innumerable times. MHHutchins 17:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I deleted the extra illustration. I know I've seen the book/spaceship a number of times. The plan is to document verifiable sightings and from that can we can state with some degree of confidence when a particular name or logo was used. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to your verified pub Asimov's Science Fiction, October-November 2008

Added information about the Finlay cover. Luckily I recognized the cover because I have recently been working on the mag it came from.--swfritter 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! I knew Finlay was no longer with us, and assumed it was a reprint, but had no idea where it originally appeared. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just glad you got the Asimov's issue into the database before I forgot about it. I get the ebook version and prefer the data to be entered from the physical mag.--swfritter 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation Trilogy

I have a pub-update for your verified The Foundation Trilogy on hold. Most of the changes look ok but the editor also removed some information such as the reference to the “Masterpieces of SF” series and "No ISBN, no printed price". You can reject/approve/edit as you see fit. Marc Kupper (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is looking more complicated and so I've started a thread on the the editor's page at User talk:Wlaplant#The Foundation Trilogy. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to verified pub Worlds of Tomorrow June 1964

Changed title from Worlds of Tomorrow Science Fiction to Worlds of Tomorrow. Don't know why these titles were entered with the "Science Fiction" part since the term appears no place on cover, spine, or title page.--swfritter 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I probably just updated the previously created record without checking the actual title on the magazine. MHHutchins 23:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Journeybread Recipe"

Could you please double check whether "Journeybread Recipe" in your verified Black Thorn, White Rose is a short story or an essay? We have another "Journeybread Recipe" (also by Lawrence Schimel), an essay, in Serve It Forth -- Cooking With Anne McCaffrey. Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a story told in the form of a recipe with 11 steps, only two pages long, and I would classify it as fiction rather than essay. Still, it's one of those hard-to-classify in-between neither-here-nor-there pieces. I don't have the McCaffrey book, but I'd bet it's the same work. MHHutchins 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! I have merged the Titles and added a note to the effect that it is "[a] story told in the form of an 11 step recipe". Ahasuerus 20:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that even if we had "Recipe" as a title option we'd ever agree. Some are surely serious (I have "Fan-Foodery" to enter at some point, which should be all practical) and I'm avoiding Nanny Ogg's Cookbook ("Raisin Bread": "take one Raisin and 10,000 pounds of flour...") and all those "Eye of Newt" spell recipes may be taken seriously by SOMEONE. Can we have a "Can of Worms" option for titles in the meantime? Or would that be considered an ingredient? BLongley 00:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Flying Sorcerers

Just a note that I have added "Stated first publication in Great Britain" to your verified Corgi edition of The Flying Sorcerers. Ahasuerus 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't very good at adding notes back then, especially about edition statements. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Elidor

Michael if you still have the book can you see what the publishers name is for Elidor[8] and is the printing date 1978? Thanks!Kraang 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Title page states publisher is Philomel Books, spine of dustjacket states Philomel, book inside flap states Philomel Books, spine of book states Philomel, title verso page states "Published in the United States by Philomel Books. a division of The Putnam Publishing Group," so I feel safe in leaving the pub record as is, but the date... Well that's another kettle of fish.

There's no date other than the year of copyright (1965). I think I was wrong to base my dating of this pub on the Library of Congress cataloging info on the title verso (LCC #78-8379). Checking copies of Locus for 1978 and 1979, I could only find an edition published by Collins in November 1979 for $7.95 with an ISBN that is listed in my book as the previous ISBN. This leads to believe my edition is several years later. OCLC doesn't date this pub. I keep checking for more info, but in the meantime I'm going to undate this one and add the 1979 Collins edition. Thanks for the heads up. MHHutchins 01:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks this helps add more data to what I've been doing in the Wiki[9]. I asked about the date because the current owner Penguin notes the imprint starting in the early 1980's.Kraang 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On the front or back flap they would put a four digit number at the bottom, is there one on yours?Kraang 02:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know some publishers will date their dustjackets, so I checked this and it had no numbers that could be interpreted as a date. MHHutchins 02:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To bad, thanks!Kraang 02:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Verified Pub - The Light Invisible

I updated the publisher for THLGHTNVSB1920. I have a publisher in that dame decade documented in Bleiler78, as 'Burns & Oates' not 'Bruns & Oates'. I also verified with a google search that Burns & Oates was a Catholic publisher (now an imprint?) founded in 1835 by James Burns, and that seemed to fit the data available. I don't know if you want to just accept this, or to recheck Tuck and see if Tuck states 'Bruns' or 'Burns'. Kevin 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was perpetuating an error from Tuck, but checking just now, it appears that I entered it incorrectly (or I Tuck-verified a previous editor's entry error.) Thanks for catching it. It appears that Tuck made a couple more errors in his listing. According to OCLC, this edition was published in 192- (meaning sometime in the 20s) by Burns, Oates & Washbourne with 251 pages (the first 16 were unnumbered with a few being roman-numeraled.) Does Bleiler78 give the full name of the publisher as the OCLC record? MHHutchins 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I found this error when checking to see what entries for Burns already existed to enter a different work. I don't have that part of Bleiler in front of me, but invariably, No. Bleiler does not state full publisher names, but the entry that led me here was listed as 'Burns & Oates; London' for THGDDSSFGH1915. I hesitate to combine with Washbourne entries because I don't know when that name was added and my entry was from an even earlier decade. Kevin 04:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Shore of Women

The Shore of Women[10]. Is this imprint Crown Publishers? Also what does the copyright page say about the parent company? Random House Inc purchased the parent company Crown Publishing Group in 1988 but Abe books and Amazon also list publisher as "Random House Value Publishing" which did stuff for the remainder bins. Thanks!Kraang 01:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Publisher as stated on the title page is Crown Publishers, Inc. / New York. It is not an imprint. There is no reference to Random House or any other publisher. I NEVER trust Amazon for true publisher information, and the abebooks.com dealers are replicating Amazon's errors in their listings. How many HarperCollins or Palgrave Macmillan books were published in the 70s? You'd never know the truth if you believed Amazon's data. MHHutchins 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Verified Pub - Slightly Off Center

Your entry for SLTLOC1992 has a publisher listed as 'Swan Press', unfortunately I've discovered there are several Swan Presses. Could you please confirm that you book is published by Swan Press of Austin Texas, or some other US Location? (There is also a Swan Press of Leeds (UK) (possibly defunct), Swann Press of Sussex (UK) (claims to be 40 years old), Swann Sonnenschein of London (UK), and some 'Swan' of London, but since your price is in Dollars, I'm betting it s a US Publisher). Thanks Kevin 06:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Publisher is based in Austin Texas. I changed credit in this publication to "Swan Press (Austin)". I also changed the 1940s UK publications that Tuck attributed as simply "Swan" to "Gerald G. Swan" when other secondary sources (e.g. OCLC) agreed. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin 17:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover art credit for your verified edition of Lynn's A DIFFERENT LIGHT. Going by Wayne Barlowe's B-in-a-box signature. Don Erikson 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Listeners by James E. Gunn

Here is your verification [11] . I am verifying a different printing, but used the same breakdown as you did. I have been asked if the last 'Computer 2118' should not be a short story. The book is new to me, but it looks like a non-standard novel to me. Would you please come to my page and enlighten us. It is under 'The Listeners' and for life of me I can not think of how to make a link to it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Ways

In checking my copy against the record you have a Tuck verification. I have no problem with the raw data, but the picture is wrong. [12] . It should be this [13] . I would also like to add the copyright date, 'complete & unabridged' from the front cover, the Ace logo (over) D-568 (over) 35 cent symbol at left upper front cover and Ace logo (over) D-568 on top spine in the notes. Thanks, Harry. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that cover art is totally wrong. You can zoom in and see that it's a later Ace printing (with a different name even!) This must have happened after I Tuck-verified it. Since Tuck doesn't provide pictures or cover artist, when you see a Tuck-verified pub it only means that the fields that apply to Tuck have been verified. I'm going to remove that cover link and place it with the correct pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Other Human Race

In verifying this, [14] I noticed you have a Tuck verification. The data is good, but I wish to add the image [15] , the Avon script at top of the front cover and bottom spine and the copyright to the notes. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. If you're certain that everything on your copy matches a verified pub (primary or otherwise) go ahead and update the pub. As a courtesy, you can notify the primary verifier so that he knows you're editing his verified pub. But if it's Tuck-verified, because he doesn't provide cover info, just go ahead and update the pub. If any other fields don't match up with a Tuck-verified pub, then double-check with Tuck (if you don't have a copy, you can ask me). He made very few mistakes, but I've catch one every now and then. On a pub-by-pub updating/verifying, I'm currently only up into the Bs in Tuck, but there are hundreds that I verified beyond the Bs when the situation arose. MHHutchins 02:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gutter code 2?

See User talk:Bluesman#A Mile Beyond the Moon. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on Bluesman's page. Thanks for the heads-up. MHHutchins 06:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Brothers of Earth

I have a copy of what appears to be either the same publication as your verified copy, or perhaps the 2nd printing (my copy has gutter code G39, which ought to mean a printing date of Sept or Oct, and a publication date of Oct or Nov, while yours is dated June). Would you object to my scanning and uploading a cover image? Would a note of the Gutter code be properly added to your pub, or do you think that is reason enough to create a separate record for an otherwise identical pub? -DES ^Talk 05:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that additional printings of SFBC editions based on gutter code information should be listed in the pub's notes, and that a new pub record should not be created. You can add a cover scan as I'm sure it wasn't changed for a printing later in the same year. I'll confirm that it matches mine. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please consider revising your personal feelings, or develop consensus on the rules page, as they seem to go against the current help which calls for a separate publication record for each printing.

• ISFDB:About#How does the ISFDB deal with multiple printings of the same edition? "The ISFDB creates one record per printing. The reason for this is that although in many cases separate printings can be almost indistinguishable, there are also many cases when they can be different, sometimes drastically so."
• Help:Glossary "Two copies of the same printing of Asimov's Lucky Starr and the Big Sun of Mercury are the same publication; two copies of a different printing of the same edition are different publications."
• Help:Getting Started:Verify a Novel "If you've found that your book is already in the ISFDB, in this exact edition -- same publisher, same date, same printing -- then there's no need to enter it."
• Help:Screen:Moderator#DeletePub "For example, editors may think two publications are duplicate when in fact they are different printings of the same edition of a publication."
• Help:Screen:Moderator#NewPub "An editor may mistakenly enter an late reprinting using the copyright date instead of the printing date."

When I started using ISFDB I did multiple printings in the notes for a bit but then realized that created a problem when it came to verifying publications as the person was usually just verifying one printing meaning each verifier would need to update to notes to explain who was verifying which printing. That would be cumbersome, particularly we we can't use a wikitext ~~~~. One publication record per printing solves this and will also be better down the road when we add printing # support. Marc Kupper (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the situation with SFBC printings presents a matter that is not covered as thoroughly as the citations you provide would lead one to believe. When it comes to pubs that are clearly marked as to the printing whether explicitly ("Second Ballantine printing") or implicitly (Number line indicates "2 3 4 5 6"), there is no question that each printing should have its own record. It seems you've been very clear lately that all data have reliable sources (especially in your work on verified publishers project on the Wiki pages). Yet most of us have easily fell into the belief that gutter codes are sui generis, without any definitive source for the information we're dolling out. And I readily admit to being among that group. When the situation with SFBC editions first arouse, within weeks of my becoming an editor here at the ISFDB, the silent response to my questions about entering such pubs was almost palpable. So I took on the task of personally creating standards for entering SFBC editions, made everyone aware of what I'd done, and asked for feedback. Still, very little response. The one area I quibbled about was how printings beyond the first would be handled. The question arose several times, and my response was "Take it to the rules and standards page and start a discussion." It never happened. Is it not strange that you ask me to revise my personal feelings, when you've not asked me the reasons that led me to those feelings? Please feel free to carry this discussion to the rules page so that all interested parties might join in. MHHutchins 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rule of the Pagbeasts

Just to let you know that Don has physically verified The Rule of the Pagbeasts, which you had previously Tuck-verified. He changed the year from 1966-00-00 to 1956-00-00 and the Catalog ID from "50" to "150". I have double checked Tuck, who lists 1956 as the year and "50" as the Catalog ID. I have made a note of the catalog IS discrepancy in the Notes field. Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My ears are burning. As to the catalog ID, I checked the reasonably accurate Kevin Hancer's THE PAPERBACK PRICE GUIDE #2 and it shows no Crest book with a number lower that 114. Don Erikson 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't as thorough there in checking the original pub record against Tuck as I should have been. And Tuck makes mistakes as well (as this makes clear.) Thanks. MHHutchins 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gordon R. Dickson's SF Best

FYI, I have added two comments to your verified Dell edition of Gordon R. Dickson's SF Best: "Stated first printing; no number line." and "Gordon R. Dickson Bibliography" billed as simply "Bibliography" in the table of contents." Unfortunately, I am unable to decipher the signature on the cover -- it's right next to the woman's left foot, but my optical receptors fail me :( Ahasuerus 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the note. When I get a chance, I'll take a crack at decoding the signature. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Nexus

Added $C price to BKTG11326 .--Bluesman 17:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. MHHutchins 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dream Park

Does your copy of DREAMPK1981 have a gutter code of L21 on page 340? Thought I would check before adding it to the verified record notes.--Bluesman 19:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, my copy has the same code. MHHutchins 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell-Bound Train: The or That

Please take a look at ISFDB:Verification requests#"That Hell-Bound Train" when you have a chance. You verified The Fantasy Hall of Fame, one of the titles that included the story in quewstion. Your input would be helpful. Thank you. -DES ^Talk 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the verification page. MHHutchins 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems to be a bit of a mess. -DES ^Talk 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Updates to SFBC 1980-1984

I noticed you removed the comments that both Bluesman and I had left on Publisher:SFBC 1980-1984 regarding dates/publications and also added months & seasons to the table but no titles. I'm thinking that for each year, 1984 in this case, you should have just before the table something that provides the source of information for that year. Presumably you have an SFBC 1984 catalog.

For example, with Clay's Ark I had that listed as October 1984 as someone at one point had set that date and the price $3.98 on the publication record though did not leave a note explaining the source of this information. Thus we have an October-1894 with no source and you changed it to Fall-1984 again with no source. I suspect I should chase down who added the information to Clay's Ark to see if they have a source for the October date and the price as apparently it conflicts with whatever you are using as a source. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluesman's note about the Niven book ("Gutter code would indicate an August printing, but the record has publication date of October, though the verifier did not confirm this.") was removed because it simply stated an obvious conclusion. We know the book was printed before it was the club's selection, as logic would indicate. Your comments about Clay's Ark were removed because they duplicate the notes in the pub's record. The link you placed to the pub record from the listing was all that was necessary for someone to find the info that you added. When Bluesman added jacket numbers to some of the SFBC pubs that he was verifying, he was also duplicating information that was in the pub record. I explained the reason that I felt this was not necessary on the listing that I created. Just as I believe you would feel the same if someone started adding extraneous information to your DAW Books listing (such as cover artist, or page count). I'm not being proprietary here. Anyone has the power to change a Wiki page. But as I explained to Bluesman, the purpose of this Wiki listing was not to duplicate the pub records. Because most SFBC selections were originally published by many different publishers, there's no way that a search (presently) could create this listing from information in the database itself. Thus the Wiki accomplishes something that the ISFDB alone can't. The purpose was to create a chronological listing of SFBC selections with links to the pub records for further information. I further told Bluesman that if he felt strongly about changing the purpose of the list he could bring it to everyone's attention on the community portal. Please feel free to do the same.

The source for Clay's Ark as the Fall 1984 club selection is here, a source that I've found to be very reliable, as it consistently matched the info from my club catalogs throughout the period of my membership. Locus #288 (January 1985) lists the book as received in November 1984. Except for very early in its history, Locus has never given the club selection date nor the original publisher credit. In case you've forgotten, you asked earlier in the month on the SFBC talk page about my sources for the listing.

I've put off listing selections after 1983, as I was no longer a member of the club, and considering how persistent you have been recently about having verified sources, I'm not in a hurry to continue the listing. I've also abandoned my attempt to list all of the Easton Press Masterpieces of Science Fiction series. (c.v.)

Again, the reason for removing the comments was simply to maintain the integrity of the listing. MHHutchins 05:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Please note that I'm not persistent about verified sources but am about sources. If you want a cite a source such as James Nicoll on rec.arts.sf.written then that's fine. I see that he is reporting his sources as "Lists courtesy of Andrew Wheeler. Contents for anthologies and omnibuses from the Locus Index to Science Fiction". It's also ok with me to cite their own "personal recollection." The goal is to allow people to make their own determination on if data is reliable and it also gives them a starting place should they have a question about a particular item.

With Clay's Ark one unknown source says "October" and another said "Fall." You have provided a source that reports "Fall" and so we'll go with though though I'll include in the notes publication that an unknown source had reported "October." It's entirely possible that a person knew it was fall and entered it into ISFDB as 1984-10-00 simply as that was a date close to fall. Had the October person left even the briefest source reference it would save us some trouble and mystery.

I had left notes on the SFBC wiki pages as a heads up that "this particular date may not be accurate and so don't take it as gospel." I would not expect people to be clicking through to every single publication record to check if the notes say something. The odds are that at some point someone will be taking the pages and copying them to another web site and word'll get around that "this list is the official list" or something like that. Obviously, someone can take the list and remove our source references, notes about "this gutter code needs to be double checked" or whatever but that's their problem. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the dating of seasonal selections (because "Fall" doesn't easily translate into the requirement of YEAR-MO-DA) I've suggested that an editor can use the first dated month before it's seasonal dating. In 1984, Fall was preceded by a "Special Cycle" selection which was preceded by October, meaning that the Fall selection would have appeared later than usual, probably at the very end of October or the first week of November (Locus received their copy in November).

Concerning the citing of sources: I point out again that the sources are listed on the SFBC talk page. If I ever decide to continue the listing I'll add my sources to this page. MHHutchins 05:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange Doings

You reported Strange Doings as "First Printing stated." Can you check to see if that's a USA or Canadian printing? What's the number line? Thanks! Marc Kupper (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It states "Printed in U.S.A.", but the number line indicates a second printing ("2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9"). So I'm going to remove my verification of this record and move it to this one. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 05:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Futurity / The Unteleported Man

I suspect your verified Dr. Futurity / The Unteleported Man may hold the answer to this question - can you have a look at the cover please and see if we can verify the signature? BLongley 19:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Coming of the Quantum Cats

Added the gutter code of Q28 to BKTG13528, as this coincides with the July publication date in the verified record.--Bluesman 00:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Pohl

Added to the notes of THRLPHLBNC1976 the gutter code G21, consistent with the June publication date and the PUBLISHER:SFBC db and book-in-hand.--Bluesman 00:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Outnumbering the Dead

Was about to do a Transient verification on BKTG13631 and when checking the data noticed that the SFBC # on the back cover of my copy was different than the one listed. Mine is #01808-5. Have never seen a hyphenated SFBC # before. I assume yours has #01808? Without a clue what the "-5" means, should this be entered as a separate pub?--Bluesman 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my copy has the -5. Either I entered it incorrectly, or verified a previous editor.s entry error. I've changed it. Thanks for the heads-up. MHHutchins 05:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the Veil of Stars

Added $c price to BYNDVSTRS1994A --Bluesman 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Beneath the Gated Sky

Added $C price to BNTHTHGTDS1998 and checked Amazon which shows identical covers for the HC & TP. Did not change your note or add artist to the record.--Bluesman 16:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Down the Bright Way

Added $C price to DWNBRTWY1991 --Bluesman 17:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please continue to add the Canadian price in my verified pubs' note fields without going through the effort of notifying me. As an ethnocentric murican, I tend to overlook such details. :) Thanks. MHHutchins 05:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will put them in very tiny print...--Bluesman 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful of what you wish for. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"uncle"!!!! now HOW did you do that???????--Bluesman 03:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Go to edit this section and look at Marc's HTML code. (I'm glad he closed it. Otherwise everything after it would be the same size!) MHHutchins 04:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

At Winter's End

Just added the SFBC edition of this title BKTG16199 and came across a very strange code/series of numbers on the FEP opposite the title page, and I was wondering if they are present on the edition you verified. JOBS0 2292$$$$FM 12-15-87 17-15-39. Have no clue what they might mean.--Bluesman 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Must be unique to the book club edition. No such code appears on my trade edition. The part "12-15-87" might be a date, even though the trade edition was published in April 1988 and the book club edition was published in September 1988. Perhaps the "JOB" was contracted in December of 1987. MHHutchins 05:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious - 1988 is both the end of the gutter codes and the merger with Bantam / Dell Publishing. perhaps in the transition they contracted out for book manufacturing? I just did a quick check of my SFBC 1988 books and none of them have strange codes (nor gutter codes). Marc Kupper (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

this is the only one I've seen with this very odd sequence..., an internal code???--Bluesman 03:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Marc, I realized awhile back that it was more than a coincidence that the dropping of gutter codes occurred within the same year as Bertelsmann purchased Doubleday, Dell and Bantam, creating the Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group. I've discovered that the Garden City, New York plant that Doubleday used for decades was shut down in 1988. When other printers were contracted to publish Doubleday (and SFBC printings), there appeared to be no need for gutter codes. MHHutchins 04:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your verified publications, Asimov's Jan to March 1979

I added covers to these three issues. Ok? I am probably going to slowly add cover at least for the rest of year in a week or two or three or... Do you want to be notified of those additions? Tpi 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not necessary. I don't think it's likely that there be a variation in the cover art. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Day It Rained Forever

This. [16] . You have a Tuck verification for this. I have a 1963 printing that predates it. Tuck pg 63 left column (under Medicine for Melancholy) seems to support my 1963 version. I asked for help at the Help Desk [17] on it for several problems I foresaw. Bill caught this one and suggested I drop a line. I am going to clone from the 1967 version in case there is one and work from there. I also propose to remove the first printing notation from the 1967. Could you please check and confirm. Thanks, Harry --Dragoondelight 13:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Pardon, but if I read the Tuck pg 63, correctly paragraph following with short story listing, "Dark They Were, and Golden-Eyed" ("The Naming of Names"). Is Tuck saying this is a variant title. Note my edition says Dark They Were and Golden-Eyed with no comma. I am wondering if Tuck added the comma. I am also wondering about listing the title without comma as a variant. The Little Mice (Mice) also.Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Tuck only lists a 1963 printing from Penguin, so the verification I placed on the 1967 printing was incorrect. I don't believe that a 1967 printing would have had the same price as the 1963 one. Around that time the average UK paperback was 5/6. I'll delete the 1967 printing. As for the variant title, Tuck often states the published title followed by the variant title in parentheses. He doesn't make distinctions about commas, ellipses, dashes, only if there's a completely new title. If Tuck's titling is wrong, that doesn't constitute a need for making a variant. Only if there is an actual publication of the story with that title should a variant be created. I believe he's also mistaken the original title of "The Little Mice". We already have a variant for "The Mice" but there's no publications listed under that title. Seems a little more research would find where it was published as "The Mice". MHHutchins 03:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be two almost identical pub records for the 1963 printing: here and here. Since you have that printing in hand, go ahead and verify one and delete the other. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read the exchange between you and Bill over this pub. You two can decide which record to keep. :) MHHutchins 04:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I will defer to Bill. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Verified pub In Iron Years - the story "Gifts..."

Your verified pub has the story as "Gifts...". I strongly suspect that somebody else changed the title from "Gifts" when they edited the issue of Astounding it first appeared in - and there was the cascade effect. The art director of Astounding during this period had a tendency to go totally wacky with with the ellipsis in the graphic art for story titles. Both the TOC and footer pages in the mag do not have ellipsis - and Contento and Strauss both list it as "Gifts".--swfritter 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the ellipsified title from my verified pub, and made the title record in my edition a variant of the original magazine title. You might want to ask Don Erikson about his verified record of the pb edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My actual intent was to remove the ellipsis from the original story.--swfritter 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Astounding August 1938

Added the reviews for the C. S. Lewis trilogy which is discussed extensively in the essay portion of "The Reference Library". Linked some reviews - which I would probably normally not notify another editor about. Also noted that you used "John W. Campbell, Jr. [as by The Editor ]" which I have discussed elsewhere recently and which I think is proper - at least for Astounding.--swfritter 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. For a moment I thought you had to be mistaken, as I don't have any Astoundings from the 30s. Then the link led to the August 1958 issue. MHHutchins 04:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Those intros to "The Reference Library" can be very deceiving. About half the time no specific books are discussed and, when they are discussed, it often takes some work to ferret out the information.--swfritter 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Epoch - Timetripping vs. Timetipping

Could you please recheck

• 171 • Timetripping • (1975) • shortstory by Jack Dann [as by Jack M. Dann ]

in your verified Epoch? I have a different anthology and it's Timetipping in this one. The story starts out "Since timetipping, everything moved differently." I'm wondering if both the title and story changed. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Either I entered it incorrectly or verified a previously entered error. I've corrected the spelling and merged it with the title record from your anthology. Thanks again. MHHutchins 01:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Chrysalis 6

I am working on Stephen Goldin tonight and I see that your verified Chrysalis 6 lists his story as "Appolyon Ex Machina" while Goldin's Web site lists it as "Apollyon Ex Machina" in his recent electronic reprint collection. Could you please double check your copy? Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad! Should have one "p" and two "l"s. I've corrected it. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, merged! Ahasuerus 04:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Face of the Waters

Please see ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard#Doubly Verified pubs Marc Kupper (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mutant Season

Was about to add a TP pub to BKTG16256 but noticed the price is the same as for the HC edition you verified, plus the TP copyright page says "First Edition" and also has a publication date of November, '89. Is there a HC edition? If not then just changing the binding in the existing verified record would be simpler. If there is a HC then I'll create another entry for the TP edition.--Bluesman 03:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My edition should have been TP. Thanks for catching the mistake. MHHutchins 03:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To Worlds Beyond

I have cross-verified Invaders from Earth and To Worlds Beyond, but I wonder if "Introduction (To Worlds Beyond)" should be dated 1965 rather than 1980. Silverberg mentions that "[i]n only a handful of years men will walk through lunar dust", which rules out 1980 and probably 1969, when the Sphere reprint was published. Ahasuerus 02:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I see that ErnestoVeg had earlier marked this pub record as verified against Locus1 and "N/A" for Contento. Surely it should be the other way around for a collection published in 1965? Ahasuerus 02:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. ACCESS Pennsylvania reports that the 1965 Chilton edition had "a foreword by Isaac Asimov", so I think it's pretty safe to change its date to 1965 and add it to the Chilton pub. Numerous UK universities confirm that all fiction pieces appeared in the 1969 Sphere reprint, but they don't mention either one of the essays; dropping introduction wouldn't be unusual for a UK reprint, so I would hesitate to add them to the 1969 record. Ahasuerus 02:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, never mind, I have found my Chilton edition! (A second printing, but still.) It contains both the Asimov and the Silverberg, so we are all set :) Ahasuerus 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was around the time of this edition that Silverberg was writing new introductions to Ace reissues of his earlier work. I didn't read the intro itself, assuming it was one of the new ones. Thanks for the clarification. MHHutchins 04:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Her Pilgrim Soul and Other Stories

A new editor, User:Jayembee, proposes to add a note to your verifeid pub that reads:

Title given as "Her Pilgrim Soul" on jacket spine and cover, and as "Her Pilgrim Soul and Other Stories" on title and copyright pages.

The submisson is here. I have it on hold. Feel free to approve it, or reject it, or let me know if such an addition is welcome and I'll deal with it. I'm not sure that the editor has found the wiki yet, so communication with him or her may not be easy. However, we should let the editor know about our convention of using titles from the title page. I'm not sure if we should discourage adding such notes, however.

I await your response or action. -DES ^Talk 16:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I approved the submission as the note is correct. It's good that this editor didn't try to change the actual title of the publication. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Seed of Earth

Cross-verified The Seed of Earth and added page numbers to it, mostly so that the introduction would appear first. Ahasuerus 03:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Martian Chronicles

Please see Please see ISFDB:Help desk#The Martian Chronicles / The Silver Locusts title variants. -Marc Kupper|talk 15:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Armageddon Rag

A realatively new editor: User:Jayembee, prioposed to change the date of your verified pub, submitting the following note: "Publication date should be 1983-11 per code number on the back of the dust jacket: "1183-1550" (Jayembee)". The submission is here. (It looks looks to me as if User:Jayembee is reading his or her wiki page, but not posting to the wiki yet.) Feel free to approve or reject this, as it concerns your verified pub, or to let me know your views. -DES ^Talk 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Handled. Thanks for the heads up. MHHutchins 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Magicats!

User:MA Lloyd has submitted a change to your verified "assumed first printing" of this book. It looks like he has a different printing, so I have put his submission on hold for your reviewing pleasure :) Ahasuerus 01:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he meant to clone my printing, but updated by mistake. I'll reject the submission but create a new one with the info he provided. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Altered Ego

Was adding data to THLTRDGHLB1954 and came across something that makes no sense. I have the first Pennant PB edition of this pub and on the copyright page it has the Rinehart edition data (first pub July 1954; first printing May 1954) but for the SFBC edition it states: "SFBC selection for April 1954". This would pre-date the Rinehart HC. Currey gives the first edition as the Rinehart, but the pub record has you verifying the SFBC as September through Tuck. I added the pub data to the Rinehart but don't think all this adds up for the SFBC edition.--Bluesman 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The publishing history printed in the Pennant pb must be mistaken. There's no way that the SFBC edition was published before the trade edition. You can add the info to the Pennant edition note field, pointing out the inconsistency, but don't change the date of the SFBC edition's record based on this info. I trust Tuck unless there's incontrovertible evidence that he's mistaken (which happens sometimes, but percentage-wise, it's quite rare.) Maybe someone mistook "9/54" for "4/54" when the info was being compiled for the Pennant pb. MHHutchins

Didn't/wouldn't change the date without this data check. Will add the "inconsistency" to the Pennant record. Thanks.--Bluesman 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Phillipa / Philippa [C.] Maddern, especially in Lee Harding's Rooms of Paradise

Hi, I'm trying to tidy Ms Maddern's data. As far as I can determine, she is Philippa (1 L, 2 Ps). Would you please check in your copy of Lee Harding's Rooms of Paradise which you verified, to see how she is listed (page 100), 'cos I don't know where the typo is. ISFDB has the story as by Phillipa Maddern. (My 1978 edn has Philippa C. Maddern).

Also, I wonder if you have Eidolon, Winter 1990 which has the other story "The Subconscious Computer" I am unable to check. If so, would you please check. Thanks --j_clark 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this question to the bottom of the page since I ran into the same issue earlier today. Ahasuerus 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The author's name was incorrect in my verified pub. I've updated the record and merged it with the existing record under "Philippa C. Maddern". Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sorry, I don't have the magazine with the other "Phillipa" story. My collection is sorely lacking of Australian sf magazines. MHHutchins 05:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Verified pub "E Pluribus Unicorn"

The story "Sears" in this pub. Is it possible that is actually "Scars", the story that appeared in many previous editions?--swfritter 00:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Should have been "Scars". I've corrected it and merged with the existing title record. Thanks for catching the typo. MHHutchins 02:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--swfritter 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Meet Me at Infinity

Just did a Transient on MEETMEAT2000 and you have a note "All fiction contents listed, more non-fiction pieces are forthcoming" yet the contents list is complete...?? What is left to come?--Bluesman 02:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This was one of those multiple-entry records. After adding the first set, I placed a note that I'd be returning to add the rest. Then I forgot to remove the note when I completed the contents! I'll remove the note. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Venus Plus X

I've updated Venus Plus X

• Added cover image
• Added notes (there were none) --Marc Kupper|talk 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the cover. And thanks for the notes. That one was verified early in my ISFDB career, and I wasn't adding notes then. MHHutchins 06:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Swords Against Darkness

I've updated this publication. I've added the cover artist credit since the cover is signed. --Gloinson 04:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the credit. MHHutchins 07:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Verified Nine Tomorrows

I added a note with the stated publishing history to your verified pub Nine Tomorrows, and a transient verification, as it seems we have identical printings. -DES ^Talk 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Downward to the Earth

I have added a cover image to your verified copy of Downward to the Earth by Silverberg. I trust it is the correct image.

I have also uploaded Image:Downward to the Earth-sig.jpg, an enlarged scan of the signature from that cover. -DES ^Talk 17:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the same cover. MHHutchins 18:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think 1600 DPI was a bit much for the sig scan - it introduces pixellation that makes it harder to decipher. I made the same mistake at first, and now try to reduce the resolution to something that doesn't don't hurt my eyes so much. BLongley 20:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will try at lower values in future. -DES ^Talk 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater

Added another printing to this title GDBLSSMRRB1974, as a separate pub and noticed no Dell pub has the artist. Just left of the cover character's right foot, outside the cage, there is a signature. I can only make out "....uth" at the end. Can you see any more on your copy? Mine has a fair amount of foxing.--Bluesman 17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hocus Pocus

Does your Verified copy of BKTG19086 have "Jr." anywhere? I have a 1st/1st and the first PB edition as well and it just isn't there. Seems he dropped it at some point (maybe after his father died?) but most of the pub records still have the "Jr." designation.--Bluesman 19:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Checked. It should be no "Jr." I found a few more suspect records. Here's one of yours. And a few verified by Bill Longley: Timequake, Deadeye Dick, and Galapagos. I'll ask Bill about them. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably worth me having another look, but I dealt with a load of these last night and got fed up with the title un-merges, make variants, re-merges etc. Maybe later this week. And I'm pretty sure I can't have got ALL mine wrong, for some authors the cover is really inaccurate - e.g. there's a lot of British "Robert Heinlein" covers with "Robert A. Heinlein" title pages. I think I might invest some time in developing quick single-button short-cuts like adding "Yes, author is as stated on title-page, don't be fooled by the cover" to notes, or "Cover artist is not credited but cover is signed" which seems almost as common now. I can do scripts for "publication is under the wrong author" too, but it's a pain to fix such when found so I haven't bothered so far. Hmmm... maybe that's something that I should let Data Thief work on... BLongley 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't choose those pubs because their covers show "Kurt Vonnegut" as the author. We all know that can't be a determinant in crediting authorship. I listed them here because they were verified titles (by a currently active editor) of works that were first published as by "Kurt Vonnegut", and being British, we could see if the UK publications had the same authorship as the US first editions. MHHutchins

I've checked the three you mentioned, and you're right, they're Vonnegut (no Jr) on title page. Adjusted now. Also Slapstick or Lonesome No More! which belies its cover. From looking at the "other books by this author" sections, cover name was "With Jr" for at least nine different 1980 titles - but title-page might be different from as early as 1978. By 1984 the "Jr" seems mostly gone on both, but I have a very limited selection to examine. BLongley 23:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And Bill, I'd love to see a list of publications under the wrong author, when you get a chance to write the script. Give me something to work on in between projects! Which reminds me. Whatever happened to the Data Consistency Project? Has that been completed or do the scripts need to be reran? MHHutchins

Some areas were pretty thoroughly cleaned up, but a number of others were barely scratched. Besides, all scripts need to be rerun every few months to identify newly introduced discrepancies.

I haven't done much on the Data Discrepancy front lately since I have been writing a tool which creates ISFDB submissions based on information in library catalogs and bookstores. It's almost (but not quite) ready for prime time with some 100,000+ "suspect" ISBNs sitting on my hard drive, patiently waiting to be submitted. My biggest concerns at this time are:

• data quality -- similar to the problems that plague Dissembler, and
• our ability to process that many submissions without losing what's left of our minds

With luck, I should be able to take the first batch of submissions for a test drive some time this weekend once I polish the code some more. I am not the kind of demon programmer that Al is (no horns, even), so things are going a little slower than I originally hoped. Besides, some of the data out there is so dirty that even a legion of bona fide devils couldn't clean it up programmatically... Ahasuerus 01:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've come up with a script for the simple single-author cases. Except it shows up the multiple-author pubs under single-author titles and such. 955 results seems a bit of a big list though, so I'll try and fix a few of them myself where they're simple and maybe break them up by verifier for the more complicated cases. If you like I'll provide you with a sample of yours - I'm going to fix mine in private, I think. BLongley 22:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I can rerun some of the older scripts too, but some of them need rewriting - e.g. the "Authors that only exist due to reviews" predates the Review linking changes Al gave us. BLongley 22:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Mike Cross has been working on submissions for his BSFA magazine data with a bit of input from me (see the latest Data Thief submission) - if that works out then I'll probably be a bit swamped paginating those. BLongley 22:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Verified Pub Astounding, January 1952

Changed cover credit from "Hubert Rogers" to "Rogers" as credited. Added "Nav Bar" to notes, and changed the volume number from Roman to Arabic numerals. Added to notes. Changed title of reviewed book from Possible Worlds of Tomorrow, to "Possible Worlds of Science Fiction," as listed in pub. Added essay "In Times to Come." Checked transient verification.--Rkihara 03:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I carried over the cover credit from the original record. You might want to check other Astounding covers by Rogers as there are more that are credited to Hubert Rogers. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cities in Flight-change in Afterword title

This. [18] . I have the eighth printing and have submitted this Afterword: The Earthmanist Culture: Cities In Flight as a Spenglerian History as shown on page 597 of my copy. This is just an advisory. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They'd Rather Be Right

User:MA Lloyd would like to change the price of your verified Donning/Starblaze edition of this book from $5.95 to $4.95. I have put it on hold for your reviewing pleasure. Ahasuerus 08:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He would also like to change the price of your verified The Best of Avram Davidson, which may be legitimate given the Note, but I have put it on hold as well. Ahasuerus 08:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up and for placing the edits on hold. I've left a note on MA Lloyd's talk page to gather further info. MHHutchins 05:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Best of the Best edited by Dozois

The answer to your question is on my talk page. Sorry for the delayed response. -- JLaTondre 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Citadel of the Autarch

User:Gilgamesh has added a cover scan to your verified 1982-00-00 printing of Wolfe's The Citadel of the Autarch. Ahasuerus 17:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I also have his his changes to Exodus from the Long Sun on hold. Please see Community Portal for details. Ahasuerus 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cover is correct, and I've responded to the other issue on the Community Portal talk page. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Variant Title Question

Since you asked me the question about the Waldrop variant title, I'll run this by you...

This record lists "I Row-Boat" as a variant title of "I, Row-Boat" based upon this book. However, in checking the book's record against my copy, the book actually uses the normal version of the title and not the variant. How do I correct this? Edit the book's record and also submit a change to delete the variant title record? Or something else?

Thanks. -- JLaTondre 23:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Because this title record has only one pub, which contains the story as "I Row-Boat", then change the title record, and merge the two identical records. Step by step:

1. Open this title record and click "Edit Title Data".
2. Change the title from "I Row-Boat" to "I, Row-Boat". Click "Submit Data".
3. After it's been approved, go to Cory Doctorow's summary page and click "Dup Candidates".
4. Check the boxes for each record of "I, Row-Boat" and click "Merge Selected Records"
5. Reconcile any conflicts between the two records (date, story length, etc.) Click "Complete Merge".
6. After this submission has been approved, there should be only one title record for "I, Row-Boat" which will list all pubs that contain it (include the one that you corrected. The variant will no longer exist.

Remember, you can only do this when there is a SINGLE publication which you want to change. If there are more than one publication with the variant title you must use the add and drop method to correct content records. Hope this helps. MHHutchins

I did steps 1 & 2, but when I go the Cory Doctorow's summary page there is only one "I, Row-Boat" listed and the "Merge Selected Records" doesn't provide an option to merge it. The "I, Row-Boat" record, still shows a variant title (though it's the same title) listed, however. -- JLaTondre 03:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Dup Candidates" ignores Title records marked as "variant titles", so you can't use it to merge them. You will have to click the Titles link in the navbar on the left and merge them that way. You will also get a big yellow warning that you are trying to merge two Titles which are both present in the same publication. This is due to the fact that the publication in question contains the variant Title and thus, indirectly, also its parent (well, sort of). In this case you can ignore the warning, but merging two separate Titles that both appear in the same publication is generally asking for trouble.

A more generic way to handle these issues is to break the Variant Title link between the two Title records and then merge them normally. The method is described in Help:How to reverse a variant title relationship. Ahasuerus 04:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, Ahasuerus. I forgot to tell JLaTondre to break the link before changing the title record. Let me go ahead and do that so we can merge the titles. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. -- JLaTondre 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Avram Davidson Treasury

Could you please double check whether there is an additional short-short, "The Last Wizard", somewhere around page 402 or 403 of your verified Tor edition of The Avram Davidson Treasury? It's listed by the Locus Index and it was cross-checked by User:MA LLoyd (who I wish rediscovered the Wiki) earlier today. TIA! Ahasuerus 03:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's there. I missed the two-page story and went straight on to the following one. And thanks for bringing this to my attention. This was verified very early in my time here, and I chose to skip the story introductions, each of which are written by different authors. I'll add those essays when I get a chance. MHHutchins 04:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Complete Paratime-full story + collection

This. [19] . My copy matches your verification. I thought that collections were supposed to be broken down into individual stories. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an omnibus of two previously published works, one of which is a collection. Currently the ISFDB doesn't handle this situation very well. If I chose to type the publication as a collection, then the stories along with the novel would have individual content records, but it's obvious from the cover and copyright page that it's an omnibus. As it now stands, you can click on either of the two content titles and see how they were previously published, including the contents of the collection. I don't believe there is a stated policy about how a collection-in-an-omnibus should be handled (or at least I haven't been able to locate any standards in the help pages.) Feel free to bring up the subject for discussion on the rules and standards page. MHHutchins 04:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I get your logic, but can not fathom why bother to break down a collection/anthology at all then. They will always be the same and never will a story be changed or deleted. Well, now I know why some people do not break collections down. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Title(!) Help currently says "When recording an omnibus publication, please record all of its contents. If it contains one or more collections, please record both the collection titles and the individual short fiction or essay titles as part of the omnibus's contents." I guess that's so we can record page numbers, and the links from shortfiction to all publications it appears in are maintained. BLongley 19:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I should add one other warning, maybe - this does have to be an OMNIBUS overall, as if it was made a COLLECTION then the ISFDB software would hide all other COLLECTION records within it. Similar with ANTHOLOGY. I recently spent hours on a book that was actually a grouping of four Chapterbooks, some of which were individual author collections, some multiple author anthologies, and OMNIBUS was the only way to go to get any sort of presentation and linking right. I'd link to it right now, but I've tried to put it out of my mind as a Mod nightmare I don't want to repeat... :-/ BLongley 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill's recollection matches mine: the primary reason behind including individual stories in Omnibuses of Collections/Anthologies was to make sure that you can go from the constituent Shortfiction Titles to the Omnibus publications that they appear in. I recall going back and forth on the desirability of this arrangement until I realized that we will lose important links if we don't do it that way. Ahasuerus 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's the inability of the database to handle collections and anthologies as constituents of an omnibus that creates this situation. My objection is to having links to BOTH the original collection and that collection's contents on the omnibus's contents listing. That has led me to change an omnibus to a collection in at least two of my verified publications: Bradbury's Twice Twenty-two and Bester's Starlight. And I felt only slightly uncomfortable doing so, because a novel wasn't involved. I will add the stories from the previously published collection to the contents, and remove the link to the original collection, and make it clear in the pub's note that this was published as an omnibus of the collection and a novel. MHHutchins 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Toynbee Convector and "Lafayette, Farewell"

Can you please double check your Verified copy of this edition of The Toynbee Convector and see if the title of "Lafayette, Farewell" is with or without the comma? Thanks CoachPaul 03:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Should have the comma. I think this was perpetuated by the Locus1 listing of the first edition, and I failed to catch it in my verification, when I cloned it from that edition. I've corrected both editions, because my BOMC printing was printed from the same type. Perhaps we should reverse the variant, because this was the story's first appearance. I'll check my copy of the October 1988 issue of F&SF to see whether the comma was used there. Thanks for catching the error. MHHutchins 05:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If we can determine that every copy we can find has a comma, can we assume that all of the ones without are probably errors since they most likely all came at one time or another from Locus and we can show that that is in error? CoachPaul 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sleeping in Flame

Michael can you check this pub Sleeping in Flame[20] and give me some more info on the imprint name. Thanks! Here's another one[21] and it's described in notes as "A Vintage Crime/Black Lizard Original" which is from the copyright page.Kraang 04:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The spine is simply "Vintage", the front cover and back cover states "Vintage Contemporaries". All three have the "Vintage Contemporaries" logo. On the lower part of the page facing the title page is "Vintage Contemporaries" in large print over "Vintage Books * A Division of Random House, Inc. * New York" (but the asterisks are actually bullets). On the title verso page is the statement (all in caps) is "FIRST VINTAGE CONTEMPORARIES EDITION, JULY 1990". Hope this helps. MHHutchins 05:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to describe the second title. The spine states "Vintage" and the back cover states "A VINTAGE ORIGINAL". The title pages states "Vintage Crime / Black Lizard" over "Vintage Books" over "A Division of Random House, Inc." over "New York". The title verso page states "A VINTAGE CRIME/BLACK LIZARD ORIGINAL, NOVEMBER 2000". Let me know if you feel that either of these should be changed in order to conform with any current standard for either of these imprints. MHHutchins 05:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that "Vintage Contemporaries" may not be a true imprint, but simply a marketing tool to distinguish a series of trade paperback reprints of "hip" titles (by authors such as Bret Easton Ellis, Raymond Carver, Don Delillo, Jonathan Lethem, you get the picture). Their covers used to share the same graphic design, but that seems to have been abandoned the last few years. MHHutchins 05:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I had similar thoughts about the use of "Vintage Contemporaries & Crime/Black..". One thing I did find when using the "Look Inside" on Amazon was there are a lot more of these buried in among the "Vintage" & "Vintage Books". I think for the moment I'll leave them there and add others where I find them and when the publishers field becomes more dynamic or there's a way to link them in the Wiki I'll return and do some more work on it. I'll leave a note on the publisher page and links in the Wiki for all the Vintage publisher names. Thanks!Kraang 02:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, August 1980

Since I've already questioned one of your Verifications, I figure I may as well do another. In this magazine, is "On Star Trek As Liturgy" credited to Andew M. Greeley, or Andrew M. Greeley? (Notice the first is A-n-d-e-w without the "r" that is in the second.) CoachPaul 04:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Should have been "Andrew". I'll correct it. Thanks for the catch. MHHutchins 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Rose

Just a heads up that I have put User:DKurdilla's submission on hold since he would like to add a story to a collection that you verified back in May. All yours! Ahasuerus 00:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's right. The book has no table of contents, and I missed that story when I verified the copy. It begins at the bottom of a page. The publisher tried hard to make this look like a novel instead of a story collection. I've approved the submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Where Do We Go from Here?

I have put another proposed change to your verified pub on hold. Ahasuerus 23:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Edit accepted with a slight change in wording. MHHutchins 05:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Day of Their Return-No Gutter Code?

I may need help in what I think is a gutter code. This. [22]. Hall3370, who is often late in responding, said that this book had no gutter code. My copy has on page 181 bottom left K39. Could you possibly check your transient verification to correct me that it does or does not appear on your copy. Correct me that it is not a Gutter Code also please, as my interpretation is K39 would be September 1969. Which makes the chart whacked as the copyright date is 1973. Please attempt to unravel this conundrum. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My copy doesn't have a gutter code, but I can't state positively that it was the first printing. Although I was a member at the time, I may have purchased it later. Maybe someone with a copy of Currey can join the discussion, as he will note the first printings of SFBC first editions. Your copy is a 1980 printing. Doubleday started over with a new lettering system while retaining the old one. See this article for an explanation. You can update the notes of the current record stating that there is a verifiable copy with a K39 gutter code. If I recall, I was the one who place the current notes on that record, not Hall3370. MHHutchins 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks greatly, I was hoping you had the answer. The 'Gutter Code' article reads well, but my personally understanding requires I butt my head. LOL, Pardon again. Instead of adding a variant printing based on the meager 'Gutter Code' data, you think I should add a note to the existing record. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's my personal belief. No standards have been established about listing SFBC printings based solely on the gutter codes. I feel we should only record the first printing, based on the month in which it was a member selection, then note additional gutter codes in the notes field. MHHutchins 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I had realized there were variant printing dates, but I am wondering if a new entry with say #6067 / K39 would work? I have a dust jacket missing copy of Triad with an E43 Gutter Code. I know I joined the SFBC for a year or so in the late sixties. The hook was getting three novels in one for a dime. Therefore, I suspect that Triad had many printings, which may only be defined by the gutter code. Quick ref. [23]. Thanks again, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe adding the gutter code to the catalog number field would work. Right now we're stretching it by putting the code printed on the jacket in this field. This number was never actually used in the club's catalog, although variations were used. For example, the SFBC edition of McIntyre's The Exile Waiting has the number "1261" printed on the inside back flap, but in the January 1977 issue of "Things to Come" (the book's announcement flyer), the catalog number for this title is "#12617". I suspect that the last digit is changed when the price changes, but I have no firm evidence. As for your copy of "Triad", I'd just add the gutter code in the notes field. There were perennial titles that have multiple printings, and I've tried to note as many as I can in the SFBC listings. For example, check out how many codes I've found for Asimov's The Hugo Winners. Most titles had only one printing. MHHutchins 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do with both. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vanguard to Venus-your Tuck verification.

Please take a look at my submission of this. [24]. I made comments and consulted Tuck, but think you need to see if it 'makes sense' to you and your verification. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Tuck does list a SFBC edition, starting at the end of the entry's first line and continuing onto the next line. He never gives the page count for SFBC editions, even if they vary from the trade edition. Tuck often doesn't give the price and he also notes all SFBC editions as "D'day SF B.C.", not giving the name of the publisher credited in the book itself. This practice is frustratingly continued by Locus after 40 years of book listings! MHHutchins 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Immense thanks for the 'D'Day SF B. C.'. It threw me completely. I corrected the notes to reflect this. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Science Fiction of the 30's-differences

This. [25] . Alas, All Thinking on page 269, Contents say Alas, All Thinking!, which matches ToC, but not acknowledgments. Seeker of Tomorrow in my book page 368, but contents says Seeker of To-morrow. Hyperpilosity on my book page 409, but contents says Hyperpelosity. Have a good day. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I also see that I missed the artwork that is (poorly) reproduced in this edition. When I get a chance I'll make those corrections and add the interior art. Again, thanks. MHHutchins 01:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Door

Added a couple of notes to your verified pub TDRKDR1988, re: first edition and number line plus the LCCCN #. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. MHHutchins 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Brother to Gods....

Just did a transient on your verified pub BRTHRGDS19XX and am wondering if calling this a collection is correct. The cover calls it a novel and the copyright page says "Portions of this novel first appeared...". !Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a publisher will market a publication as a novel because they think it will sell more than a collection. This has a table of contents and each story was previously published without much textual change (as far as I remember), even keeping the same titles as the magazine publications, and without the addition of any obviously original connecting material. IMHO it's a collection. MHHutchins 18:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Caution! Inflammable!

Publication date of your verified Doubleday edition of Caution! Inflammable! confirmed by the copyright page of the 1976-08-00 Bantam paperback edition. Record updated. Ahasuerus 16:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

More awful cover-art from Doubleday. At least I didn't have to look at the book again. Thanks! MHHutchins 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twentieth Annual Collection

Could you please double check whether your verified copy of this book lists the author of "Agent Provocateur" as "Alexander Irvine" or "Alexander C. Irvine"? Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no middle initial on either the title page or the TOC. Must be variant-making-time! MHHutchins 01:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Variant made. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have also approved MA Lloyd's "makepseudonym" submission. Apparently, we were not the only ones confused. I have found two versions of the cover art for Irvine's forthcoming novel, one with a "C." and the other one without. And then there is "Alex Irvine"... Ahasuerus 01:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

On Blue's Waters

Added notes to your verified pub NBLSWTRST2000 indicating a first TP edition/full number line and the usual $C price. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Same additions to RTRNWHRL2001 and PBHH1990.--Bluesman 05:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Same additions to STRNGTRV2000.--Bluesman 06:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

1977 World's Best SF

Just did a transient verification on your verified pub THNNLWRLDS1977 and when checking Currey found that he listed the printing with the gutter code of H44 as the first HC edition when it's really H32, in the SFBC page in the ISFDB as well as the copy I have, and assume you have. I don't know if he fixed this in his revised book. Is it worth a note? Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes updated. Thanks. BTW, if you have the Currey at hand, can you see what gutter code he gives to the first edition (SFBC) of Poul Anderson's The Day of Their Return. My copy has no gutter code. Look at this discussion above. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Currey is always at hand. For this pub he gives three printings A) no gutter code B) code E24 on page 181 C) code F48 on page 181. My copy is even later with a code of Q40 (though the imprint is a little fuzzy and might be Q10??) but it also has the book # as 06047. The SFBC often added the zero for later printings. Hope this helps. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

13th Annual...

Added a note to your verified pub THRSBSTSCB1996 about the Trade HC edition's ISBN being on the copyright page and the rear cover. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

18th Annual...

Just did a transient on your verified YRBESTSF2001B, plus the usual $C price but am wondering at the designation of novella for the following titles (page count in brackets): Radiant Green Star (41); Crux (43); Savior (36); Obsidian Harvest (37); Oracle (37) and Great Wall of Mars (33). I thought the minimum page count was 50+ for a novella? I realize the 'density' of these TPs are higher so maybe the 40+ pair might qualify, but doubt one as low as 33 would. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Those length designations came from the original magazines (IASFM, Analog) and were copied from the Locus index. You know how Dozois packs many more words per page than the average pub, so the "rules" of page count just doesn't apply. I think we should leave them as is. If we change them, it will change all appearances of the title. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Memoir: Spilled Milk"

Do the 2 Budrys essays on pp. 167 and 295 of your verified SFBC edition of Galaxy: Thirty Years of Innovative Science Fiction have the same title, "Memoir: Spilled Milk"? If they do, it may be prudent to disambiguate them before some not-so-bright editor (hey, it wasn't me! no, really!) tries to merge them again. Ahasuerus 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually only one of them have that title, the other one was simply "Memoir". I can't imagine how I could have titled each the same. Maybe there was another merge somewhere along the line? Thanks. MHHutchins 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's entirely possible. I wish Title merges would give you a warning when they affected verified pubs... Ahasuerus 01:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perpetual Light

Talk about serendipity! Just read and responded to your comment on my talk page about 'lengths' and now this PRPTLLGHT4A1982. The story "Theology of Water", at 21pp, is designated a novelette but the two stories "The Meat Box" and "Firestorm", at 24 and 22 pages are listed as short stories. Meanwhile, the story "Confess the Seasons", at 33pp is a novella.Doesn't leave much room for novelettes! Good thing I have no hair left to pull out!! Sidebar to this book: does your copy have the story "A Private Whale' by Brian Aldiss or does it have the 'W.'? I'm sure I have the same edition but the acknowledgements, table of contents and story title don't have the 'W.' Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the Aldiss story. I'll change it. But there's no explanation for the story length designations for the stories in Perpetual Light. They all came from Locus1, but they still don't make sense. Read my response on your talk page. MHHutchins 04:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)