User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2009May-Aug

Poe's "The Lake" in Ariel: The Book of Fantasy, Volume Two

Still working through Poe titles, I find The Lake-to- apparently from your verified Ariel: The Book of Fantasy, Volume Two. Two things:

1. I am pretty sure this is a variant title of The Lake. In the absence of a verifier, I'd throw caution to the winds and hook them up, but perhaps you have the book accessible and can check? It starts (1829) "In youth's spring it was my lot" or (1845) "In spring of youth it was my lot.".
2. There is a similarly punctuated title from 1829's Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems (OCR scan) and also 1845's The Raven and Other Poems (OCR scan): "The Lake — To —". In other cases, I felt free to replace two hypens with emdashes, but since this is not two-hyphens-for-emdash and it is verified (and there's also an interiorart record sharing the same title), and also since I wasn't sure how passionately you might feel about punctuational representation, I thought I'd ask first rather than having to apologize later.

Thanks. --MartyD 10:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The first line here is the same as the 1845 version ("In spring of youth it was my lot". The entire poem is printed in a cursive font, but the first dash is definitely shorter than the last, this last dash indicating an omission of the dedication. Please feel free to merge/variant that anyway you wish. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. I will make the first an emdash and the second a pair of underscores ("The Lake — To __") -- I've got all of the "omitted text" ones using underscores now. I'll do the same for the paired interiorart record. --MartyD 02:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Care to opine on whether ISFDB "standard" is "to" or "To" in this case? --MartyD 02:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal preference would be to capitalize. Not sure if any ISFDB standards apply, maybe because it's the first word in a adjunct title? (Clutching at straws here.) MHHutchins 02:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My preference, too, so that it will be. Coming soon, server willing. --MartyD 09:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Former GDR currency symbol

Hi. You just approved this new pub. The price of the book is "M 5.30" not "DM 5.30". It wasn't a typo. It's a GDR publication. "M" is the correct Symbol.

I got another question. While adding new pubs I made two mistakes. Now that they had been approved I'm going to edit them again (sorry!), but is there a way to cancel a submission as long as it isn't moderated? Phileas 19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the different German currencies. I'll change it back. You can't cancel a submission, but you can leave a note on the Moderator Noticeboard. If one of us catches your message before it's approved, we can reject it. Moderators can't change a submission. We can only approve it or reject it. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moderator Questions

I was watching a couple of edits to see what was acceptable to do with them (Question or approve). Have we just given up on notifying Scott Latham of changed to his verified pubs (Notes and Covers)? Have we accepted deep linking to Ace Covers, and Bookscans? Thanks Kevin 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've personally given up on telling Scott Latham about changes, so I don't check to see if any of the editors have. I do scrutinize the changes as much as I do for any other record. As for deep-linking, if I see any links to unfamiliar sites, I'll question it. But the linking to Ace Image Library and Bookscans has been going on so long that I assumed they're allowed. Looking at the list of allowed sites, I just saw the warning about getting individual permission for each link. I'll try to contact the webmasters of those sites to see what their policy is. This "case-by-case" wishy-washy business just won't cut it. How is a moderator to know that an editor has received explicit permission for this one particular link? It has to be all or none. If none, then someone will have to write a script to find all records that link to non-permitted sites. I recall seeing something like that list a year or so ago. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 18:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a script that finds all deep links to Wikipedia. I can easily modify it to find all deep links to any other site, just let me know which ones are problematic. Ahasuerus 20:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We should probably make a few more notes on Moderator etiquette. There's a few unspoken rules, some unspoken guidelines, and a few personal preferences that I've grown to recognise. E.g. :

• I don't notify Scott any more either, and like Mike don't mind if other people don't too. Likewise with Brin1 (whose verifications I've encountered a lot today). But there is no official list of inactive or non-responsive editors, so I go by my memory and if it's someone I think might be active I leave the submission for a while and look again when I can check if appropriate messages have been left on talk-pages.
• Deep-linking: the list could do with updating. e.g. "sweetdespise.co.uk" is probably OK as it belongs to an editor here.
• Working on other Moderator's stuff - I normally let active Mods do their own work unless I spot a big mistake or they're leaving it for further advice, but also leave edits TO their stuff for them to approve. So I'd have left the change by Bluesman to your "Cosmonaut Keep" for you to approve. Although as you were notified, I don't think swfritter did anything particularly wrong in approving it, you could always undo it. It's just not what I do. BLongley 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Green Millennium / Night Monsters

I just dropped a note on Bluesman's talk page regarding how to display both sides of the cover for one of your verified Ace Doubles. Just letting you know in case you want to chime in on how you'd like it to be displayed. Thanks.--Rtrace 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Best of Cordwainer Smith- no adds but confusion

Good Morning! This. [1] . Cover this ? [2] . Second difference. "Introduction" not used before "Cordwainer Smith: The Shaper of Myths", but that is not so on it's essay title page my edition. Third difference, Gutter code "H 17" at bottom left page 341. Cover should be same, as artist is. Any Significance? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've made the changes and added the cover, even though I plan to scan my cover eventually as it's a wrap-around. I also added a notice of the second gutter code. MHHutchins 16:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yevgeny Voiskunsky

I see that you are about to change Yevgeny Voiskunsky's birthplace from "Baku, Azerbaidjan" to "Baku, Azerbaidjan S. S. R., Soviet Union". The "Azerbaijan S.S.R." part is correct since Azerbaijan was re-annexed by Russia in April 1920, at which time a Soviet republic was proclaimed. However, the "Soviet Union" part wouldn't work since Voiskunsky was born in April 1922 and the Soviet Union was formed in December 1922. Technically, the Azerbaijan S.S.R. had become a part of the "Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic" a few weeks earlier (March 1922), but the three constituent SSRs (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia) remained separate states, at least in theory, until December 1922. None of it mattered much since in reality they were ruled from Moscow, but it wouldn't make much sense to state that Voiskunsky was born in a state which wasn't formed until some 8 months after his birth :) Ahasuerus 22:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I took the full country (including "Soviet Union") from Reginald's Contemporary Authors, and even checked to make sure that it was S.S.R. (from the same Wikipedia article you cite). I just didn't continue to research the "Soviet Union" part. I'll remove that bit now. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing where bibliographical pursuits can occasionally take you, isn't it? :) Ahasuerus 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So long as we don't have to go there in person, I'm happy. BLongley 12:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Norstrilia

When you get a chance, could you please check if your first printing of Norstrilia has 277 or 278 pages? My second printing has 278pp, with the last page almost empty. TIA! Ahasuerus 04:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The novel proper ends on page 275, on which immediately starts the "About the Author" by J. J. Pierce, which ends at the top of page 277, the last numbered page. The unnumbered following page is completely blank, followed by two pages of ads (one leaf). I'm going to update my pub with the piece by Pierce. MHHutchins 04:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! The second printing also includes "About the Author" by J. J. Pierce, but it starts on page 276 and ends on page 278. I guess they decided that the original arrangement on page 275 was too crowded and unprofessional :) Ahasuerus 04:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Made "J. J. Pierce" a pseudonym of John J. Pierce, and along the way discovered that the "About the Author" in my edition (dated August, 1974) is different from the one in the third printing (dated June, 1978). I added dates to distinguish the two afterwords. Your second printing probably has the same version as mine. MHHutchins 04:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, already merged, thanks! Ahasuerus 04:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Best From the Rest of the World---Sam J. Lundwall

Afternoon! This. [3] . I checked my copy to your ver, but the ver shows Sam Lundwall for "Nobody Here but Us Shadows". My copy has Sam J. Lundwall. I noticed they also used the J. as a translator. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I overlooked the middle initial. It's been corrected and a variant's been created. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar title handling opinion wanted

Since you're the only one to offer any comments on titles and punctuation, what do you suggest for Shadow, a Parable? I could just make it another variant of Shadow: A Fable, which is probably what I would have done before you mentioned variants' being a pain... Should I merge it instead with Shadow: A Parable and just keep one of the two forms of the name? Thanks. --MartyD 02:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a variant would be better than merging because a comma can exist in a title while a colon can be used to separate a main title from a subtitle without actually being part of the title. For instance, "Shadow" could be on one line with "A Parable" on the next line, perhaps in a smaller font. In that case you would use a colon to separate the two titles even though it's not actually printed there. If there's a comma in the title, it was probably intended by either the author or the editor.

You're right that I've expressed feelings about the extremes that have been taken here in the creation of variants. If you have a verifiable printing using the comma (and not just a secondary source) then a variant is warranted. MHHutchins 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any source for the comma one. It's in the contents of GRTTLSFTRR1973, entered from Amazon UK according to the notes. I know the "Shadow" (over) "A Parable" form exists, because I had the verifier check (and correct) that one. There's also "Shadow — A Parable" all on one line. I'll poke around and see if I can confirm the comma. For now, I'll make it be another variant; we can always merge later if we want to. Thanks. --MartyD 10:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Vault of Evil (a good source for information on horror anthologies, especially British) gives a colon instead of a comma for this anthology. But I'm not sure if that's in either the 1972 Gollancz edition or the 1984 Penguin edition. MHHutchins 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I found this Trash Fiction entry (for the 1973 Penguin edition) listing it with a comma. Dunno how authoritative that is, or if one of it or Amazon is reproducing the other's list. But it is a second data point. --MartyD 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Both Vault of Evil and Trash Fiction are a little suspect on exact spelling and punctuation, which is why I added the warning about the source of contents. I'd generally correct their contents to match what we already have, if there's no other editions present here from more reliable sources. That publication is one Fixer submitted and I added contents to from Trash Fiction - it looks an important work but will need a lot of TLC and could do with a primary verification. Still, it's in better shape than Fixer submitted it as. BLongley 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to merge it until we find out otherwise, if that's what you think I should do. --MartyD 23:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Under Heaven's Bridge- page count ?

Morning! This. [4] . I agree with everything except page count. It shows 224, but my copy seems complete at 198. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no clue how that became 224, but you're correct. I'll change it to 198. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Caterpillar's Question

I added the author's notes to this verified pub to match my copy. Thanks Willem H. 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The End of all Songs

Currey notes that the spine of the trade edition misspells the author as MOOROCK. Did the SFBC edition [[5]] fix that mistake? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just accepted your submission adding the note to the trade edition, and the next thing I did was check my copy of the SFBC edition. It appears that the book club has a better copy editor than Harper & Row. MHHutchins 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Skylark Three

Could you please re-Tuck verify Skylark Three. Don Erikson has submitted an edit that you accepted which overwrites the note 'Stated First Printing' with 'Stated 3rd printing'. We now have records for 3rd and higher, with no record of 1st or second. I suspect we may need to recreate a 'stated 1st' publication of this title, or am I misunderstanding that Tuck usually provides first printing information. Kevin 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the heads up. I should have told Don that it would have been better to clone that pub or create a new one, instead of updating a Tuck-verified record. I'll create another record for the first printing, Tuck-verify it, and remove the Tuck-verification from the other record. (I won't used the word "stated" on the new record as I don't have a copy of it and can't confirm that statement. I use "assumed". Thanks. MHHutchins 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have to look at the parent record to get the full picture. The first printing was in 1963 (verified). So Don was correct to change that 1966 record to third printing. It appears that only the second is now missing. Tuck only gives a printing in 1963 and 1966, but doesn't state if the 1966 is the second or third (he never notes printing numbers.) MHHutchins 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as you are satisfied with your Tuck verification, I'm happy. Cheers Kevin 04:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Atrocity Exhibition

Locus has different data from [this] pub's record, including page count and price. I added a note only (and an image). ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I accepted your changes and tweaked the notes. Locus is wrong about the price, and their page count ends with the text. There's an 8-page catalog of Re/Search publications followed by a closing photograph which is part of the collection. But I'll go along with their interpretation that the book ends with the last page of text. I'm a little uncomfortable with the Locus date. Amazon dates it as July. I see that you used this edition export contents to the expanded Flamingo edition. The cover image references the Burroughs preface, but I wonder if it has the same introduction as the Re/Search edition which was written by that edition's editors. MHHutchins 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Locus doesn't list the contents, merely notes that the Burroughs intro is there and that the Flamingo drops the interior illustrations and two of the stories, which I will note (wish importing left the notes field adjustable). ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish it left every field editable! It would save plenty of second edits. MHHutchins 04:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Back when Al first implemented this feature, he mentioned that making Contents editable would have likely caused problems, but activating Notes seems doable. A feature request, perhaps? Ahasuerus 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Claimed story length

44030 words. I also did a word count on the PDF version and that is accurate. Contento lists it as a novella which is possibly the original source for the length AND Famous Fantastic Mysteries quite often did substantially editing of the stories that appeared there so it is entirely possible appears there at less than novel length. I can get my copy out and try to verify.--swfritter 22:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would be so kind. -DES ^Talk 23:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll let you guys with verified pubs make the proper changes and how each pub record should be classified (novel or serial, adding the "(complete novel)" appendage, etc.) Thanks for the clarification. MHHutchins 04:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Claimed by Gertrude Bennett

This is actually this. All right if I delete the first. Tuck lists it under Bennett but also states that she used the Francis Stevens name for her work.--swfritter 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and delete it, and I'll Tuck-verify the Stevens record. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the pseudonym went away, too. I found another novella that was a novel also; Serapion which was actually first published in book format in a 2003 ebook collection. I guess that counts as the first official book publication date.--swfritter 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Feature request(s)?

Can I take it "Notes Search" is something you're looking for? (DES seems to be overestimating the power of Google, IMO.) If so, I can look into that, but it's not likely to be a very efficient search (which seems to be why all my other Advanced Search fixes are on hold) so if you can split the request down into searches by Pub Notes, Title notes, etc, or whichever you're interested in, we might get it/them through a bit more easily. BLongley 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Roglo was working on speeding up Advanced Searches when he had to take a 2 week break. Once he comes back and we figure out what is involved, we may be able to make the whole thing more efficient and enable additional types of searches. Ahasuerus 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a personal priority. I'd rather see the publication searches (at the bottom of the advanced search page) be more functional, including the logic searches (and/or/and not). Once that works properly, and doesn't blow-up the database, then we can work on the search of the notes field. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted fixes to enable all the pub search options, and the "AND NOT" fix. There's just so many possibilities that we'll never test them all. I'm not sure the kind of things Roglo was doing would solve "the whole thing" - yes, more indexes would help certain types of query, and some of the sub-queries can definitely be improved. Searching within a field almost always demands searching all of them though, so cutting it down in any way possible is usually good. Some databases offer a "text search" additional option which grabs keywords out of "free text" fields and indexes them, but they normally charge extra for it: I don't know if there's such available for MySQL, for free, but we could do something similar ourselves if we can agree on some keywords. "ISBN", "LCCN", "LCCCN", "ISSN", etc? BLongley 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect (to avoid blowing-up the server) that we'll have to balance it all out and reduce/remove some things that should work but never will work well, while adding some things that we want that can work well, but only in certain ways. BLongley 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

MySQL does support "full text" indexes and searches, but I don't think we have them implemented. Certainly not a high priority, as Michael said, but something to consider at some point.

As far as the extent of Roglo's fixes goes, I haven't reviewed what he submitted last week yet, so I am not sure how much it will help. We'll probably have to put this whole area on the back burner for a couple of weeks so that we could get the current backlog of relatively easy changes out the door first. Then, once Roglo is back and we have a cleaner slate, we can attack Advanced Search again. Originally it looked like it would take just a few minutes to fix a couple of typos, but it turned out to be a different kind of vegetable... Ahasuerus 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - a triffid. :-/ I suspect the latest display changes may lead to a few "Oi! What happened?" queries that may need some future adjustments, so sticking to some very uncontroversial minor fixes/features may be wisest for a little while. There's plenty of them, and it would be nice to clear the pending queue a bit rather than guess whether it's safe to build on top of them. BLongley 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki uses MySQL's free text indexing and searching, so the feature is "on" in the ISFDB database. I actually think it's a built-in MySQL feature. You can control the minimum word length for the indexing (the default may be 4 -- I forget -- but it can be set to anything). Disk and memory cost depends on the data volume, of course, and the number of words indexed. The resulting search is much more efficient than using SQL wildcards. And you can group fields for the index and the search. --MartyD 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent merge/variant edits

Did I actually get the ones from today correct? I have a frosty Guinness to pop if I did.......?¿?¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Bloch/Young Todd Dossier you did a fine job. After accepting the first submission, I thought for a second that I should go ahead and create the variants (I checked and saw that the pseudonym had already been created.) But I waited and it wasn't long until the further submissions came through. And you know me, I'd've let you know if you had made a mistake! Good job. Have another (virtual one) on me! MHHutchins 17:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And only 9,000 edits ahead of schedule! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Animal Farm

Have an odd one. Nelson Bond adapted Orwell's "Animal Farm" into a two-act play, printed as "Animal Farm: A Fable in Two Acts". If it weren't for the Orwell connection it wouldn't belong here. Not sure it does even so. Question is, where does it go and as what? We list Bradbury's plays.... The publication is only 57 pages, "wrappers" according to Currey, but I think a pamphlet by our designation. Suggestions? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He's done the same with his own work "Mr. Mergenthwirker's Lobblies" and with "State of Mind", which may be an original play. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd create a new record for it, with "chapterbook" as the type and "ph" as the binding. The play itself would be typed as shortfiction, but without length. Don't add content to the pub record. The system creates the content with the same name as the chapbook. After the pub is accepted, you change the title record to "shortfiction", leave the pub record as "chapterbook". MHHutchins 00:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Orwell get an author credit? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how it's credited in the book. If it credits "Nelson Bond and George Orwell", then he does. If it credits "Nelson Bond based on the novel by George Orwell", he doesn't, but he should be credited in the notes of the title record. MHHutchins 03:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All I've got is an image and Currey. Will check and see if OCLC lists this at all. ....... but tomorrow! Either the screen is melting or my eyes are.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this OCLC record (look down to the responsibility line) it was "adapted by Nelson Bond from the book by George Orwell." Don't ever use the author credit at the top of an OCLC record. That's who they've established is the real author, not necessarily how the book is credited. The "responsibility" line should be how the book is actually credited. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Day of the Giants

Regarding your verified Day of the Giants. My copy has a Voluspa quote, blank page, and then the story starts on page five. The implication is that a page is missing. Is yours the same way? --Marc Kupper|talk 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In my copy, the title page is on the unnumbered page 1, copyright page is unnumbered page 2, the Voluspa quote is on unnumbered page 3, and page 4 is blank. Chapter 1 begins on page 5. MHHutchins 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Locus, September 1984 - Review of: Valentina: Soul in Sapphire

Your verified pub lists a review of Valentina, and credits the co-author as Joseph W. Delaney, but the actual Title credits Joseph H. Delaney. Could you please check your copy of Locus. We either need to change the review to fix a typo in the isfdb, or change the review and add a couple of notes to document the typo in the magazine. Thanks Kevin 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a typo on my part. I'll correct it. Thanks for catching it. MHHutchins 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and Thanks for checking! Kevin 23:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Eye, July 1989 - Review of: Brought to Life: A Graphic Docudrama

Your verified pub lists a review of "Brought to Life". I believe the actual title reviewed should be 'Brought to Light'. See this reference. The actual book is a 63 page graphic novel of some non-fiction basis, with a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in, so it appears to be out. But we either need to fix a typo in the isfdb, or fix the pub record and note the title typo in the magazine. - Thanks Kevin 23:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It should have been "Light". According to the review, this is a collection (bound dos a dos in a trade paperback) of two graphic novels: "Shadowplay" by Alan Moore and Bill Sienkiewicz, and "Flashpoint" by Brabner and Yeates. I'll correct the spelling and change it from review to essay to avoid the creation of author records. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually three of the four are already in the database (at the moment). Kevin 23:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Conversation below in this section copied to Rules and Standards for discussion of Rules_and_standards_discussions#Entering_Reviews_of_items_that_are_not_.27Books.27_or_.27Magazines.27. Kevin 23:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That only points out the futility of trying to clear the list of "authors in the database due only to reviews" (or whatever it is called). All it takes is one title for the author not to show up on the list, even though the title in the database is not actually the title under review! My concern about changing this to an essay is that somewhere down the road graphic novels may be IN, and there would be no link to this title as being reviewed. Ah, well, just another reason to re-verify several thousand magazine issues. MHHutchins 03:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(Shrug) - I'm satisfied that posterity can find the unlinked review/essay if we ever need it. The bigger concern is all those reviews totally undocumented in verified pubs. It take 5 seconds per issue to look for unlinked reviews. It will take complete re-verification everytime the RoA change to find undocumented items. Kevin 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

By "undocumented" do you mean "unlinked" pubs or just pubs that are not in the database? Sure, it takes 5 seconds to find the unlinked reviews, but sometimes several hours to create the pubs and link them to the reviews. Believe me, it happens more often than I care to admit when you're adding mags that have more than one hundred reviews. MHHutchins 04:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

By undocumented I mean that some verifiers are removing / deleting / not even entering reviews in any form (not even notes) for items that are out. Therefore, it's like the review never existed, and if the work is ever considered 'in' or the review gets a different treatment (non linking review) it doesn't exist for us to even find by reviewing the magazine publication record. Kevin 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not good. Even when the review is of something that is obviously out (like a film or an audio recording), I still create a record for it. This comes down to a previous topic about how much detail should we expect of editors. The "standards" for magazine entry have changed so much over the past few years, and only recently have became somewhat stable. I'm not looking forward to going through hundreds of issues if the "standards" change again. MHHutchins 03:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiers deleting stuff certainly isn't good - are you sure that's happening? BLongley 18:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I said, or, if misunderstood, it's not what I meant. I believe Kevin was talking about editors choosing not to record certain aspects of a magazine. Personally, I haven't deleted anything in my verified pubs. I've gone back and changed records from reviews to essays, and even added stuff that wasn't standard when I first entered the issue. That's what I meant by going back over issues that I've already verified. MHHutchins 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No but it is what Kevin said, above. Whether anyone has actually been deleting reviews of things that would be OUT by the current RoA I don't know. My inclination would be to convert such to essays if I changed them at all, but I might well never enter such a review, only entering the overall review column as an essay, if I were entering contents for the first time. If this is a problem i don't see how to deal with it, unless/until we implement non-linking reviews -- and that won't prevent other future standards changes. -DES ^Talk 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DES is right, the question is directed at Kevin. While we're stomping all over your talk page though, have any of you seen people removing data? I know I've seen Ron Kihara suggesting he would do so for a Filk review, and DES has just tried to dissuade such. BLongley 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As a moderator I've not seen any submissions where an editor was deleting content records, whether the pub was verified or not, or even if it were their own verified pub. MHHutchins 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As to standards for Magazine Entry, the level of detail seems to go by project. E.g. the recent addition of SFRA Review seems limited to Speculative fiction reviews only (but at least clearly states that). BLongley 18:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean the systemic removal, deletion, and erasure of non-in item review records. Kevin 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• See Ron's Talk User_talk:Rkihara#Stray_Robert_Coulson_Reviews where I queried about some stray reviews, (That I must assume had previously been in the magazine record - asked about them, and was told "Accordingly, I've left out all reviews of music in pubs I've verified". I don't know who removed the reviews from the magazines, but they used to be there, and were then removed (but not deleted until I found them floating in the ether). Kevin 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• See Ron's Archive Removing Reviews where he previously removed some 'out' reviews from a magazine because the item reviewed was out, but neglected to delete them, instead putting a note in the title for the stray title. In that instance, the decision appears to have been to retain them for Magazines and Fanzines. Kevin 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• See Help:Screen:NewPub#Reviews under reviews where it states "Note also that only books and magazines are entered; if the column reviews fanzines, you don't need to enter the review records for these, only the ESSAY record. Non-sf works should be entered but if an onerous number of non-sf-related works are reviewed in a column you are entering, discuss the situation on the Bibliographic Rules page to decide what can be eliminated. " (Emphasis Mine). This has been interpreted to mean.. "Only Enter Reviews for Books and Magazines" and for all other works, Only the Essay Record is required. So if there is a Review Column... it gets entered as an essay; then reviews of books and magazines in that essay get review titles, but the excluded items (not books, not magazines = Graphic Novels, Music CD's, Filk CD's, Song Books, anything in a form that is currently 'out' - Even if written / authored / sung by a Well known SpecFic Author) are not required to be mentioned in any way, shap,e or form. ( I swear I found a user talkpage discussion back in April that spelled it out, but I can't find it now Kevin 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• See Fanzine Reviews discussion from 2006 that originated this text. Kevin 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see now that several people agree with me that this is a travesty of 'lost data', or at least believe it should be different. I tried bringing this up last month, but it got lost in the noise of Graphic Novels. Search Rules_and_standards_discussions for 'Travesty'. If I was king for a day, I would change the help and the rules so that if the item reviewed even smells of SpecFic, it deserves a separate essay entry that is findable Just in case we ever move the line of In/Out again, they can be found and properly linked/indexed/entered etc. Kevin 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] You have no argument from me. And I wouldn't know what other mods are deleting, changing, removing, editing, etc. 'cause I got enough on my plate not to be looking over anybody's shoulder. Maybe this discussion should be taken to one of the community pages. MHHutchins 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an RoA discussion perhaps. "What does this line mean", "What should it say to mean what we think it means"? Kevin 23:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? MHHutchins 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - Sometimes my inner stream of consciousness skips the translator. I guess it's a discussion for the Rules and Standards Boards. Probably starting with a discussion of 'What does this line mean"? to you, moving to "How should it be re-written, in order to mean the same thing that we (as a group) think it should be saying". Thoughts? Kevin 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there's always room for misinterpretation, but hopefully the standards are written in such a way to avoid ambiguities. Even then, you can't be 100% sure that no one reads it differently than you. Getting back to the issue at hand, would you like to move the discussion to the Rules and Standards page? I pretty much agree with everything you're saying, and maybe one or two moderators (from those discussions you pointed out) may want to air their opinions. MHHutchins 04:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think moving this discusssion to the Rules and Standards page would be a good idea -DES ^Talk 04:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Conversation above this line, copied to Rules and standards page, see Rules_and_standards_discussions#Entering_Reviews_of_items_that_are_not_.27Books.27_or_.27Magazines.27. Kevin 23:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nebula Award Stories Three

I am about to add a cover image to you verified pub. While going through these Nebula anthologies, I've also been submitting unmerges where the title varies by use of the number instead of spelling it out (3 vs three), with the intent of making them variant titles. I noted that other titles in this series are treated that way, e.g. this. It strikes me that if this is a good idea that you probably already would have done it for this one. So, I'm asking if I'm being over-zealous in my variant title creation. Thanks. - Ron --Rtrace 13:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not being overly zealous. I verified this pub without realizing that the record had been linked to the wrong title record. At the time, I may have even corrected the title and didn't think to unmerge it and place it under a new title record. Feel free to remove it and create a variant of it. Thanks for catching this. MHHutchins 14:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Arwen pubs

What happened with these pubs? The series disappeared, though all the data shows up correctly with a search? Something broke and I have no idea what....¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see they show up as a "Short Fiction Series" now. Whew!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[after editing conflict] As you discovered, they're there, just in a different location. This was the result of a recent change that allows short fiction series to be listed without having to have a novel. When these were novels they were under the "Fiction Series" category. When you changed them to shortfiction they're now in the "Short Fiction Series". MHHutchins 04:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Zen Gun

Submitted a new pub record for the second printing of [this], with image, which may match the first printing you've verified. Price is the same, artist is the same, but the 2nd printing has the CDN price on the cover as well as the US. If yours is the same, then the image matches and you can add the CDN price to the notes. If not maybe it's info Marc might like. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Paperbacks packed away for now, but when I return from vacation I'll dig out my copy. I think it should be the same, 'cause I can't imagine they would have reprinted a cover for a second printing just to add the Canadian price. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy!

Enjoy the vacation, we'll try to hold the fort in the meantime! :) Ahasuerus 03:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This will give us all a chance to catch up! Submit and moderate away!Kraang 03:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You and I combined haven't caught Mike yet - still, if we can get Fixer and Dissembler active again, and have them post as one of us, or Chris J, we might topple him... ;-) BLongley 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back. Please accept the heaping piles of appreciation and adoration I now lay at your feet. (As promised a couple moons ago). (Chuckle) - Hope you had a nice vacation. Kevin 21:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

2076: American Tricentennial

Added a note to [this] pub from Currey, that there are two different first printings, one missing a title and one with. Worth a separate pub record or not? Seems very minor. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Land That Time Forgot/The Moon Maid

Since you "Tucked" both of [these] do you really think Dover did two printings in two months with the second one almost double the price? Contento only lists the higher priced edition, Currey has nothing which is odd. ??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC) [And you thought your return would go easy??????]

Look again. That was when Dover was printing both trade paperback and hardcover editions. In this case the hc followed on the heels of the tp, well at least according to Tuck and ERBzine (the source of the month which I probably should have noted). MHHutchins 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My oops, just saw the prices... hardcover after the tp.... now that's interesting?¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Within the Walls of Tyre

I've added what I think is proper shortfiction content to the chapbook Within the Walls of Tyre. See what you think. The chapbook is now listed in the chapbooks section, adn the screenplay in shortfiction. Since it is at elast possible that the screeplay will be included in some later collection or anthology, this seems to me the way to handle such cases. -DES ^Talk 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The City and the Stars

Hi. You verified those two pubs (not primary): THCTNDTHSB1956 and THCTNDTHSC1956. I just got the SFBC edition. The page count is 184. I guess the true Harcourt Brace edition is identical (the novel isn't that long anyway). What do you think? --Phileas 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The trade edition is given 310 pages by Tuck, but he gives the BCE at the same count that you have (I mis-verified the page count for that edition.) That seems like a big difference, even greater than normal, and in the fifties there were hardly any differences. I'm going to check a few more sources to see if they state the page count for the Harcourt trade edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Reginald1 gives the count as 310 as well. And so does OCLC. That's three sources, so that's good enough for me. MHHutchins 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm at it... I've noticed that verified several SFBC editions. Since I'm not really familiar with such editions (in Germany BCE books are usually completly different not just identical reprints) I have some questions. How do you tell that a book is a book club edition (especially from the pre-ISBN area)? The book doesn't state it anywhere (in contrast to british BCA editions for example). The only hint I found is on the dusk jacket - but what if the jacket is missing? Same with the NAL BCE of 2001 I got some days ago. Inside the book I found nothing that seems to be different from a later printing of the true NAL edition. Well, there's something. The cut edge of both books (2001, City and Stars) has not been cut at all. Is that something to identify the books as BCE or was this common these days and applies to the not-BCE book too? Thanks for any information. --Phileas 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The identification has changed over the years (in recent years the only difference is the lack of a price), but here are some guidelines for pre-1990s editions from the US Science Fiction Book Club (ran by Doubleday). The uncut pages are not an identifying feature. Random House, including books by Knopf and Del Rey, often published trade editions with uncut edges. The most important feature is the "Book Club Edition" at the bottom of the front inside flap. That was removed a few years back, but not being in the club for the past twenty years, I can't say exactly when. Hope this helps. MHHutchins 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about your question of identifying BCEs without a jacket. There is no ISBN, nor any edition statement on the copyright page. Also in the mid-to-late 60s they started using paper-covered boards instead of cloth (now it's hard to find any publisher still using cloth-covered boards.) And the books were a uniform size of about 22cm, usually smaller than trade editions. The pages were also of a lower quality than the trade editions, unless the trade editions were published by Doubleday, in which case the only difference was the copyright page notice. Of course, there were always exceptions. I could personally identify about 99% of all book club editions before the 90s. Now it's harder. MHHutchins 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Phileas 18:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review, Fall 1985

Elton T. Elliott's review in Science Fiction Review, Fall 1985 lists "Jim. Baen" [sic] as the author of The Science Fiction Yearbook. Is it safe to assume that it was supposed to be "Jim Baen"? TIA! Ahasuerus 06:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the typo. I've corrected it to "Jim Baen" and that should get rid of the "Jim. Baen" author record. MHHutchins 13:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragon's Egg

You just approved a submission by User:Willem H. that i think has a possible problem. Please see User talk:Willem H.#Dragon's Egg. -DES ^Talk 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the submission. See my response on Willem H.'s page. MHHutchins 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Just wanted to let you know that I was querying a sub you had approved. You are correct, there turned out to be no problem with it. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 22:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Silent Multitude

Does Tuck list [this]? Both Currey and OCLC have the date as '66, yet the verified pub has a date of '69? Have left a note for WillemH to check. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tuck's only listing for this title is the 1967 Hodder hardcover. Reginald1 also shows the Hodder as the first edition. Not sure why the title record is dated 1966. MHHutchins 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Empire of Fear publisher name spelling

Hi. In your verified The Empire of Fear, I noticed the publisher is listed as "Carroll & Graff..." with two efs. Could that be a typo? Looks like the proper spelling was "Graf". --MartyD 11:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It's a typo and it's been corrected. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. MHHutchins 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Locus, March 1987

Could you please double check whether the interview with Strugatsky on page 4 of Locus, March 1987 should credit Boris Strugatsky as the interviewee? Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should have been Boris Strugatsky. Can't for the life of me figure out how I could have left out half his name! I'll make the correction. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And another bogus author record bites the dust! :) Ahasuerus 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Far Sunset

OCLC [[6]] regarding [this] pub. I think Tuck is incorrect with the '67 date and the number. There seems to be no '67 Coronet (Hodder) paperback and the first '68 has a number 04364. Would be odd for the hardcover and pb to come out in the same year, indeed the '68 edition has "First Coronet printing" in the notes. Am I missing something? There is [this] OCLC record but I think it's the same pub as the previous one. [Since using OCLC more often, have found they can have several records for the SAME pub]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tuck's listing for this title: Far Sunset, A (Hodder, 1967, 189 pp., 18/-; 04364, 1967, pa 3/6) (Walker, 1967, 189 pp., $3.95) (Berkley: X1607, 1968, 160 pp., pa 60¢).

I'm not sure why I verified two paperbacks (both Hodder and Coronet), but one has to go. (Coronet was the pb division of Hodder, so that may have caused some of the confusion.) I'm going to remove my verification of one of the pb records, then delete it. I can't resolve the date issue, so I'll place a note that Tuck disagrees about the date. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the corrections. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Slight correction - Coronet was a paperback imprint of Hodder & Stoughton. There are plain "Hodder & Stoughton" paperbacks (and you can even find them now the latest fixes to advanced search are in place). BLongley 18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Having said that - the 1973 Coronet edition refers to a 1967 Hodder and Stoughton edition and a 1968 Coronet edition. I would doubt the existence of a 1967 paperback under either imprint. BLongley 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Aces Abroad - Missing Journal Entries?

I just verified and updated the SFBC copy of Aces Abroad. You verified the pbo Aces Abroad. My copy has two 'Desmond' Journal entries that are missing from your pbo contents. Could you check your copy for a December 8th, and March 14th entries? Thanks Kevin 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Both were included in my pub, and I simply overlooked them. The entries have been added and merged with your records. Thanks. MHHutchins 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool - Thanks - Kevin 01:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, August 2009

You might want to check Asimov's Science Fiction, August 2009 again - you had "Farah Mendelsohn" rather than "Farah Mendlesohn" as reviewee: I've fixed that but if was the magazine's error you might want to add a note. BLongley 18:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just got around to checking this, assuming I'd made a typo. It turns out the review misspells the name throughout. I've added a note to the review record. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Double Letter Gutter Code?

I found a gutter code of "CC36" in my sfbc copy of Buy Jupiter and Other Stories. It's got the expanded catalog number of "01340" and IIRC this is one of several Asimov Book club editions I bought between 85 and 90. Thoughts? Kevin 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen gutter codes with one or three numbers but never two letters, and I'd dropped out of the club during the years you cite. Some editors have created records for club editions that have the expanded catalog number (Bluesman and Dragoondelight come to mind). I can see their point, because they feel the new catalog number makes it a different edition. In most cases, they weren't able to date the pubs because the gutter code system was no longer being used. If you choose to create a new record for yours, I have no idea how it could be dated. "CC36" is just plain weird. Even if the second "C" was a mistake, "C"s were used in 1961 and 1972, both well before this title's 1975 publication. I do know that there were no gutter codes after September 1988, so that narrows it down some. Good luck.

BTW, my copy has "T3" (I think, it's so far down in the gutter that there may be another number) indicating a 1978 printing. I've been searching for a source for the code of the October 1975 first printing, but no luck as yet. MHHutchins 04:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One interpretation of double letters is a second run through the alphabet... CC36 could be read as Z+3 = 1987, 1st week of September 1987 (In fact the last code we have on record of R35 would immediately precede this.... could be the last gutter code???). Kevin 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is so far out that it makes perfect sense. Perhaps those who ran the printing press that began coding "A" in 1959 came up with the double letters in 1985. It's my belief (without proof, I admit) that a second printing press began operations in 1970 which may explain why there were two different coding systems running concurrently. Coding depended upon which press was printing the book. Then the Germans came along in 1987 and threw out the system entirely. They must have started farming out jobs to different presses, because they closed the Garden City plants in 1988. The result was higher quality books, but then there's no way of knowing when they were printed. Thanks for the insight. I'll have to start looking for those double letter codes. MHHutchins 14:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually at this point, I think I've assembled enough evidence to call it fact. There is a record with an AA48 Gutter code that you added to the wiki in February of this year. See Wandering Unicorn Nov 84 but it's not in the database itself Wandering Unicorn so you must have gotten it from a secondary source. I also checked some period Doubleday editions, and found a gutter code of BB27 in my trade edition of Foundation and Earth, which Bluesman has already verified and it's in the database record. BB27 matches a planned October 86 release (Based on dustjacket 1086 code), and an actual September release (Based on locus record). All that combined with the CC Record sets it up as pretty verified. (HA - after writing all that up, I now see that you've left me a message and just updated the guttr code page.. oh well, I'll submit anyway... no need to let the typing go to waste - Cheers Kevin 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you also have another fact point to support that it was a second physical press that came online to start the second gutter code series. Another bit of divination... I notice that the original code series appears less and less over the years... likely the original press had a smaller capacity and was only suitable for small first run, or small reprint orders as the size of the book club likely increased. Just more grist for the mill. Thanks again, Kevin 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Our separate research led us to the same conclusion, and to the same pub (Foundation and Earth). See the note I just left on your page. MHHutchins 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the original press was barely used in the last decade of the gutter system never even occurred to me. Perhaps if I had the insight of the new press starting in 1970 earlier, it might have. Thanks for pointing out that trivial (to most, but not to me) bit of information. MHHutchins 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

SFBC - New pubs for '0' added Catalog numbers?

Saw your note to Ron. Is this the new standard, that a leading zero is a new SFBC publication? Kevin 05:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluesman and I had this discussion shortly after he started here. He joined the club in the mid 80s and some of his pubs have the leading zero. We decided (bilaterally since no one else at the time was entering BC editions) that the new catalog number should warrant the creation of a new record. In most cases these would remain undated, because they were published after the abandonment of the gutter code system. That's why I suggested that you create a record for your copy of Asimov's Buy Jupiter (see my first response to your "double-letter gutter code" question.) The only thing definite is that if the only change is the gutter code, new records wouldn't be created. The leading zero catalog numbers throws a wrench into the works, so feel free to begin a discussion on the Rules and Standards page if you think it necessary. MHHutchins 05:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

River of Eternity

I added some notes to both editions of River of Eternity after this. Thanks Willem H. 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just didn't know if I had the only copy that didn't have the limitation page. MHHutchins 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Father Carmody Series

The Father Carmody Series is currently ordered by date of publication but in your verified collection the stories are in a different order. Perhaps you would know if they make more sense in the order they appear within the collection.--swfritter 17:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I read the book, but I don't recall the stories appearing to be out-of-order. (I do remember reading the novel Night of Light before reading this collection, so that may have messed up memory of an sequence problem.) It's possible the order of the stories may not make much difference, but let me do more research. The numbering we have here on the db appears to be based on the order in which the stories were published, while in the collection it's almost in reverse. This may have been Farmer's preference or possibly that of some editor at Tor (which in the early 80s sometimes appeared to be a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants operation.) MHHutchins 04:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I will probably be reading the stories in their original printings which was one of the reasons I was interested. If there is no mention in the book of a reason for the ordering I can perhaps figure it out when I read them. Thanks.--swfritter 13:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All the Colors of darkness

This] pub poses a problem/question. Does Tuck give the gutter code of the first printing? If it is "F18" then the publication date in the record can't be right. Picked up what I thought was a first today and now not so sure. The ISFDB SFBC records have "F18" in the GC column.... the collection I stumbled across today has all first printings, so far....? ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. It's obvious that my copy with "F18" was printed May 1964, so I looked for an earlier code and found it. Art Vaughan at scififantasybooks.com is about the only dealer I know who records gutter codes in his listings, and he had this title with the gutter code "F4", which must be the first book club printing. Mystery solved. I've corrected both the record and the SFBC listings. Thanks again. MHHutchins 03:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Much better! Good sleuthing, as always! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

JohnMarks submissions

Guess we saw them at the same time. Red Flag alert! Even by my standards as to what would be acceptable for online fiction, these obviously don't work. Since you won the HOLD race I will leave them to you.--swfritter 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From the evidence presented, I would not think they qualify as well, but I've left a note on the editor's talk page to see if he can provide further information. Thanks. MHHutchins 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The last part of this statement from Rules of Acquisition may apply: "downloadable e-zines (periodicals in electronic format) which have been assigned an industry standard registration identifier (ISSN or ISBN) or have a history of containing reliably stable contents. Copying live webzine pages from the internet to a local computer does not qualify an ezine as downloadable." Perhaps we should add this to the section on ebooks. I am not sure exactly which section of Help the editor is using to justify the inclusion of these entries.--swfritter 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely do need to update ebook standards to be consistent. With a mention of file-save. Putting that statement in the webzine section was an afterthought but probably a good one. We can't have two different standards for ebooks and ezines. As far as ISBN and ISSN numbers for epubs. They aren't worth the pixels that are used to display them.--swfritter 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Astounding Adventures of Isaac Intrepid - Analog Aug. 79

I've held a submission of an unmerge for your verified pub Analog Aug. 79 - The Astounding Adventures of Isaac Intrepid. I believe the unmerge is correct, cause it's extremely unlikely analog reprinted something a year later. But I wanted you to see the state before the unmerge so you could massage things back into correctness if needed. Cheers - Kevin 05:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The unmerge can't be correct if it's removing the title from both pub records. Also unmerge is the wrong function for this purpose. See my response on Jonschaper's page. Thanks. MHHutchins 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:SeriesHeader

First please note that {{SeriesHeader}} is not the Header for Publication series, that is {{PubSeriesHeader}}. This is the header for ordinary series. Secondly If "Discussions about how to organize and/or record the works in the series" are banished to the talk page, there is likely to be little of value on the Series page itself. I think you recent edit is ill advised. -DES ^Talk 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be true of the Series page, which I admitted was mistaken for the Publication Series page. I've made my argument for the change on that template's talk page, which see. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And on second thought, i accept your view, and have reverted my own revert and restored your changes to the Publication Series header. My apologies for being overly touchy. -DES ^Talk 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment on Bibliographic comments. I tried to capture what you wanted for the pubseries header and made it a separate page so the explanation can be more detailed than what's appropriate for a header. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of Bibliographic comments, and once we have a fairly stable text, would liek to link to it from the various header templates, which might allow us to shorten them a bit. I have been both editing the draft, and commenting on the talk page, as you will no doubt see. Thanks for creating this. -DES ^Talk 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] I like the changes in the header template (as well as the new bibliographic comments page.) Thanks. But I wonder why we need to state "No link to an ISFDB series display has been provided" in the header. This type of series can't be handled by the db, so that's why we're using the wiki. If at any time in the future, a feature to link pubs in series is implemented, we'd only need these wiki pages for bibliographic comments. Only then would a link to the db display be necessary. In the meantime, I don't see the point in mentioning that there is no link. Thanks again. MHHutchins 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That "No link has been provided" was cloned from {{SeriesHeader}} and when i wrote that part of the template code, I was under the misunderstanding that some publication series had db records. It should probably be removed from the template. -DES ^Talk 16:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention: I originally intended the Publication Series to be temporary page. We needed a place to list all of the lists in the wiki. Now that the category for Publication Series has been created we can start removing those lists that have been placed under the category. So I now see the page as kind of a clearinghouse, or staging area. Would anyone disagree with using it as such? MHHutchins 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i would, or at least i would suggest that it be retained as a permanent page. There are at least three reasons. 1) Many of the Publication Series are described in a section of a publisher page. These pages, as a whole, probably do not belong in the Publication Series category, and i have not placed them there. 2) A category listing must remain a bare link, while an index page such as this can include useful notes and descriptions. 3) this page is now linked in several places (see what links here) including from the Bibliographic comments page, and it contains a useful description of what a publication series is that should be retained. We could retain this, and a list of series in progress or to be done, and use a link to the category for the rest, but i think retaining the index page, like Magazines, is probably better. -DES ^Talk 16:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I made this edit. -DES ^Talk 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A few clarifications: I said I'd "originally intended [it] to be a temporary page" but "now see the page as a kind of clearinghouse". That's means permanent. And by "staging area" I meant that once a list has been found and identified, it can be extracted from the publisher pages, creating a new page, placing it into the Publication Series category, and then removed from the list of links. Why keep a list of links to pages that have already been placed into the Publication Series category? Isn't that one of reasons for categorization, creating a list of links? This would satisfy all the reasons you give for keeping the page which I emphasize is a GOOD THING. MHHutchins 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I see. Well we can do it that way. Yes, that is one reason for the existence of category pages and categories. If you think that useful annotations (which can be done on an index page list of links, but not in a category) are unlikely to be added here, there is less reason to retain links to categorized pages on Publication Series. I thought having incomplete and proposed series on the same page as the list of more or less completed series pages would be a good idea. But there is no rule that says so, and not doing so would remove a redundancy. We could in that case add a note about the "clearinghouse" process to Publication Series. -DES ^Talk 16:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Down the Bright Way

Added "Black Milk (excerpt)" (which, as I recall, was somewhat disappointing) to your verified Bantam Spectra edition of Down the Bright Way. My copy is the same first printing, so I assume that your copy also includes this ~10 page excerpt, but it may be worth double checking in case they added it later and didn't update the number line. Ahasuerus 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Held the (Peter) Held" edits

No extra advice, just amused by the situation. :-) BLongley 20:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review - Autumn 1990 - Mary Zimmer Bradley

Could you please check your pub Science Fiction Review, Autumn 1990 and see if the Review of Black Trillium credits it to 'Mary Zimmer Bradley' or Marion Zimmer Bradley for the usual reasons. Thanks Kevin 03:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I must have been editing it while killing brain cells. I'll correct it. Thanks. MHHutchins

Not a problem. Me and my good friend Jim Beam have been editing tonight as a team also. Kevin 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Night of Light

Could you please check whether your 1977 Berkley edition of Night of Light has the words "Second printing" at the bottom of the copyright page? Thanks! Ahasuerus 11:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But it has to be wrong. There's a fourth printing in 1974 and an undated pub with sixth printing with a higher price and catalog number. I'd have to estimate it then to be the fifth printing. I'll make a note that in the record. Thanks for catching this. MHHutchins 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Got some guidance from the Philip Jose Farmer International Bibliography which gives corrected printings for this title. It's a mess. MHHutchins 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks painful, thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cover Image Data3

Allow me to draw to your attention the recently created {{Cover Image Data3}}, aka {{CID3}}, aka {{C3}}. This works just like {{tl|C} except it also accepts an artist credit and puts the wiki page in the proper artist-based category. A call would be soemthing like {{C3|<Pub Tag>|Artist|Title}}. This gets a significant benefit of the full {{Cover Image Data}} with significantly less work. I created it at Kevin's request. I hope you will consider using it for image uploads in place of {{C}} when the artist is known. -DES ^Talk 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks better than when I first saw it in-progress. Shortening the template from "Cover Image Data3" to simply "C3" will make it so much easier to input. Might even go back and add it to my earlier uploads. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured the people who wanted {{Cover Image Data2}} shortened to {{C}} would want a short alias for this also. I wanted to create the longer name as the main entry, then when that was working, create the short alasises. The main gain is getting the artist category on the image page without too much entry work. As you can see from Category:Artist Images we are starting to develop something of an indexed "image library" which may be useful as things go forward. -DES ^Talk 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Universe

A new user, Andrew Fraknoi (User:Fraknoi), has added himself as a co-editor of the Bantam Spectra edition of Byron Preiss' The Universe. I checked OCLC 15654497 (ISBN 0553052276) and it lists "Byron Preiss, editor ; Andrew Fraknoi, scientific editor". I suppose it arguably makes Andrew Fraknoi a co-editor, but could you please check your verified Bantam Spectra / QPBC edition of the book and see what it says? TIA! Ahasuerus 02:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have started a discussion about a related submission on the Rules page. Ahasuerus 02:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Title page credits: "Byron Preiss, Editor" (over) "Andrew Fraknoi, Scientific Editor" (in a smaller font). Cover and spine only credits Byron Preiss. Only Preiss is credited in the Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data (here laughingly called the "Library of Congress-in-Publication Data"). There are other roles credited on the copyright page: "Book design by Leslie Miller", "Associate Editor for Science: Ruth Ashby", "Associate Editor for Science Fiction: David M. Harris", "Photo Editor: E. Bruce Stevenson". Personally I feel that "scientific editor" should not be consider a co-editor, but I'll bring my points to the discussion. MHHutchins 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Adventures in Space and Time - cloned off result differences

Afternoon! This. [7]. I cloned of your ver, and thank you for all that work. I had four differences. "Seeds of the Dusk" page 249", "Maurice A. Hugi", "Who Goes There? page 497", and "R. De Witt Miller". Two numbering typos, one spelling typo(?) and one spacing (DeWitt versus De Witt). Off course mine is a later printing and some of the problem could be that. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these errors to my attention. I've corrected the three typos, but don't think we should change the credit for De Witt/DeWitt. See your talk page for a further discussion on this matter. Thanks again. MHHutchins 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

De Witt on R&S page

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

Thanks for doing this. As one of the parties involved my presentation of it on a community page might have have been biased, consciously or not. I also know that Harry prefers that such discussions not overload his page, so I asked that no further comments be added to the discussion there. Funny thing is, the moment I read your comment, I kicked myself for not thinking about such a workable compromise. Sometimes when you're in the middle of a discussion, heated or not, just stepping back, taking a moment to clear your head, it can do wonders. Thanks for the idea. MHHutchins 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As one whose been all too often on the other side of that gap, and who gets all to passionately involved in discussions here, I'm glad to have been of some help, perhaps. -DES ^Talk 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, October-November 2008

Regarding 913915, you verified the magazine with the title of the story being "The Eromann Nexus". However, Asimov's website, has it posted as "The Erdmann Nexus"[8]. The various Hugo ballets I've seen list it as d also. Can you double check the magazine? Thanks. --JLaTondre 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it may take a little time for me to dig out that issue as 2008 has been filed away. It sounds like a typo. MHHutchins 02:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional authors

Fictional authors have been discussed at least three times: ISFDB:Community Portal/Archive/Archive05#Are Fictional Authors Pseudonyms?, Rules and standards discussions/Archive/Archive05#Fictional authors, and ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard/Archive 07#Sethra Lavode- contents change of "Afterword" to shortfiction. The overall consensus, although not clear, seemed to be against grating them author credit, and i agree. There was a proposed help change to that end which was never finalized. Thus, I question your recent advice on User talk:Nowickj#Foreward (as by Gervasio Montenegro), but I didn't want to open this up there for fear of creating confusion. -DES ^Talk 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All pseudonyms are fictional authors when you get to the bottom. The foreword and afterword to the collection is question are credited to authors other than the authors of the stories. Would anyone question that the credits for Farmer's fictional author series are not pseudonyms? How about Effinger's stories by "O. Niemand"? John Sladek's author parodies shouldn't be credited as published? I don't see the distinction. Please enlighten me. MHHutchins 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I would argue that Farmer's fictional authors should not be given author credit in this database, and if they currently are, this should be changed. I wouldn't credit "John H. Watson" for any of the Sherlock Holmes stories that might be considered SF (nor for Sherlock Holmes' War of the Worlds although i believe that Watson is credited on the title page). I wouldn't credit "Archie Goodwin" with any of the Nero Wolfe stores. I wouldn't credit "Parfi of Roundwood" although "his" name appears on the title page of at least the afterword of 500 Years After, adn I think on the title page of the main novel. I note that our record for The Paths of the Dead relegates the fictional authors of the essays before and after the novel to notes, which I think is exactly proper. I Do not credit "Hclotch of Mistwood" with the intros to The Earth Book of Stormgate. The Door into Shadow has a note: "Actual printed map credit is "Duane, after D'Welcaen and Lhhw Ehs Pheress", the latter two are fictional characters, the 2nd being a dragon. The map carries a note: "Topographical data checked by overflight"." The interior art record credits Duane as the sole artist, as is proper.

A fictional author is a character, a part of the fiction. An ordinary pseudonym is not part of the fiction, it is merely an alternate name for the Author. No one confuses Ed McBain with one of his detectives, nor Mark Twain with Huck Finn. "Eric Van Lihn" is a pseudonym. "Princess Irulan" is a fictional author, although she is given credit for one of the appendices to Dune. It states in the text, if not on the title page that "The Red Book of Westmarch" was written by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins. We don't credit them in the database. The Introduction to The Syndic is signed "B. Arrowsmith Hynde" (a joke aimed at Fletcher Pratt, but also part of the fiction). We don't credit Hynde.

I could go on at still greater length. I think there is a usually clear distinction between fictional authors and ordinary pseudonyms, although there are borderline cases. I think we shouldn't list fictional authors in author fields in the database, but should mention them in notes. And I strongly suspect that "Gervasio Montenegro" is a fictional author, not a pseudonym. -DES ^Talk 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the last time we had this discussion, the best standard we could come up with was "Will a reasonable person have doubts as to the real authorship by glancing at the title?" Thus The Adventure of the Peerless Peer is currently attributed to Farmer even though the title page says "by John H. Watson, M.D., edited by Philip José Farmer, American Agent for the Estates of Dr. Watson, Lord Greystoke, David Copperfield, Martin Eden and Don Quixote". Conversely, many Dray Prescot books are entered as by "Alan Burt Akers and Dray Prescot" because a casual observer may not know that Prescot is the main character in the series and "Akers" is a Bulmer pseudonym. There are certainly many gray areas, but that's how it is around here much of the time... Ahasuerus 04:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling them "fictional authors" in my comment to the editor might have thrown up a red flag. I wonder if I'd used "pseudonym" would it have gotten the same reaction? I don't have the book in question so I don't know if these are "in universe", but it might not be obvious to the reader that the pieces are anything other than a foreword and an afterword. MHHutchins 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I might not have noticed had you used the term "pseudonym", but had I noticed I would have reacted in the same way. I don't have the book either, but from what the submitter wrote (and what I know of Borges's literary habits) I rather suspect these are in-universe names. If they are, they should not (IMO) be in the author field, nor the basis for a variant. -DES ^Talk 03:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the "author" is credited as part of the title of the short piece is IMO a large clue that this is a fictional author. -DES ^Talk 03:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'll re-read what I asked the submitter (who hasn't responded except with another submission which removed the parentheses from the title records), you'll see that was the reason for my original inquiry. I don't know (and obviously neither do you) that the "author" is credited as part of the title. We don't know that these credited authors are characters created by the real authors. We do know that these pieces are not credited to the authors, and only know through the submitter that the pieces were actually written by the book's authors. Let's slow down. Until we hear back from the person with the book-in-hand, don't you think this conversation is unnecessary? Now I understand why Bill Longley has lately become averse to the Wiki. MHHutchins 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we can't make a decision on this case without further evidence. I think i misunderstood how far along the process had gone. I initially intended only an alert, but then it seemed to me that you were advocating crediting in-universe authors. Perhaps i misunderstood. I'll hold any further comments until we have more information, unless you want to discuss the general principle. -DES ^Talk 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do me a favor. No more "alerts". It's rather obvious, through the research you did in getting the links to previous discussions, that this was more than an alert. MHHutchins 04:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Having already wasted too much time, I thought "what the hell, go for broke!" Further research has shown that this collection was first published in 1942 (in Argentina) as by "H. Bustos Domecq" with an introduction by "Gervasio Montenegro". Only later was it revealed that Jorge Luis Borges and Adolfo Bioy Casares were the real authors. If that's not the definition of a pseudonym, pray tell, what is? MHHutchins 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be in the middle of one of our periodic "Wiki eruptions", which occur from time to time and result in a spike in the volume (and sometimes the temperature) of discussions. The current cycle may be exacerbated by the fact that we can now change the software, which opens up additional areas for discussion. At some point keeping up with all the topics, especially the ones hotly debated by prolific posters, becomes difficult and eventually frustrating since it leaves little time for anything else. For example, I mostly ignored the Wiki yesterday night and managed to get 6 bugs fixed. On the other hand, trying to catch up with the Wiki today led to almost no development getting done (sporadic activity during the day doesn't count since I can't do development that way). I wonder if it may be more productive to limit our discussions to a few topics at a time and add other policy issues to some kind of "list of outstanding topics" to be dealt with once the current list has shrunk. As I recall, at one point we tried to compile a list of "known hot topics" when the Rules discussions began to get out of hand, but I don't recall where we put it. Ahasuerus 04:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe one issue at a time. That way Issue B cannot be discussed until Issue A is resolved. Which might lead to either speedier resolutions or total stasis.--swfritter 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Bertin

I see that you Tuck-verified the Acadia House edition of Bertin's Brood of Helios a couple of years ago. Just a note that I was cleaning up his somewhat convoluted bibliography earlier today and changed the author's name from "John Bertin" to "Jack Bertin" as per Reginald-1, OCLC and a small army of online booksellers. Notes updated. Ahasuerus 02:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the note that Tuck was in error. Hopefully someone won't come along and create a new record based on Tuck's listing. MHHutchins 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Generation - ISBN issue

[This] pub has an ISBN that, while valid, links to a book :The Feud by Thomas Berger (both OCLC & Amazon). I didn't do anything with it, or alter the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the derived ISBN and replace with the catalog number as it appears in the book. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone Magazine, June 1988

I have changed the name of the reviewed author of "Torture Tomb" from "C. Dean Anderson" to "C. Dean Andersson" in your verified Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone Magazine, June 1988 and linked the review. When you get a chance, could you please check whether the author's name is misspelled in the magazine? Also, one of the other reviews reads "Dreams of Flesh and SAnd", probably a typo? TIA! Ahasuerus 04:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The pub misprints the author's name in both the heading and body of the review. I'll note that in the review record. And I'll correct that typo also. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuum 1

Checking our version, I now think it's "$2.05 in New Zealand. Is yours the same or is mine another printing? BLongley 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bluesman agrees on "$2.05" - I think "$2.95 in New Zealand" was my original mistake, added after you verified? I don't think you did "other prices" in 2007. BLongley 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Still don't. Sorry. MHHutchins 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just defending myself from enquiries from Maltese, Gibraltarian, West Indian, Spanish, etc editors that may arrive... I saw what the Canadian / US price confusion led to. BLongley 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And for Continuum 2 I'm no longer sure it's "The Fire Mountain" miscredited, it's "The Fire Fountain" in the introduction that gets it wrong? BLongley 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've changed the record to show the story as published and made it a variant of the title as it first appeared. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you - surely this is the only place it appeared? Or do you trust the Berkeley variation? Cayer1886 isn't the chattiest of editors. :-( BLongley 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only verify my copy, but Contento gives it as "The Fire Fountain" and so does OCLC in two different records for the Berkley hardcover and paperback editions. Since this was published afterward I made it the variant. MHHutchins 21:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, understood. It just messes up my reuse of old unwanted series a bit - as there are eight series in Continuum, I've made sure they're all clear. This is the only one with a variant that won't show up in the pub. Display issue only though. BLongley 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

She Only Goes Out at Night (. . .)

In your verified pub. The Fantastic Universe appearance has ellipsis as do copies of "The Square Root of Man" in possession of myself and Harry.--swfritter 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It should have the ellipsis. I've corrected my copy (the SFBC edition). Odds are that the trade edition had the ellipsis in the title as well, but I'll leave that to the person who verifies it. MHHutchins 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Made the one with ellipsis the canonical.--swfritter 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle for the Stars and SFBC

Just a heads up that Bluesman has updated the SFDB edition of Edmond Hamilton's Battle for the Stars with your comments in Notes. The second bullet point, which also contained your comment, used to read:

The SFBC edition was printed 3-4 weeks after the trade edition. (Note: this statement contradicts the first statement. Attribution of either statement is unknown - MHH)

Bluesman overwrote it with "The SFBC edition was printed from the same press run as the trade edition per Currey."

And so it goes, one pub at a time :) Ahasuerus 02:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I placed my parenthetical note there after Tuck-verifying the pub, because the two statements were contradictory. If Currey says they had the same press run it makes sense that both would have the same gutter code. I'm going to tweak the notes slightly. Thanks again. MHHutchins 04:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing! By the way, as per Swfritter's comment above, I have proposed limiting the number of concurrent Rules discussions to "one at a time". The proposal is currently under discussion -- please take a look when you get a chance as I hope it will make the Wiki side of the project a more pleasant place :) Ahasuerus 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

80K!

Just wanted to say "wow". And thanks, too. --MartyD 21:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's just my own submissions. I've moderated all of those plus 25K of other editors submissions. It makes me tired just thinking about it. Did someone promise me a party at 100K? MHHutchins 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No party, just a nice padded jacket! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To go with a nice padded cell? :-) Ahasuerus 03:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Matheson

Thanks for your comments on the Collected Stories. I will attempt the merges you need.

On an unrelated topic. I want to add the contents to the publication record for the Kolchak Scripts of Matheson. Rather than stories, there are 3 screenplays. What Entry Type would be appropriate to use? Length-wise they would be a novel, but is that what I should use? Nowickj 02:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently there is no type for such publications. (Perhaps that might change in the future.) The closest I can think of (and the one I use) is SHORTFICTION, and leave the length blank. Once the submission is accepted, go back to the records and make a note that they're screenplays. MHHutchins 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

John Wyndham Omnibus

An interesting glitch: you changed the date of the Simon Schuster to match Tuck, which is fine but the original submission with the 1966 date still shows on the pub list but when I clicked on it got the message "No such tag exists"?¿?¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Simultaneous comments! Check out what I just wrote on your page. MHHutchins 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We have to get on the same page........ LOLOL!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Day of the Triffids -- Tuck 1964 version also?

Morning! I put the above to Swfritter, but it also concerns you as you did the Tuck. He verified as unknown date the d741 printing and you verified as 'tuck' the 1964 date for d741. Could you guys resolve it into one entry. See his page please. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded on Swfritter's page. MHHutchins 20:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a keeper

Did you notice Nowickj is in the Top 60 contributors already? One to keep an eye on and support, I think. But do tell me if I push too hard, we haven't managed to get 100 editors with 100 edits yet, so I suspect we scare off a lot, or ignore them into apathy too often. :-( BLongley 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do sometimes seem to fall by the wayside. I was a little apprehensive about asking him to merge those Matheson records, but it looks like he did well enough to move forward shortly to the next step (the dreaded variants). I'm even happier to see that he's begun to respond on the Wiki. Didn't want another Alibrarian on our hands! Another one to watch is Jonschaper, who has been finding a lot a stray records from pseudonymous authors and creating variants, which is quite sophisticated considering his short time here. Rtrace was doing a fine job but appears to have slowed down since his initial burst. Phileas has disappeared as well.

Your comment makes me think that there would be a good case for a checklist of sorts that allows us to evaluate new editors, and lead them forward (at their own pace, of course) to the larger issues and intricacies of the database. Remember the past discussion about mentorship? But if that leads to another Wiki debate that goes nowhere, leave me out. MHHutchins 20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I too am fairly fed up with Wiki discussions leading nowhere, although I'm aware DES is trying to improve that. Which will, of course, probably involve a long Wiki discussion about why it will or won't work... :-( Ah well, direct discussions don't get me fuming as often (although I have already seen edit conflicts on personal talk-pages) and I might survive those a bit longer. The "mentorship" idea still seems reasonable but I think we're burning out the mentors. I know I've dodged a few "Welcome!"s when I really don't want to spend another evening on someone that may only want to promote one book. BLongley 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've overcome my recent Wiki-phobia enough to greet another editor but I'm longer sure I'm cut out for such. I find myself worrying about how much time it will take to mentor someone totally new over encouraging someone else that's made it into double/treble figures to keep pushing further. I'd appreciate any comments on my approach this time - am I getting too pernickety about bad edits that could be allowed and reversed with no lasting harm? (Direct question to the most active Mod, but anyone that indulges in direct communication is welcome to take this to my talk page instead. I'm not ready for a mass discussion over mentoring at the moment.) BLongley 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) A thought from the peanut gallery: I've yet to see a "mentor" simply ask a new editor what they think.... about Sf, what they see the database as, what they might like to do here. All editors seem to follow certain, yet distinct paths, with different foci. Direction is much easier if you know where they want to be 'pushed'. My 2¢, CDN, of course! Cheers! [If I didn't hate variants so much I would volunteer to Mod a few newbies....] ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people are "mentoring". The whole "Welcome!" phase seems to encourage a dependency on one person who may or may not be available (e.g. "or ask me on my talk page" in the boiler-plate text). BLongley 21:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that the other day as well. Perhaps we could change the template to simply point new editors to the Help Desk. I am also not sure whether our "Warning and a note on how to update a publication's contents" is something that many new editors are in a position to understand, but even if it is too advanced at an early stage, at least it's harmless. Ahasuerus 02:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd like people like you, Bluesman, to take on new people as well - I know there's a big gap in what Moderators see and what non-Moderators don't, but you're perfectly qualified to explain a lot of a new Editor's worries away. So while it may be a concern to some people about letting you become a moderator before you've grasped variants, you'd be a welcome addition to the new greeters at least, explaining the simpler stuff that we seem to make so complicated. There's been a long gap in the "new Moderator" nominations, and we seem to have several "self-approver" mods carrying on as usual, some have branched out (is DES approved to do some of the things he does?) and some people that do drastic things to our software aren't Mods yet (MartyD). Maybe it is time to shake it up a little and have "experienced editors" look at mod stuff, and at least get to talk to new editors they aren't even aware of? I dislike the "Us and Them" split, but would also query the "OK, you're one of US but we trust you to be one of THEM that can stop bothering US". BLongley 21:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was fully "approved" as a moderator to do anything I felt qualified to do. What additional approvals are wanted for what activities? I didn't know we had "approvals" beyond moderator. I am not as experienced with magazines as some editors here, and I have asked for help or turned over things I wasn't sure of, but I have done a number of magazines, including all our records of Magazine:Neo-Opsis, and i thought I had done an acceptable job. Was I wrong? -DES ^Talk 21:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what Bill had in mind, but in general there are no explicit limits on moderator activities either on the Wiki side or on the database side as long as they are within the guidelines outlined in the ROA, Policy and Help. Of course, it's advisable to check with more experienced editors when venturing into unfamiliar (or less familiar) territory, but that's just common sense. I'd check with DES if I wanted to create a new Wiki template or with Marc if I needed to make significant changes to DAW pubs, etc. Ahasuerus 02:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it might be a good idea for some experienced editors to be able to see what mods see, even if they aren't allowed to "push the button" and approve stuff, and maybe some are ready to be mods. I also agree that a feeling of US and THEM is not a great idea. -DES ^Talk 21:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition

Added one to [this] Have an email in to an AbeBooks seller to see what the gutter code/catalog#s might be. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And another one to [this]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're going to find quite more than a few. When I stopped linking the titles, I also stopped checking to see if there was a matching ISFDB record for the SFBC edition. It was taking so much time stopping to create records each time I came across one that my plan was to forge ahead with the lists and then go back and add the missing pub records. As I mentioned above, when I added the selections for 1999, there were many titles that didn't have ISFDB records. The linking of titles from the list to the database makes sure that there are records for the SFBC editions. You didn't think it would be simply copying and pasting tags into linking templates, now did you? MHHutchins 03:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What, NOT all play and no work??? "Tis what 'tis... Added a third to [this]. Have to stop here for the night as every time I see a book or pub record with Wayland's name I get the laughs, hysterical sometimes......... he was my grade 10 English teacher, and that he wrote these books just cracks me up!!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) New addition [here] ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Completed the rest of the fields (price and cover artist, same as the trade edition). MHHutchins 05:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New addition, [here] though barely a stub - 9 for sale on AbeBooks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Completed all info (added catalog number and price). MHHutchins 05:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for [this], only two for sale this time! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Locus has no listing for this pub. Perhaps because it's nonfiction? MHHutchins 05:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll go through the issues of Locus when these were published, and fill in the blanks: catalog numbers, prices, page counts, etc. MHHutchins 03:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shatterday image

How did you get it to scan correctly? These kinds of problems drive me batty. If you found a method, cough it up!!!! ;-) please!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This version took about an hour of Paint Shop work and still didn't look very good (I had to paint in every inch of the gray to cover the wave effect.) So I took the problem to the internet and discovered this is call a moire effect (because it's similar to moire fabric). One website advised that I increase the resolution to at least double what I needed (so I went from 200 to 600 dpi) and to tilt the picture (or object that you're scanning) about 15 degrees. And it worked! That created another problem in that the file was over 20,000 kb! So I used Paint Shop to reduce it to 600 pixels high and it came down to 89 kb. Here's the final results. Now you know the secret. MHHutchins 04:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. I had thought of upping the resolution and then downsizing after but never would have thought of tilting the book. Filed for future reference! Thanks!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Blackwater, Volume 1

Notes for [this] are at odds with the placement of the edition in July '83 in the SFBC listings and the gutter code there is "N07" which also seems out of whack. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. There's slim evidence that it was a SFBC selection. The July date comes from Locus (the month in which they received a copy), but it is not listed in Andrew Wheeler's newsgroup postings for July. The listing for the second quarter of 1983 is missing from Google Groups search, so it could have been a selection from April to June. I had dropped out of the club early in the year, or I assume so, because I'm missing the club announcements for that period, with some later in the year when I must have rejoined. (I did that a lot in order to get the good deals for joining.) The "N07" gutter code comes from an Abebooks.com dealer, and another one has "P44". When I created the record for the pub I must have disconnected from what I'd done in the SFBC listings (or vice versa). I'll contact the dealer with the "N07" gutter code to have him recheck it. (If he will. Many of them know me from previous emails and may not answer my question because I didn't order from them.) That number seems too early in the year. The omnibus consists of three novels that were published in paperback in Jan, Feb and Mar 1983. "N07" would have been printed at the end of February before the third paperback was published. If that gutter code is correct, the only way to reconcile all of this is to leave the SFBC listing date as July (otherwise I don't think they would have sent a copy to Locus), and note in the record that it was probably available earlier in the year for another Doubleday book club. Thanks for pointing this out. Here's hoping that we get it straightened out. MHHutchins 22:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Email has been sent to the Abebooks.com dealer. Hope he responds soon. MHHutchins 04:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dealer confirms the existence of the "N07" gutter code. The record has been adjusted accordingly. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 04:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Space Merchants submitted pub year as in book not Tuck

Afternoon! This. [9]. I added this note and changed pub year from 1964 to 1965-02-00 as in the book. Tuck, left col. middle, agrees with page count, catalog number and price. Tuck gives 1964 not 1965 as the publication year. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

More proof that Donald Tuck wasn't a Slan! Thanks. MHHutchins 22:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth

Added an SFBC edition to [this] but think the data may be incorrect. OCLC has conflicting data from AbeBooks (six sellers have almost the same data, all differing from OCLC) and Locus1 doesn't list this. Printed in '83 it may show up in the magazine but not in the Index. The ISBN from OCLC does not hit on Amazon. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also to [Blatty's Legion]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at this record which matches the page count and ISBN of your edition. This particular ISBN belonged to Bookspan (owner of the SFBC) for its original (or exclusive) publications. Do an ISBN search for "073940" and you'll see the publisher and date range. Most of the pubs fall from 1999 into 2000 and are all book club editions. Look at the OCLC record and you'll see why the confusion about the publisher. SFBC is on the spine, Bridge is the copyright holder and St. Martin's is shown as the original publisher. I'm going to change the current record to show the publisher as "Bridge / SFBC" and reject your submission (which would match exactly with that record.) I'll look into the Blatty pub later. MHHutchins 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reject away! As for the Blatty it's fine, just noted it wasn't likely an SFBC selection 1st. If he hadn't written the Exorcist..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Submission rejected. The Blatty submission was accepted but it may have been published earlier than June 1984 (with an earlier unknown gutter code). Back then a BCE was usually offered about 3-6 months after the trade edition. 12 months seems a long time and that date would make it after the paperback edition which is quite unusual. You can also bet that it was offered by both the Literary Guild and the Doubleday Book Club, the most common outlets for the "bestseller" titles. MHHutchins 04:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Locus Jan 1986 Obituary

In this there's an obituary for Martin Thomas. Is the real name "Thomas Hector Martin"? BLongley 21:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Exact date of death might be good too, as there's a screenwriter trying to find where the copyright for "The Hands of Cain" lives now. BLongley 21:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Name misspelling has been corrected and the reported date of death has been added to the author data for "Martin Thomas". Hope this helps. MHHutchins 21:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me! (Well, in a bibliographical way, obviously a death is not usually celebrated.) BLongley 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)