User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2010Jan-Mar

Jump to navigation Jump to search

John R Pfeiffer

You verified Anatomy of Wonder which contains an essay titled The Modern Period: 1938-1980. That essay is showing a being from John R Pfeiffer (no period after the middle initial) and is his only work. There is also a John R. Pfeiffer. Is the missing period correct? And, if so, is there any indications in your pub (list of other work, etc.) that might prove this is the same person and we should set-up a pseudonym? Thanks. --JLaTondre 20:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Should have the period after the middle initial. I'll correct it which will send the record over to the other author's summary page. Thanks for catching the error. MHHutchins 22:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Forsaken Sky - added Afterword/notation

Afternoon! [1]. I added notation and "Afterword" after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

World of If editor series

The UK pubs are currently merged with the US pubs. It is my intention to unmerge them and create a separate UK series. Eventually I intend to add stub entries for the earlier UK series primarily to create the editor records.--swfritter 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of work to separate them when they are actually the same magazine except for the cover. If the earlier series is substantially different, I see no problem with creating a new magazine. I just can't see the 1970s version as a different work which would qualify them to have their own series. It's your call though, if you want to do the work. I can live with it either way. MHHutchins 16:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
And I would have preferred it if we hadn't done duplicate entries for identical (except for cover price) magazines. But now that they've been done it that way I think it is better to separate them.--swfritter 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason they were originally created was because they were considered an additional printing of the same work. We don't create new titles when a work is reprinted, only new pubs. We don't create new series for reprintings either, regardless of whether it's a book or a magazine. If you prefer that they had not been entered to begin with, it's easier to simply delete the pubs than to separate them and create a false series. As I stated above, I have no objection one way or the other. Perhaps taking the matter to the community forum will help if you don't want to make a unilateral decision. MHHutchins 16:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The main problem is that the series list, which is becoming the primary method of accessing magazines, is a little confusing. I will create a separate series as soon as I get through updating the magazine wiki pages with list links for those titles that are currently up to snuff series-wise.--swfritter 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


non-genre magazine?--swfritter 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the original editor will respond to the messages I left on his talk page. MHHutchins 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Mhutchins,

Just wanted to thank you for your welcome and helpful info. I appreciate it!

Rob --Rob Crausaz 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound particularly snarky tonight

I do think we need to all be on the same side when it comes to editing and moderating, so I'm not apologising for the latest Rules and Standards question - let the masses decide. But I have a nasty feeling that I'm coming across as deliberately contrarian or argumentative at the moment, and that is definitely not intended, so apologies for dragging you into such discussions. (I'm still a bit worried that I might have scared DES away, and that's never been my intent.) BLongley 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm aware I might be being particularly obnoxious at present - I'm a bit scared of what the doctor may tell me tomorrow, and in fact am even worried about whether I'll be able to get to the doctor, or whether the doctor can get to the surgery anyway - I've seen the snow fall and it's gone beyond "will have to scrape the windscreen" to "might have to do some shovelling". Still, if I get snowed in entirely, then I might find that Delap review you were after. :-) BLongley 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand, and never felt you were being snarky or even argumentative (which I accept as being part and parcel of being concerned). As for dragging me into the discussion, it was my question to Willem that prompted the situation that came to your attention. If I didn't respond I would have felt like I'd left Willem out to dry, to defend a stance that I'd dragged him into unknowingly. In the long run, I think we'll come to a solution that we can all live with.
I hope you're feeling better (I had pleurisy when I was a child and still remember it forty years later!) As for the snow, there's a chance we may be seeing snow on Thursday and I live in the Deep South! Here's hoping neither one us gets snowed in, but if so, I can be rather productive, ISFDB-wise (as long as my internet service holds up!) MHHutchins 23:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. The good news is that the chest X-Ray showed no major problems, and apparently I just(!) had pneumonia a few weeks ago and it didn't get treated properly then (they're so scared of swine-flu here that they tell you NOT to go to the doctor's if it might be that, so I just stayed at home as if I had normal flu or a bad cold). So the antibiotics have cleared that up, the pain is almost entirely gone, and I just have to avoid exertion for a bit longer - so no book or magazine box unpacking just yet. I was right to be concerned about the weather though - I made it to the morning appointment, but the doctor didn't. Rescheduled it for the afternoon with another doctor who had made it in, and got the all-clear health-wise then (sort of [1]), but had to be pushed out of the surgery's car-park as another inch of snow had fallen while I was seeing her. There's more snow on the way, and what we have already apparently won't melt in the meantime, so I may yet be stuck at home for a bit. BLongley 22:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
[1] OK, I'm happy that I'm not dying of lung-cancer or any of the other worries I had, but apparently my blood-pressure is up again and they've doubled my medication for such. I hope this is just down to snow-stress, but if I suddenly go AWOL from the Wiki side of things it's probably me just trying to de-stress. 22:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction (The Secret Songs)

Hi Michael, the introduction to this pub is credited in the database to Fritz Leiber. Contento also has it by Leiber, but it's signed by Judith Merril. I think it should be changed. Thanks, Willem H. 11:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, never noticed that. Great catch! I'll make the correction. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dereek vs Derek Vanderpool

I suspect that the author for this should be Derek Jonschaper 03:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's probably a typo. Give me a day or so to pull out that issue. If it's wrong I'll correct it. If it's not, I make the author a pseudonym. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Under Heaven's Bridge

Re: artist's credit for [this], Willem verified the artist [here] from Jane Frank, though I think the initials (about 1/2" up from the lower right corner) are actually Punchatz' stylized "dp" (even under magnification they don't resolve very well). I didn't adjust the note. I think Harry has the same Frank book as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the source of the art credit. And thanks for pointing out a second printing of that title. I never knew there was a second Ace printing. I'll update the record giving the source. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Marooned in Realtime

Hi Michael. I see you recently verified Marooned in Realtime. My copy of the book states First Bluejay printing: September 1986 on the copyright page. All the other properties match my copy - including the "09/86" code on the jacket flap. I'm wondering whether you may have overlooked that printing statement or I have to create a clone of this pub. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phileas (talkcontribs) . --19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange indeed. My copy doesn't have the first printing statement. It must be a later printing. I'll scan a copy of my copyright page so you can compare it with yours. Go ahead and clone my record, making the necessary changes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the scan of the copyright page. Let me know where the first printing statement is on your copy. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast answer and the scan. The statement is above the box at the bottom: see. So I guess I'm going to clone the pub and change the note? --Phileas 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, proceed to clone my pub. When you've finished I'll then change mine to an unknown date and later printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Best SF Stories Sixth Annual

Scanned in an image for [this] Dozois's prefatory essay is listed as "Introduction" in the TOC but has "Foreword" on its title page. Changed the content with notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Locus 2007

The new index has been posted online. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great news! Thanks for passing it along. Mhhutchins 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
And I just received the CD-Rom which includes 2008 if you have anything to search for?? I just glanced through a couple of pages quickly but have been swamped entering all the books from the recent road trip..... my desk and office are almost livable now! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Good to know you've got a copy. Now I'll know where to go for questions about 2008 pubs! Funny thing is, just last night I was over on the Locus website (not the index but the magazine side of the site). I ordered a copy of the magazine index and was about to add the book index to the order, but decided not to. My subconscience was telling me to hold off until later. Now I know why! Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I ordered mine before X-mas but it just arrived. Nice of them to wait and include the '08 listings! I had expected only '07. A nice surprise. See you jumped right in on the SFBC listings! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I knew there were several books that I had listed in 2007 that probably appeared in 2006 based on the dates of the trade editions (these days the trade and book club editions are almost always simultaneous). They'd been in Locus's hardcopy listings in their 2007 issues so that's where I placed them on our list. Turns out there were 14 pubs that I had to move from 2007 to 2006 (mostly in October and November). Sadly, looking at the listings in the 2007 index, it peters out in July and August, and there's none listed for the remainder of the year. Over the past few years Locus has gone from sporadically recording SFBC editions to zilch in the past year. Glad I rejoined the club last year just to keep the ISFDB listings current! One of the saddest things about Locus no longer recording SFBC editions is that there has been an increasing number of first editions published by the club over the past few years, and those aren't even being considered for listing. Maybe the SFBC just couldn't afford to send gratis copies to either Locus or Contento? Mhhutchins 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The CD-Rom has way more SFBC editions past those on the list above and goes through until June '08 with two in July. Then nada..... It even has sections called SFBC/XXXX [BOMC, QPBC, etc] that pick up a few stragglers. Additional bonus is that there are listings, other than SFBC, into 2009, at least to April that I've found. I'll keep you posted, though I think you've already ordered yours??¿¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Extend the inclusion date to July '09, but not to August. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Typo

Hi, assume that this should be "SF in Poland". Thanks Jonschaper 02:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for catching it. I've corrected it. Mhhutchins 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird Tales, March-April 2004

I've added a bunch of content to Weird Tales, March-April 2004, which you have verified. Mostly I've added the cover and interior art credits. Also a couple of reviews, and I've corrected the title of "The Coffin Reprint" to "The Coffin Merchant", and I've listed the George Barr Illustrated Limericks separately. I did want to ask one question, though and that is regarding the authorship of the column "The Eyrie". I've recently been adding a bunch of issues of Weird Tales (I think I've fallen into collecting them) and I had read this help page (General contents - Author - Anonymous or uncredited works) as meaning that unsigned editorials should be credited to literally "The Editor". Most of the time, "The Eyrie" is unsigned both on its title page, and in the table of contents and thus I have entered it as by "The Editor". Two other times, the table of contents has listed "The Eyrie" as by "The Editorial Horde" and, as also in the case of issue 335, as "The Editors". However, I've noticed that you've entered the editors by name. Having I been reading the help page incorrectly? I suspect that these essays are actually penned by the editors of the magazine. However, even this secondary source (for earlier issues), does not credit an author to these columns. Let me know how you think we should proceed. I'll also note that I've been entering any reviews contained in "The Eyrie" as by "uncredited".

I also noticed that you disambiguated "Shadowings" with "(Weird Tales #335)" as opposed to "(Weird Tales, March-April 2004)". Also you've got the pub format as "quatro". I've been adding these as "bedsheet" per the above help page.

Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So much has changed about entering magazines in the three years since that issue was verified. Other than adding interior art records and correcting obvious errors, a few points you bring up warrant discussion.
  1. Concerning crediting unsigned editorials, I think I used the editor names because the rule you point out used to say "If a work is attributed to a role, e.g. "Editor" or "Publisher", then the given name can be substituted". (This was taken from a look at the page history.) Obviously this was changed and I don't recall there ever being any discussion. About the rationale of crediting unsigned editorials to "The Editor" is beyond me as it flies against all ISFDB rules about recording as stated in the pub. If I'd been entering that issue today I would have chosen to enter it as "uncredited" then create a variant giving credit to the editors. I guess it's about time I actually read the help pages. :)
  2. I'm not sure why I chose that form of disambiguating titles for this issue. There are certain mags that I've done this way because the issue numbers are more commonly referred to than the date. Besides, the record itself is dated and by giving the issue number you're adding data. Feel free to change any disambiguating titles in Weird Tales to the date.
  3. I only recently learned that "quarto" is not among the sizes recognized on the help page for magazines. I picked this up from Locus1, from where I entered much information in my early days (and still do!) It's a habit that's going to be hard to break, and frankly, I don't relish having to go back and change more than a thousand issues of magazines and fanzines that I've entered as "quarto". It pisses me off that "A4" is on the list when it's almost identical to "bedsheet". "Quarto" is a well recognized sheet size (at least here in the US) and along with "octavo" is used by bibliophiles throughout the world. According to Wikipedia, bedsheet is 9 3/4" x 12". Most of the magazines I've entered as quarto are not that large, averaging 8 1/2" x 11". I'm not going to argue about changing this issue to "bedsheet". I'll simply pull the "sheet" over my head and go back to sleep. :) Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I consider the use of quarto to be an established standard based upon usage. And I also think Prohibition was a mistake. There are some laws that you can't stop people from breaking.--swfritter 16:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Coming from a magazine maven I find that very reassuring. As anyone who has kept up with my posts here can attest, I have a soft spot in my heart for civil disobedience. :) Mhhutchins 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
"quarto" never really meant much to me but I've been using it recently for older Vectors. Simply because that's what Michael Cross calls the 8" by 10" issues, and after I discovered the fragility of double-quotes in the binding field. Of course, following what he's done also means that we now have "Half Foolscap" size to deal with at some point. :-/ BLongley 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Please check the record "23 • Lambert, Lambert • shortfiction by Allen Koszowski". Probably should be interiorart. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll switch it back to quarto if you want. I don't really have strong feelings about it. I just went with Bedsheet, since there is a defined size on the help page.
I've left the authorship of "The Eyrie" alone. I probably would have entered it as "The Editors" as that is how it is credited in the table of contents (I only consider the TOC since there is no credit on the column itself). I'll continue to enter "The Eyrie" in future issues as "The Editor" unless there is some other credit. Would you recommend that I should generally make a variant based on the listed editors for the issue? I can find examples where other columns are done both ways. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't entered many magazines where "The Editor" is credited as the author of a column/editorial/essay, so perhaps it's best to pose the question on the Rules and Standards page to allow those editors who have entered more magazines discuss the situation. Personally, I feel the piece should be entered into the record as written by "The Editor" and then a variant created to credit it to the magazine's credited editor(s). I'd also urge that you not create a pseudonym. It's a mistaken belief that pseudonyms must be created for the proper handling of a variant title. In the case of generic roles entered as author, it's not necessary to create a pseudonym in order for the title record to appear on the actual author's summary page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Many items attributed to The Editor and not made variants have been placed in series. Which means if they are made into variants they must be remove from the series and the variant title placed into a series. In many cases these are minor essays Like Analytical Laboratory and In Times To Come for which actual authorship is unimportant or uncertain. There are a lot of letter columns that haven't been made variants primarily because it isn't clear who actually answered the letters. A variant author decision should be made before putting such titles in series. Many cooks involved. No chef.--swfritter 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The series shouldn't be such a problem since this change, should it? BLongley 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That's right, Bill. Series information is automatically transferred to the parent title when a variant is created. Mhhutchins 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That makes things easier.--swfritter 15:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Playground of the Mind Froms?/Excerpts?/Dates?

Afternoon! This. [2]. I am having problems with the differences between the paperback , and your hardback and my second printing. I think the first two should have been closer, yet it is almost as if they were very different. Topic more in depth at Bluesman's corral. Mind fatigued and daunted. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Future in Question - added cover image/ changed one content title

Morning! This. [3]. I added a cover image, [4], and del one title with "" when it was not used on story title page. All titles on ToC were "". Will You Walk a Little Faster? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Asimov's Mystery - added cover image/added ? to title

Afternoon! This. [5]. I added a cover image, [6], and add/del for "What's in a Name" which my copy has ?. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've asked Bluesman how the story is titled in his earlier paperback of the same collection. Mhhutchins 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Requiem and Tributes to the Grand Master - some differences

Morning! This. [7]. I have "A Tenderfoot in Space" you have w/o "A". I have 'Shooting Destination Moon', while yours shows 'Destination Moon' in "". Mine has the Destination Moons in italics, but I have not understood that to mean put it in "", in fact some collections have all titles in italics. Sorry, but I did not want to create variants and you are the only other source (who admits it). Sometimes, I think some of these books are avoided by others. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My copy gives the title on page 26 as "Tenderfoot in Space". (Is yours the hc same as mine, or the pb here which gives it an "A"?) The piece on page 117 is the same as yours. Because we can't use italics in titles, I chose to place the movie title into quotes. I'm not sure what the policy is, if one has been established, but I figured it was the best way to handle it under the circumstances. Would you perhaps have another suggestion? And I agree with your final statement. It seems I'm the verifier on a lot of these "difficult" books. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry it is my pb that has the "A". Somehow my bad memory says I was told not to use the "", but I rarely remember the why/where of instructions. I now I was told to only use "" when it was there and that may be my clutch problem. I feel guilty when I change anything. Better suggestion, perhaps not, but I chose to ignore the italics simply because I did not feel that the title needed a differentiation. I guess because Shooting Destination Moon the movie did not sound odd, but Shooting "Destination Moon" seemed to be asking which? the script, the movie or what. No problem except that itch in the small of the back. LOL. My comment on doing the difficult is praise for tackling the tough things, I find that many seem to ignore, though it all will come out in the wash in a couple hundred years. LOL. I can not wait until somehow corrects all my notation. I hope they get a special medal. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I see your point about adding the quotes. But I think I wanted the record to reflect the different types in which the title was printed and had no better way of doing it. Or I may have simply taken it from the original record (as published in Astounding, July 1950) and didn't want to create a variant. In any case, no big deal. I'll go ahead and make the "A Tenderfoot..." into a variant of "Tenderfoot..." Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Legacy of Heorot

I added the maps (interior art) and the LCCN (note) to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about the publication date. On the backcover is a row of numbers (07871745) which could mean published (or printed???) in July 1987. Locus (#319, August 1987) lists it in the books received section for June 1987. The Gollancz edition is listed in the same issue (british books) as published in May 1987. Do you have any experience with these things? Thanks, Willem H. 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The code that Simon & Schuster uses is a strange one, but I think I've figured it out on most of the pubs. I believe the first four numbers represent a date, most likely the publication date. The last four digits (sometimes separated by a dash) is the price code, but always 50 cents off! Examples from my "B" shelf: Ballard's Empire of the Sun has the code "10841645". Locus gives this a November 1984 publication date (but received it in October) and it is priced as $16.95. Clive Barker's Cabal (published by Poseidon, distributed by S&S) has the code "10881845". Locus has it published in October 1988 and it is priced at $18.95. Bishop's No Enemy But Time (published by Timescape, distributed by S&S) has the code "0482-1695". It was published in April 1982 and priced at $17.50.
You know hardcover publishers often release their books before the publication date, so it's not as reliable as a paperback's date. In any case, S&S never puts the date of publication in their books, or at least, none that I have. I think the code is reliable enough to use as a publication date. According the Locus1, the publication date of The Legacy of Heorot was July 1987, which would bear out the first four digits of the code. Other than the Timescape imprint of the early eighties, S&S hasn't published much spec-fic, so I don't have a large enough sample to determine how they date their books since then. But most of my Timescape books follow the pattern. Mhhutchins 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That's good enough for me. I submitted the change to 1987-07-00 with a note. Thanks, Willem H. 06:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo and the Sleeping Beauty - added cover image/artist&illustrator notation/Map to contents

Afternoon! This. [8]. I added a cover image, [9], notation on artist and illustrator and map crediting in contents after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anju vs Anji Valenza

Hi, I suspect that Anju here is the same person as Anji. Could you check if this a typo or variant? Thanks Jonschaper 03:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree they're the same person. I'll have to pull that issue from storage, and either create a variant if it's right or correct the typo if it's wrong. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting notes

Have a look at [the notes] for this pub. Since it goes way back in the SFBC 'lore', thought you might be interested. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. I wrote the notes up to the "I have in front of me...". I suppose it is possible that the edition offered to the SFBC members was the trade edition (blue cloth...), and that the edition "in front of me" was only issued to the Adventure Book Club. It would retain the Doubleday Science Fiction logo, because that was the publisher of the trade edition. So that makes Tuck's "contradiction" not as contradictory as I first thought. It's just that he should have noted in the author's section that the book club edition was not for the SFBC but for the Adventure Book Club. Here's how he states it exactly: (D'day SF B.C., ca. 1953) Mhhutchins 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lovecraft's Essays

While you've got your mind wrapped around Lovecraft... I'm entering an issue of Weird Tales which has a review of the 4 volumes of Lovecraft's essays edited by S.T. Joshi and published by Hippocampus. We have volume 1. volume 2 and volume 3, but our records have several problems. First, I don't think Joshi should be listed as an author, we can note that he is the editor in the notes. Second, I don't think the titles are correct. Locus lists the titles in the form "Collected Essays Volume 1: Amateur Journalism". OCLC lists simply "Collected Essays" or "Amateur Journalism". The publisher's site lists the title as "Collected Essays 1: Amateur Journalism of H P Lovecraft", and the title on the cover appears to be similar (just without the "of H P Lovecraft"). I suspect that our records came from one of the Amazon scraping bots since Amazon lists the title as we have it (and Joshi as an author). Without having the book in hand, I would guess that the Locus title is most likely the correct one. Do you think it is reasonable to change these records in that manner? Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Joshi should be removed from the author credit, and we should go with the Locus title (which pretty much matches the cover) until it can be primarily verified. Mhhutchins 05:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stolen Faces

Found Mr. Hickman's strange 'signature' on the cover of [this]. About an inch to the left of the chin of the 'mask' face. S.—-. with the 'S' sort of like a lightning bolt. Changed the notes to reflect this. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange signature, yes, but I still don't know of a definitive source for the credit here. I've even used the same credit in my Bishop bibliography, but don't remember exactly where I found it. If you can find any other source (or a matching signature from a credited publication) please let me know. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
And [it's] one you have!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Great! Now I feel more comfortable crediting Hickman. Much appreciation. Mhhutchins 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
here's another one. Jane Fralk also lists Stolen Faces as Hickman's in "Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century" Willem H. 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


I could use a little help and/or insight, if you'd be so kind. See your verified Telempath of October 1983 from Tor. I have what appears to be this 1988 edition (ISBN and price match), also from Tor. Locus generally agrees with our 1988 entry. BUT.... My book says "First Tor edition: October 1983" over a full number line (0 9 ... 2 1) and has no other date except the 1976 copyright. This cover on mine, FWIW. What do you think? Is this the first October 1983 printing and yours some other printing? Is this a first printing of a 1988 reprint of Tor's 1983 edition? Or is something else going on that I haven't begun to consider? Thanks. --MartyD 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom Kidd in Kiddography lists the art as done for Tor in 1983 for Telempath on page 123. He only showed a modified version of the helmet and man wearing it. His dates are usually correct or one year early. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
If one believes what one finds on Amazon, the covers are the same. I found this for the current 1983 entry's ISBN. The only difference seems to be location of logo/catalogue/price line. --MartyD 16:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Also notice the difference in the graphic text for the title between this one (cover of my edition) and the other one. My copy doesn't have a number line (Tor didn't start this until later), and it has no 1976 copyright, only the 1983 that I mention in the notes. The number line in the publication date of your copy must be an error. (It wouldn't be the first error on a Tor copyright page in the 80s!). Does your copy have the "A Jim Baen Presentation" logo on the title page? (I've updated my record with extensive notes and adding the Amazon cover image.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they're clearly not the same edition, whatever their relationship. I have a feeling the book lists at the back (undated, unfortunately) will show mine is really 1988 as indicated by Locus. FWIW, mine:
  • US/812-(over)55233-4(over)395 + CAN/812-(over)55234-2(over)495 on spine
  • US/55233-4 * $3.95 (over) CAN/55234-2 * $4.95 running vertically along right edge, below TOR logo, just under "H" in the title.
  • No mention of Jim Baen anywhere. No mention of Pinnacle anywhere.
  • Opposite title page is "Also by Spider Robinson(over)published by Tor Books" w/Stardance the only listed title.
  • Title page has the same author name and title rendition as the cover (with the large middle "M"), TOR logo at the bottom over A TOM DOHERTY ASSOCIATES BOOK (over) NEW YORK.
  • Copyright page:
  • The first six chapters... "By Any Other Name"
  • This is a work of fiction...
  • Copyright © 1976 by Spider Robinson
  • All rights reserved...
  • A TOR Book(over)Published by Tom Doherty Associates, Inc.(over)2 lines of address
  • Cover art by Tom Kidd
  • ISBN: 0-812-55233-4 Can. ISBN: 0-812-55234-2
  • First Tor edition: October 1983
  • Printed in the United States of America
  • 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
  • Opposite copyright page is a dedication
  • blank page, then uncredited/unsigned map, blank page, JT quote, blank page
  • Story starts on p. 9 (1st numbered page)
  • p. 314 blank (unnumbered)
  • then "The Best in Science Fiction" book list w/53125-6 DRAGON'S GOLD at top, 55796-4 HARDWIRED at bottom
  • then Ben Bova book list w/53200-7 AS ON DARKLING PLAIN at top, 53225-2 THE MULTIPLE MAN at bottom
  • then Keith Laumer book list w/54381-5 BEYOND THE IMPERIUM at top, 54379-3 WORLDS OF IMPERIUM at bottom
  • then Harry Harrison book list w/53975 THE JUPITER PLAGUE at top, 50446-1 QUEEN VICTORIA'S REVENGE at bottom
I will look up some of those ISBNs from the book lists and see if they shed any light on things. --MartyD 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yours must be the 1988 edition. At least they finally got the copyright year corrected. (Hardwired paperback didn't come out until April 1987, so you know it's after that date.) Mhhutchins 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I'll add extensive notes of my own and use Locus' dating. Thanks for checking. --MartyD 02:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I Sing the Body Electric

You have verified [this]. Does it happen to state the dates for the third/fourth printings? I have the third and MartyD has the fourth, both languishing in 0000 land. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've moved all of the paperback books of which I have duplicates (in hardcover or trade pbs) into boxes that are buried under those that I would want more access to. Give me a couple of days and I'll dig it out. Mhhutchins 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Those are what I'm going through now! Mine, of course!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I do pretty much the opposite - I keep the paperbacks handy and bury the hardbacks. The paperbacks almost always have more interesting bibliographical information. This does work to my advantage - I have an order placed with a friend for 150+ paperbacks that he's selling cheap and that will give me weeks of editing pleasure, while he is far more interested in first editions. (Of course, if I could FIND some of my first editions, I could probably exchange half-a-dozen of them for those 150+. Strange how some people value the same words so differently.) BLongley 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Alas, I was once a reader, and have devolved into a collector. Sad... Mhhutchins 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A Dreamer's Tales

For your verified title A Dreamer's Tales [10], I have added page number and detailled InteriortArt from the scan of the book [11] ChanurBe 03:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure whether to congratulate or suggest counseling!! ;-) ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a little of both. Perhaps I need to take William Shatner's advice for Trekkies to get a life! Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea how you do it. Pretty amazing! --MartyD 11:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a new title. Guru maybe? Enjoy and hope you hit the million mark before Dec 2012! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the odometer start over at zero?--swfritter 16:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Should at least get a certificate!!! ...... for an oil change and lube...... :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hm, an ISFDB certificate. It's a thought. Perhaps it should come with a T-shirt with the words "ISDFB-" and "certifiable" on two separate lines! :) Ahasuerus 05:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
How about a commemorative medal or coin with "ISFDB" on one side and "A LIFE" on the other? And every 10,000 submissions we get to toss it to see if we can escape... BLongley 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fall of the Towers

Two of the three ACE 'parts' of the Omnibus have been dated through Locus mag, [this] from #203, Aug '77, and [this] from #205, Oct '77. Does issue #201/202 say anything about [the first] one?? I've extrapolated a date and noted the reasoning, but it would be much better is there was a source other than that. TIA ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You would have to ask for one that's been packed away! :) Locus #201 gives that volume as an April 1977 release. Can't explain why the three month gap between the first and second releases. Mhhutchins 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the timing. I know every time I get a question it's always the bottom box and in the bottom of that box..... gremlins... !! :-) Much thanks for the info. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

capitalization change in Exiles to Glory

I downcased the "To" in your verified Exiles to Glory. --MartyD 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Author : Sidney Sime

A search for author Sime in ISFDB give this list (limited to Sime) :

  • S. H. Sime (Including the greatest number of title)
  • Sidney H. Sime : 2 titles that reference illustration in Dunsany books, 1 title that's a art's collection. I can't find anything that confirms or disproves that author of The Ta Ta is the same as the illustrator of Dunsany's book.
  • Sidney Herbert Sime : identified as illustrator of Dunsany's book by a search in Library of Congres (birth date).
  • Sidney Sime : the most complete with link to Wikipedia
  • Sidney Sime : reference to The collected Jorkens and The Sword of Welleran and Other Stories

Choice of the parent : Sidney Sime (complete) or S. H. Sime (many titles).

Siney H. Sime can be a pseudo.

Transfer data from Sidney Sime (duplicated record] to Sidney Sime (original record).

This record Sidney H. Sime can be a pseudo or better, we can create new author, identified by birth and death date, transfer all title except The Ta Ta and made this new author a pseudo. Possibly, post a note to explain the doubts about the identity of the author of The Ta Ta.

I let you do for the better and if you do nothing, it's also good for me. Thanks. ChanurBe 10:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would lean toward making "Sidney H. Sime" the parent name and all others as pseudonyms. That's the name given in the book which collects his art. We can easily transfer the biographical data to any name we choose to be the parent. Do you have any preference? Mhhutchins 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Look near the bottom of this page (artwork by "Sidney H. Sime") and there's a drawing titled "The Ta-Ta". I'm not sure how this relates to the poem, but it seems too strange that there would be two different persons named Sidney H. Sime with "The Ta Ta" among their works. Mhhutchins 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Further proof that Sime wrote poetry as well as illustrated. Search for "Ta Ta" on this page. Also a check on OCLC found this item Bogey Beasts, a collection of songs with lyrics by Sime. Mhhutchins 20:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's allright for me that Sidney H. Sime is the parent and the other as variant. What about the duplicate records (Sidney Sime) ? Is it a fusion when we do the variant ? Good job, the finding of the author of The Ta Ta. Do you change or do I do? Thanks. ~ChanurBe 08:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I will proceed to make "Sidney H. Sime" as the parent and create the pseudonyms. The titles will only move to the parent page if we make variants. For example, all records under "S. H. Sime" will have to made variants of "Sidney H. Sime" in order for there to be a record of them on the parent page. I'll do that as well. It's easier for a moderator to make such changes because we can approve our own submissions. I'll let you know when the project is completed. Mhhutchins 16:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Out on Blue Six / William Cormier

The cover artist for this verified pub is entered as William Cormier, the only entry thus, but in my copy of the book he is credited as Will Cormier. I just made a submission to make Will Cormier a pseudonym of Wil Cormier (his real name according to his website. I haven't changed the credit for Out on Blue Six (yet). Thanks, Willem H. 18:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and submit a change for the artist credit for Out on Blue Six. My copy is buried deep but I take your word for it. I probably accepted the original credit without checking it. Thanks for catching the error. Mhhutchins 20:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Change submitted. Added a few notes as well. Thanks, Willem H. 20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Artist credit on The Phoenix and the Mirror

I am guessing "Leo Dillion" on your verified The Phoenix and the Mirror is a typo? If so, note that it's better to edit it through the title record to avoid ending up with separate, individually credited authors. I guess I'd better get on that proposal for improved author editing behavior....

It's interesting, but Harry's work with the interiorart variants points out a problem with individual credits. If the interiorart is credited to both Dillons, he has one dual-author interiorart he wants to make a variant of "the" cover record. But there's one for Leo and another for Diane, so he's sort of stuck. I found I could fix it for him by going to the pub and, say, removing Diane and then going to Leo's title record and adding her back there. --MartyD 12:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be Dillon. I'll fix it, using the title record edit instead of the pub record edit method you suggest.
I didn't realize the interiorart credits had that problem, but I knew there was a problem with cover art credit. And I've given up trying to figure out how the system works either. I believe (don't hold me to it) that when a pub is first entered, only a single cover record is created, as show with "and" in the credit. Anytime that pub record is edited the cover art record is split into two credits. It may be the same for interiorart credits. I discovered that removing one of the artist from the cover art record and adding it back will not create a single credit again. Unless something has changed since the last time I tried it. Mhhutchins 14:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Interiorart does what you'd expect. It's only coverart via Artist on the publication screen that has the problem. So Harry had a case of Interiorart by both Dillons, but the pub had two cover titles: one for Leo, one for Diane. Which to variant to? When you first create a publication, a single coverart title is created for all of the artists listed. But any subsequent modification to the artist list only removes from that title (deleting it if the last artist from that original set is removed); new artists get individual coverart titles added, one per new name. "Changing" a name is implemented as a removal of the old name and new addition of the revised name. That was why I was warning you: editing Dillion -> Dillon from the pub would have removed Leo Dillion from the joint title, leaving just Diane, and would have added a new individual title for Leo. BTW, to re-combine titles thus split, remove all but one of the artists from the pub(s), then go to the title that now has just the one artist and add the others back to it. Now you have the proper jointly-credited title you wanted and rightly expected. Obvious, no? The pub screen's treatment really needs some help. --MartyD 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Now that I'm aware that editing the cover art record and not the pub record will avoid the splitting of records, I'll start using that method. Do you know if other moderators are aware of this, and should be more careful about accepting submissions that change cover art credit at the pub level? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Upon further review, except for adding them on the Title screen, I don't think it's possible to create joint coverart records anymore. It looks like new publications with multiple artists also get one record per artist. Sigh. Other than that discussion on the Help Desk not so long ago, where it wasn't spelled out clearly, I doubt many people are aware of the behavior. And the moderator screen does not make it at all apparent (you would have seen the same "Leo Dillion+Diane Dillon" -> "Leo Dillon+Diane Dillon" on the pub submission that you saw on the title submission) -- the problem happens in the processing of the edit AFTER the approval. I guess I'll go post something on the Moderator Noticeboard. It also looks like I can give myself a small(?) project of investigating the Leo Dillon and Diane Dillon coverart records and see which should be combined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartyD (talkcontribs) .
I tried a few experiments to clean up those cover art records by the Dillons that had been split. It took more submissions than I care to admit to figure out how to do it. (Thankfully, being a moderator, it helps not having to wait between submissions to see the effect.) You're right above when you say one of the artists must be removed in a pub record edit. Then all you have to do is edit the cover art record adding the omitted artist back. Making changes solely on the pub record level are frustrating. Even if you remove all cover art credits (blank them out), any new cover art credit you add will not be a joint credit. You only create two separate cover art records. It's a good idea to let other moderators know they should work from the cover art record, not the pub record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I did. Please feel free to restate/embellish/clarify based on your own experience. I found one particularly horrible example where the Leo title had been shared with 8 or so pubs, but the Diane one had not. To fix, I had to go edit all of those pubs to remove Diane -- no good workaround to that. It's also not at all practical for a non-moderator, given the number of edits (and, of course, there's no good way to warn moderators that your edit to remove an artist is just do you can credit the artist properly!). --MartyD 17:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I just mentioned on the moderator page my experience with fixing a multi-pub record. Other than the tediousness, it's a good fix. And I'm not notifying any of the verifiers of the changes I'm making in their pub records, because I'm repairing a problem, not really changing the data. Hopefully they don't notice it mid-fix! Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Heartsease page count? (and added cover)

I added this image to your verified Heartsease. While doing that, I was going to Locus-verify. It lists a page count of 135 for this edition, while our entry has 235. I see Locus has a later Dell pb edition at 235pp, so I expect their 135 is a typo, but I figured I'd ask you to double-check first, instead of assuming. If it is 235, I'll add a note and Locus-verify. Thanks. --MartyD 02:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Locus is wrong. Page count of 235 is correct as entered. Mhhutchins 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

SFBC Catalogs

I sent Bill Contento an e-mail about a mistake in an entry on a McCaffrey title (SFBC edition had the trade price) and he responded. He also added that he has SFBC catalogs going back to the 70s. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy Review

You may have noticed I've started work on some of these, and after entering one from scratch today I'd rather take it easy for a bit and just double-check yours for a while. All looking fine, but I've added some covers and linked some pseudonyms. One question is about the paperback column: e.g. "April (1985) Paperbacks" but "April Paperbacks (Fantasy Review, March 1986)" the next year. I prefer the former to standardise on but appreciate the latter is probably more in keeping with the rules. Which is your preference? BLongley 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was torn myself, but finally decided that the magazine title and date should have been part of the record title. Eventually I intend to go back and change those earlier records. Please continue with the latter standard if possible. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see "Trade Books" follows that standard so will go with the latter. BLongley 19:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Added Trade Books entry for December 1985 issue. BLongley 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
FANTASYREVJAN1986 has either a letter or news or a commentary by Tom R. Kovach on page 40. Which do you think it is? BLongley 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't index most news items, especially if it's uncredited. (You'll find in most issues there's short news pieces interspersed throughout the magazine.) This piece seems to be more of a news item than anything else, even though it's credited. Kovach doesn't appear anywhere else in the database. If you want to, feel free to create a record for it. Mhhutchins 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Fixed the link for A Monster at Christmas to point at the Chapterbook rather than the poem. We might discover several of these now support has been re-enabled, they weren't errors when they were created. (Although I do find that automatic linking to reviews still often prefers to link to a content fiction, essay or poem entry rather than a Collection or Nonfiction container). BLongley 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I added a "On Specialty Presses:" prefix to Chalker's "The State of the Art" Essay, as that seems to be more consistent with the other columns. BLongley 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chalker column changed names back and forth throughout the run of the magazine. I created the series On Specialty Publishing and I see that this piece and several others need to be moved into it. You can do it or I'll get around to it when I get back to entering later issues. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll check them as I come across them and adjust at the end - I've only got about 5 more FRs to double-check at present then it's back to entering from scratch, which I may leave a bit longer. I don't know how you did so many, I go fed up after one took me most of Sunday afternoon! BLongley 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
About the automatic linking: it may sometimes choose the wrong title record, but it's a whole lot better than doing it manually. I will occasionally come across the wrong link and fix it, especially when I'm aware there are duplicate titles. The situation about chapterbooks is still confusing in that, in most cases, the story is being reviewed not the publication. When a novel is reprinted and reviewed, the review is linked to the title, not to the recent publication record. And I believe that's as it should be. When a novella-length story is reprinted as a chapterbook, shouldn't the review link to the story's title record as well? That seems to be more consistent with the policy. Mhhutchins 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think the review should link to the edition(s) being reviewed - for instance, a review might say "this restores the text so badly cut from the first paperback edition of the magazine series", or suchlike - whereas the title level data has probably amalgamated all editions into one. But we don't have "edition" as a concept in ISFDB, and I don't think we're going to get one any time soon - too much rework for one thing. And there's no way to do multiple links when the review is of the hardcover and the paperback, or the British and US editions. BLongley 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Still, I think the automatic linking could be improved to choose a book-level item over an identically named content-level title. I find the link is more often wrong than right in such cases. Still, everybody does go back and check every review after entry, don't they? :-/ BLongley 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy Tales

Your verified pub. Added (USA) to pub title in order to keep it separate from the US issues. For easier navigation purposes the UK and USA issues have been placed into newly created series. A bit confusing - the USA pubs, because they have ISBN numbers, are in Contento's anthology db rather than the mag database - mag entries seem appropriate to me.--swfritter 16:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a strange hybrid, as it was published by a book publisher and distributed as a book, even though it's contents, dating, etc, clearly shows it's a magazine. Not sure what factors determined Contento's decision. Thanks for separating the series. Mhhutchins 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Captain Gard(i)ner of the International Police

this pub. This was originally entered as Gardner. Since there is a Google Books scan, I have corrected it. Is Reginald in error?--swfritter 16:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, he drops the "i". Thanks for discovering the error. I'll add to the note that Reginald was the source of the wrong spelling. Mhhutchins 16:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy Review 83

Added the other two Sheckley Reviews to FANTASYREVSEP1985. BLongley 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Sometimes they bunch multi-title reviews together in one heading and in others they're individually listed. I catch most but this one got away from me. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I once got caught out by multiple reviews only getting listed once in the review index, so am especially careful to check each review now. BLongley 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Two more missed reviews added to FANTASYREVAPR1985 - "The Hexing" by Robert Faulcon and "The Complete Book of Swords" by Fred Saberhagen, both additions to a single-title review in the index. BLongley 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy Review, July 1985

I split the review of Books of Blood 1-3 into three reviews in FANTASYREVJUL1985 as the review is actually of the three individual books rather than the omnibus. And removed the "Reviews to be added later." note. (Nit-picking really, but that's all I have left to do on these it seems.) BLongley 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No nit-picking at all. I should have caught that when it was entered. I'm happy there's someone checking the entries on these pubs. You can see how tedious the entry must have been. The layout was ridiculous, having reviews in different columns on the same page, beginning and ending on different pages. Sometimes it makes you want to tear your hair out. Mhhutchins 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Last Fantasy Review comment for now

In FANTASYREVNOV1985 it's clearly Gary Snyder credited rather than Gene Snyder for "Tomb Seven". But I'm not sure if the Gene Snyder title was created from the review? BLongley 21:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the title record for the review I see that I noted the review mistakenly credits the author of the book. An OCLC search shows that the book was written by Gene Snyder. The ISFDB record was created by someone other than me (I wouldn't have noted "Assumed 1st printing"). It must have already been in the database, and I had to link it manually when I discovered that it wasn't written by "Gary". Mhhutchins 22:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sea Siege

Added a clean image to [this] and a note about the artist's "Signature" on the cover. A square with a tilted "J" inside is Jones' trademark, usually in purple/red. Norton's "Postmarked the Stars" has the same square with J and Jones is identified on the copyright page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dragon, July 1998

Yes, I own the magazine. The current credit of Michael Roele is incorrect, Michael Roele is a character within the BIRTHRIGHT® game by TSR ( Per the magazine ("Michael Roele falls before the might of the dread Gorgon in this month's cover by BIRTHRIGHT® campaign artist Tony Szczudlo."), the artist is Tony Szczudlo. Thanks. Corbain 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll approve the submission. When you get a chance please check over the other fields to make sure if everything agrees with your copy. If so, then you can verify the pub. Thanks for contributing. Also, it's best to respond to a question or comment on the Wiki page on which it began. This keeps everything in one place and prevents us from hopping back and forth between comments. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Eye in the Pyramid

I added the cover artist (Carlos Victor) and a note to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Masters of Everon

I have a SFBC Masters of Everon with a gutter code of J 50. We don't generally do entries for SFBC multiple printings so I'll just note it on your verified copy. Letting you know so you can double check the gutter code if you want. Dana Carson 08:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

John Carstairs: Space Detective

I just obtained a copy of this book from the library (first edition--though I'm sure it's been rebound) and was shocked to see that the contents differ in one major respect. Instead of containing "The Ether Robots" (1942) my copy has in it's place "The Hollow World" (1945). Any idea why there's a difference? The first line of the story (which runs over 130 pages in the book--making me wonder if it's actually longer than a novella--perhaps you know) is: "O'Hara seemed more frightened than the others, perhaps because he was further down in the darkness." Thanks ahead of of time for your input, Rob --Rob 00:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange copy indeed. According to Tuck the original Frederick Fell publication only included six stories in the John Carstairs series. Tuck doesn't list "The Hollow World" is part of this series. Currently the database only has a listing for that story in its original magazine appearance. A good test to see if a book has been rebound is the pagination. If your book is rebound, the pagination for "The Hollow World" would end, and the remainder of the collection would start new pagination. "The Ether Robots" was the fifth story in the Fell collection (according to Contento). Is there missing pagination indicating the story was excised from your edition? About "The Hollow World": it's in our database as a novella, but it could actually be a short novel (if it's over 40,000 words). You can do a word count using ISFDB editor Swfritter's Google docs word counter. (You may need an invite from Stephen to access it.) I'll do more research and get back with you. Mhhutchins 04:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at the cover of Startling Stories, Summer 1945 which includes the blurb "The Hollow World: A Complete John Carstairs Novel by Frank Belknap Long". That settles that. Now we have to figure out why it wound up in your collection. Mhhutchins 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Mystery solved. Tuck made an omission. Contento made an assumption. We all fall down. Here's what happened: Tuck lists only seven stories in the series, omitting "The Hollow World", marking five stories and noting that these are included in the collection. In his listing for the book itself, he doesn't give the contents, only that it reprints "6 stories of the John Carstairs series" and that the user should see the series listing for those stories. Contento lists 6 stories in his 1977 reference, the five noted by Tuck, with the addition of "The Ether Robots". Somehow he must have thought that one of two other stories that Tuck listed in the series must have been in the collection and chose "The Ether Robots". His online listing perpetuated the error. The ISFDB record further compounded the mistake by duplicating Contento's record. It appears now that you have the real thing. I've corrected the record, but it will need further updating. And you're one of the few people in the world that can correct an error that's at least 33 years old. How does that make you feel? It's moments like this that makes all the drudgery seem worthwhile. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins 05:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Whew, it feels very cool to be able to contribute something that was unknown by all the GREAT editors on this site! The site is so comprehensive that it never fails to astonish me (maybe I should say it's quite "astounding" in honor of JWC). I just now added the page numbers to the record (there's no preface or anything else in the book) and thought it might be nice to add the chapter titles of "The Hollow World" to the notes at the top (there are 10 chapters and their titles are listed on the contents page as well as in the book itself). Do you think I should add them to the notes? Oh, BTW, it says on the copyright page "Published Simultaneously in Canada by George J. McLeod, Ltd., Toronto." Should that be added to the notes or as a separate entry? What I meant by the book being rebound was when a library's copy of a book begins to fall apart they'll send it to the bindery to be rebound. The contents aren't shuffled or deleted but the book no longer has the original covers (and, in those days, probably the 1950s, libraries discarded the dust covers--which fortunately, in this case, was already scanned and uploaded onto the site by someone else). Thanks for your help and research!! I really appreciate it. Rob --Rob 00:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please add anything you'd like into the notes field. It's basically the catch-all, for everything that doesn't have its own field. Thanks for explaining "rebound". Somehow I got it confused for situations where a library will add hard covers (boards) to a publication that didn't have it originally (like magazine issues and paperbacks) or excised material from magazines and had them bound into one volume (like serials from separate issues of a magazine). Mhhutchins 04:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! I added the simultaneous pub. in Canada data in the notes yesterday and, just a moment ago, also added the chapter titles for "The Hollow World" into the notes (since this is a pretty rare novella). Rob --Rob 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The City and the Stars

For The City and the Stars #Q5371, it looks like your verified THCTNDTHST0000 and Willem H.'s verified THCTNDTHSN0000 are the same edition.

And looking at those, I noticed the unverified THCTNDTHSM0000 with the same catalog number and price, but claiming to be the 12th printing instead of the 7th. I'm inclined to delete it (my copy is definitely 12th by number line, and catalog on it is E9232, and you found it in Locus). Care to offer an experienced opinion? Thanks. --MartyD 18:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes those two verified records are identical. I'll delete mine and do a primary2 verification of Willem's record (mine was verified three years ago, but his has the cover art linked.). And that unverified one should be deleted. I'll let you do that while I work on my verified record. Good eye. Thanks for catching the duplicates. Mhhutchins 18:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(The) Warlord of Mars

The title on the title page is "Warlord of Mars". Thanks for clarifying variant title records. Re: binding field, thanks. I realised just after I submitted it (should have read the howto first). Re: ISBN, noted, and as you say I have seen quite a few books around that period with a 9-digit ISBN - I'll make sure ISBNs are valid. Jtgyk 10:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Stopping at Slowyear

Came across [this] as I work through Pohl [I have the mmpb of this] and in referencing Locus found they list three separate ISBNs, one for each of the three bindings. The record doesn't state one. I know you are thorough but I can't imagine Locus inventing three... maybe one from some source, but not three. Tried serching with the supposed ISBN for the tp, but no hits. Of 26 copies, various bindings, on AbeBooks, one somehow had the Bantam pb ISBN but the rest had nothing. So should I e-mail Mr. Contento and suggest no more hallucinogens?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no ISBN on the pub, so maybe Contento's info came from a Pulphouse catalog. The company's use of ISBNs was, to be diplomatic, quite erratic. Mhhutchins 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Get Well

I just saw your note on the Moderator noticeboard. I hope you feel better soon. (and no need to respond to this until you do) --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Touch that Mouse! Will have to rotate 'Wild Thing' in. I hope this is not nearly as painful as it sounds. I was a 'Galaxian' super hero in the seventies, and ultimately retired do the agony of touching anything, but it lapsed somewhat (barring flareups), so softly, softly. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Ouch! Please do follow your doctor's directions, especially as they relate to physical therapy (if applicable). A "frozen shoulder" is no fun. Ahasuerus 19:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds painful. No mouse, baseball or swimming. Get well soon. --Willem 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear the spring training tryout ended in injury. I hope it feels better soon. --MartyD 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Speech Recognition works pretty decently in Vista and Windows 7. Having had my shoulder knocked out of its socket last year I can feel your pain.--swfritter 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the sentiments. Injury is in the right shoulder, and I believe hours of mouse-clicking is the culprit. So I'm following doctor's orders to decrease time at the computer, along with icepacks, naproxen and hydrocodone. Pain still severe at times. Results of x-rays forthcoming. Hopefully MRI, PT and surgery aren't in the forecast. I've reversed the buttons on my mouse and am working on using my left hand. Didn't realize the mouse was so central in working on the db. Do now. Mhhutchins 23:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Health more important. Take it easy. Dana Carson 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Amazing Stories, Summer 2000

There's a submission in the queue to make a variant of the M[a]cDonald story. Since the issue is not verified thought maybe it might just be mis-entered which would make the variant unnecessary. Does the Locus listings you just got on CD corroborate the [record]? Also, noticed that the Barrett essay has "Sciense" in the title instead of "Science". That might be a typo as well. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Contento/Miller gives the author as "MacDonald", so correction of the title record will make the variant unnecessary. The Barrett essay matches Contento/Miller as "Sciense". Mhhutchins 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Much thanks! Do take care of yourself! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)