Geoffrey A. Landis
- It doesn't matter how it's spelled in the publication. We normalize such titles. Thanks for finding this. I'll make the correction. Mhhutchins 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Modern Fantasy: The Hundred Best Novels
Since Hauck and you both verified pub.s of this title I'd like to ask the both of you if it'd be okay if I interchanged this review, which isn't sustained by a single title (it's a trilogy), with the review of the three novels which make up the trilogy? All three are mentioned in the review. Stonecreek 19:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I had no objection to your replacing the current record with one for each of the books in the trilogy. Mhhutchins 19:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, done. Stonecreek 18:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I am curious about the artist credit for [this] edition. I just added the [Canadian] printing. There's no credit and I can't find a signature. Your verified record doesn't have an image attached to see if the covers are the same [other than the Maple leaf, of course]. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to have been there when I verified the pub, so I've updated the record to indicate that the source of the credit is unknown. Here are a few sites that credit Maitz, but nothing definitive: here, here, here, here. I'm hesitant to give the links in the pub record, because each of them may have fed off each other or even our listing. Maybe it appears in the Maitz art collection? Mhhutchins 15:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. Dropped a similar note in the Canadian record, have to do for now. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Willem. I'll quote that source for the record. Mhhutchins 16:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Schweitzer's "Living With the Dead"
Sorry for the delay in responding to your question. Yes, my copy of the limited print run is signed by Jason. I bought my copy from Schweitzer via ebay and I wasn't sure if this signing was done for Schweitzer's selling copies as a favour by Jason, but I notice that Schweitzer is now selling copies of an additional 200 print run apparently using "leftover sheets" which are also signed by himself and Jason, so it sounds like the entire limited edition was signed by him. I didn't see the listing on the publisher's page, so I don't know if they advertised Jason's signature. Jonschaper 02:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
IASFM March 1983
- Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
How sure are we that the Christopher Wood who wrote the Bond novelizations is the same chap who wrote those three MFSF short stories? I'm not saying it isn't, but... Wood would have been seventeen when those stories appeared. I've flicked through the google books snippets and from that and the locutions and idioms I can deduce that the author of those magazine stories is indeed British, and going by how hesitant and awkward the writing is, may very well be a well-educated teenager. However, I do find it odd that the Wood chap who did the Bond books has never to the best of my knowledge ever mentioned these short stories in interviews, his published memoirs or in his autobiographical literary fiction. Also a bit strange that someone would get three stories published in a row then stop writing for sixteen years. And let's face it, Christopher Wood is hardly an uncommon name. There are half a dozen or so writers with this name. I'll look into it a bit more. --Zxcvbnm 22:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do that and make any changes based on the research. There are dozens of authors with common names that we've had to disambiguate. We can't know anything unless someone takes the initiative to do the research and then separate the works. Mhhutchins 23:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've doublechecked interviews and his autobiography. No mention of being a published teenager. The Bond chap would brag were these stories his. Therefore I will separate the entries. If I can remember how to do it. Zxcvbnm 00:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've rejected the submissions to change the author's name to "Christopher Wood (?-)" as being too unwieldy. And there's no need to change the name of the other author. Disambiguating one name works fine. If another Christopher Wood comes along, we can make him "Christopher Wood (II)". Mhhutchins 06:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
OoLingoO <- The ISFDB Newbie...
In regards to my edit of "White Tiger" that you have recently approved:
- "I don't know how to send you a message and haven't quite worked out how to do anything on others' talk pages, so hopefully you get this message. I'm going to stop adding & editing, I've been going through my collection book-by-book, and I'm re-editing the first book in my collection, White Tiger, with all of the information you've supplied in mind. I'll leave a note in the mod notes field for yourself only to accept/reject the edit. Could you please take a look and see if I've missed anything? I want to get just one right and then use the same/similar format for all the others, which is more logical than what I've been doing now I think. Too many re-edits, more work for you guys, more marks on my books from handling... =( So if you could please get back to me after having a look at the edit, that would be awesome. I will await your reply. Thank you!!! ^_^ --Ling 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)"
I'm not sure if you got the above post, which is on my talk page (no, I haven't figured out how to link the post >.<). I just wanted to know if I got it right this time, is there anything I can improve on and/or is there anything that I missed? I would be grateful for any feedback, when you have the time could you please help me out? --Ling 05:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I accepted the submission, so everything looked good. There was one problem though, but not with the record itself. Because it was originally a record for the first printing, I had to re-create a record that would now be the first printing record. About communicating, don't hesitate to leave a message about a new subject on any other user's talk page if you want to get their attention. (Just as you did here.) If it's a part of a previous conversation, then continue it on the same page in which it began. Otherwise, there's a ping-pong effect that can mess up communication. Mhhutchins 05:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much to all of the other moderators and especially to you for the patience, assistance and guidance you've all shown me. ^_^ --Ling 05:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome. We all do this without any compensation other than the satisfaction we get from doing a good job. I hope you continue to update the records for books in your collection and add new records for those that are not in the database. If you will use the step-by-step guidelines that I gave you on your talk page, you should have no problem. The more you do, the easier it becomes, I can assure you of that. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 05:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- YAY! I finally got a submission correct (well mostly)!!! ^_^ I hope that the quality, accuracy and content of the last submission is a vast improvement on my previous submitted edits. If not, I think I may very well start to cry... =(
- I don't quite understand about the X printing record, is there anything I can do to avoid this? --Ling 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Printing numbers are always a stumbling block. Because each publisher has their own way of designating printings, the only way to learn is to enter as many books from as many different publishers that you're able to. Looking through the note fields of pub records in the database of titles that you have will help as well. You're going to have more trouble if you're "late to the game" as far as collecting copies of titles. If you purchase books when they're first published you're not going to have as much trouble. When you're buying recently printed copies of books that were first published years ago, that's when the difficulty rises. Almost always these are going to be later printings. My best advice is to read the copyright page thoroughly, because in most cases, it's your only friend when you're trying to determine a printing. You can always ask questions on the Moderator Noticeboard and the Help Desk. (Click on the plus (+) tab at the top of the page to post a new message.) You should bookmark those pages if you plan to continue editing here, along with this help page, very likely the most important help page here. Mhhutchins 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome! Did the verification. ^_^ Thank you SOOOO much for everything, I couldn't have done it without you (definitely would've given up...)!!! *hugz* --Ling 10:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Cover artist credit for 'Blade Runner'
Continuing my current Blade Runner kick, I'd like to change the cover art credit for this verified pub to "Drew Struzan", who is well known to have created the artwork that appears on it. The Ladd. Co. are/were producers of the film and hold copyright to the image. Thanks. PeteYoung 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Proceed, but please record your source in the note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I see you're only saying in the Note to Moderator field (which is not part of the record) that the art is "well known" to be by the artist you're crediting. That's not good enough. We need a reliable source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Path Into the Unknown
Hi, Michael! Please look careful at the edits for "Path Into the Unknown". They involve more than suprficial change in capitalization, there are changes to the NAMES of the authors. Cheers, P-Brane.
- I didn't notice any change in the author, just the capitalization. Otherwise I would not have been able to merge them with the existing records. Please try again. Mhhutchins 02:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I dont know the mechanics of the mergin from the mod's screen but the changes definitely were there the second time around (rejected 2012-05-16 21:20:26). I did it one more time. "Vitaly Krapivin" -> "Vladislav Krapivin" and "Dnieprov" -> "Dneprov". Cheers, P-Brane 02:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC).
- I've responded on your talk page. It's better to keep subjects on one page. This ping-pong game is getting me dizzy. Mhhutchins 02:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a website per se. It's an image depository, so it's not a reliable secondary source. I'll change the note to record Burns as the possible artist. It's very much his style. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I could contact my brother-in-law. He collects not only SF & Fantasy, but also SF & Fantasy art books and might have one or more of them dedicated to the art of Jim Burns. It is indeed very much his style, so I googled "jim burns" and "mirror image" with flickr as result.--Dirk P Broer 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Great. I hope he finds that it's included in one of Jim Burns' collections. Thanks for asking. Mhhutchins 18:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to all. I'll update the record and give source for credit. Mhhutchins 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Held Submission: Pawn of Prophecy
Did I do something wrong with removing the titles on this pub? --Ling 04:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Answered on your talk page. Mhhutchins 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiunko Y. Craft: Art & Craft
- It was a typo and I've corrected it. Thanks for finding it. BTW, you should post a new message on a user's talk page (actually any wiki page) by clicking on the plus tab (+) at the top of the page. (Some skins have a link "Post a Comment"). Editing the entire page may cause a conflict if another user is editing it at the same time. And using the plus tab method adds the topic name to the contents and the watch pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Georg Prior editions of Leiber's Swords Books
Michael, your verified pub http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?379692 Swords in the Mist from George Prior says that the ISBNs are the same for the Gregg and Prior versions. They are not. For this particular pub, the Prior ISBN is 0-86043-163-0; for the Gregg version it is 0-8398-2400-9. Both numbers are on the copyright page of the Prior pub. So far as I know, the two versions were published simultaneously, but I haven't been able to verify that. I believe the price of the Prior versions was £4.95, based on a sticker on one of my Prior volumes. Again, I haven't been able to confirm that, although it seems reasonable compared to the price for the Gregg versions. Bob 19:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding the error. When I cloned the Gregg Press editions to create the George Prior editions, I failed to change the ISBN. I've gone through and made the corrections to the others. If your copy has a stickered price, feel free to update the record and giving that as the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Going back to the books in the series, I see that both the US and UK ISBNs are printed on the copyright page. I'll update each of the records to give the UK ISBN in the ISBN field, but note that the other is also present. Mhhutchins 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The Best of Fritz Leiber
Hi, Michael. Could you please have a look at the cover artist credit in this verified pub. It's currently recorded as "Laurence Kresek", but the notes field says that it credited as "Larry Kresek". The canonical name in the db is "Larry Kresek". Cheers, P-Brane 03:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC).
- I wrote those notes, so I don't know how the other name got into the artist's field. Thanks for finding the error. I've corrected it. Mhhutchins 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiunko Y. Craft: Art & Craft
- Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I thought it was missing an "n" but it was apparently misplaced. Mhhutchins 15:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The Zilov Bombs
Hi, Michael! I've uploaded a cover for this pub for which you Tuck-veried. I don't know where the recorded price (4/-) comes from and it seems a bit high. Also 2/6 is consistent with the other prices from 1965 for G-books. What do you think about changing it to 2/6 based on Tuck and cover image? Cheers, P-Brane 02:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
- After re-reading the note, it seems that 4/- refers to Australian price, which would be fine! P-Brane 02:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
- I changed the price and reworded the note. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The Second Ghost Book
Hi, Michael! For you Tuck-verified printings of "The Second Ghost Book": 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th I have added cover artist, ToC item (introduction) and updated (or added) covers. Cheers, P-Brane 06:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
- Notifying me about changes in cover credits for my Tuck-verifications isn't necessary. But you should always note the source of the data, because 95% of the time Tuck doesn't give cover credits. If you enter the data without sourcing it, someone will mistakenly believe I took it from Tuck. Here is a chart I created which indicates exactly what a secondary verification entails. Thanks. Mhhutchins
- Thanks, most useful chart! Cheers, P-Brane 01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
Weird Tales, Dec. 2009
Hi; I believe you're the verifier for this magazine. The title of this story looks like a typo; I believe that should be "A Lake of Spaces" rather than "Like". This is according to the accompanying INTERIORART, the author's website, and (most germane to me at the moment) its subsequent appearance as an episode of Cast Macabre. I didn't want to change it without notifying you, though. Dwarzel 16:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's a typo. Thanks for catching it. Mhhutchins 19:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Destination Indies vs Destination: Indies
Could you please check your copy of What Might Have Been: Volumes 3 & 4: Alternate Wars / Alternate Americas. I was attempting to verify my pb copy of volume 4, and noticed that the short story Destination: Indies doesn't appear with a semi-colon. I was about to make a variant when it occurred to me that it might not have the semicolon anywhere. Thanks Kevin 13:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- My copy of that book is not in the bin in which it was supposed to be stored (I may have pulled it out to answer an earlier question and then placed it back into the wrong bin.) I suspect that either I verified it from an entry based on the Locus database, failing to notice the difference, or that the word "Indies" is on a separate line or in a different text, making it a subtitle. It is an ISFDB standard to separate a subtitle from the main title by adding a colon, regardless of whether there is actually a colon present. If that's not the case in your copy, if it's obviously a single two-word title, go ahead and correct the title record. If it looks like a subtitle, it should remain as is. Eventually I'll find my copy and be able to give a more definitive answer. Mhhutchins 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I just noticed that Willem and Hauck have the same edition as yours (I assume). Why not ask them? And it was reprinted in an unverified collection, too. In this case, I'd do more research before changing anything, or go ahead with your first instinct and create a variant. It can always be changed back. Mhhutchins 14:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- No colon on title page of the pb (title takes a single line, so it's not a subtitle) but copyright has it. Perhaps a whole title change is in order. Hauck 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then go ahead and change the title. If I find mine is different, I'll create a variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- No colon on title page of the pb (title takes a single line, so it's not a subtitle) but copyright has it. Perhaps a whole title change is in order. Hauck 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Great, Thanks. Also as an added bit of research, A check against the Locus contents lists for both Clownface and for the What Might Have Been paperback shows that they list the semi-colon in both publications, when it is missing from this original publication. Cheers Kevin 15:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- BTW: it's a colon; or it's not a semi-colon. :) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- (I was typing this as your edit went live - double sigh) - I've also just realized I've been for some reason typing semi-colon, instead of colon.... (sigh)... It's a bit like walking about with your zipper down. Kevin 15:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Ace Specials updates
I was working specifically from the listing found in the pb of "The Phoenix and the Mirror". While it doesn't give specific dates, it's chronological, and can be correlated with both the copyright dates and with the dates already cited for other volumes in the series. Similar information is already used on ISFDB; the second printing of "Rite of Passage" is identified by a similar list in that volume. Unfortunately, in mid-to-late 1970, Ace stopped listing releases that was in its house ads, moving to alphabetical lists. Gw3 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- The problem here is that the submissions give the exact month of publication, and the list you source, while it may be chronological, doesn't provide the specific month. Do you recall whether the titles were released one/month or did they appear irregularly? If one title per month were published we'd have a firmer ground to stand on.
- We're not as strict as it might first appear when it comes to dating undated publications. We even occasionally use such ephemeral sources as fanzines that have books received lists. The only fanzine that I have access to for that period is Locus, but they had yet to begin their books received listings. I know that Luna Monthly used to give listings, so I'll post a request to see if anyone has issues of that fanzine. Even better, if we could find later printings which give a publishing history with the month of publication.
- BTW, it's best to keep all messages concerning a specific topic on the page on which it began. That would avoid the ping-pong effect of responding back and forth on each other's pages. Don't worry that the original poster won't know that you responded. If anyone leaves a message on your talk page they expect that you'll respond there, so they'll keep a watch on the page. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 21:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Locus, #482 March 2001
In Locus, #482 March 2001 there is Remembering Gordon Dickson • essay by Yoji Kondon. Can you check if this is actually Yoji Kondo? There is nothing else by Kondon and Yoji Kondo has several other "Remembering X" for other writer obits in Locus. Dana Carson 01:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- A typo on my part. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hnak vs Hank Jankus
I changed what appeared to be an obvious typo. The artist for a piece of interior art in your Miller/Contento verified pub Amazing Stories, January 1987 was listed as Hnak instead of Hank. If this was actually a typo in the Miller CD Rom, we should eventually make a note in the record, but I'm guessing it was just a data entry error on our part. Thanks Kevin 19:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a typo. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- And I suppose I found another typo with this author who pops up in a publication you verified (here). Should be probably Robert. Stonecreek 20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll have to pull that issue from storage to make sure, but it's most likely a typo. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Murder at the ABA - Publication Date for the Book Club Edition
I updated your verified publication Murder at the ABA with new information. I have a book club edition with a gutter code of G14, indicating an April print date. I was going to just back date the publication to match what you had done earlier (Pub date equaled gutter code), but then I realized that April would have been earlier than the trade edition. SO I used the Trade date of May 1976 and put in a note to explain where the date came from. - Thanks Kevin 02:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- The printing date indicated by gutter codes should not be used in the publication date field for records of SFBC printings. After comparing the dates of hundreds of Doubleday publications with gutter codes (both book club editions and trade editions), I've determined that the publication date averages 6 weeks from the printing date. So a book printed in week 14 would be published in week 20. So May 1976, as you entered, would be the estimated publication date for the book club printing. Thanks for correcting the record. Mhhutchins 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, I spotted a possible typo in Science Fiction Age, January 1994 with a letter from Piers Antlhony instead of Piers Anthony. Its either a typo or deserving of a note so no-one thinks its a typo. Thanks Kevin 04:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's a typo. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mark, could you please check the title page of Karma (St. Martin's Press, 1978) to see whether there is a sub-title 'A Novel of Retribution and Transcendence', as suggested at SFE3 and Goodreads? The sub-title is absent in my edition.--Dirk P Broer 09:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- The subtitle appears above the title on both the title page and the dustjacket cover. I've updated the record, adding it to the title field, but did not create a variant title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I recently verified a copy of Infinite Dreams that you have previously verified, adding an OCLC link, but that is not why I am posting here. I also changed the page number for "The Mazel Tov Revolution" from 17 to 27. Yes, I do know about informing verifiers before making changes, but I felt that this was such a minor correction that it would fly under the radar, so to speak. Well, I've been called on it anyway and I am now informing you after the fact. Sorry about that. Syzygy 01:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's no problem. By informing me on my talk page, whether before or after, I'm still in a position to make an informed decision about whether the change was proper. I do admit though that if I'd been the moderator of a submission changing another editor's verified record, I would have held off accepting it until the primary verifier had been notified. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Shortstories of L. Tieplov
Hi, could you please help BarDenis and me in checking if these ( 1 and 2 ) shortstories by L. Tieplov are the same one? My sources do not present the original title but the Italian version appeared in Urania #205 and ErnestoVeg verified it against Tuck. Thanks --Pips55 19:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any reference in Tuck to this issue of Urania. He usually lists them under the main novel's author(s), but there was no listing of this issue under The Shrouded Planet. Also, I'm not familiar with Russian. So I let Google translate the title and they appear to be the same story. I suggest varianting the Italian title record to the Russian title. (I have no idea how to enter the Cyrillic alphabet.) Mhhutchins 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks --Pips55 21:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Ahasuerus 06:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there any credit for Genevieve Linebarger...
... in your verified pub? Maybe you could look it up if the issue is not boxed away too far (Bluesman is second primary verifier and may have the issue at hand). The late publication of this piece - years after Cordwainer Smith's death - sparkled this suspicion. There is also new light shed upon this discussion. Stonecreek 08:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've always been suspicious of this story's authorship, but there's no evidence in the actual publication that it was the work of Linebarger or even a collaborative effort. The piece is credited to Cordwainer Smith on both the contents page and the title page, and there is no editorial introduction that would explain this posthumous publication. Mhhutchins 18:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nevertheless: Thank you for looking this up! Stonecreek 19:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Down in Flames
Michael, you verified "N-Space" by Larry Niven. There is an item in that book, "Down in Flames" (p. 111) that you have labelled as a shortstory. In Trumpet #10, Larry Niven wrote an essay of the same name, describing a basic concepts for a world which were made obsolete by "Ringworld". Can you check to see if "Down in Flames" is a short story or the essay from Trumpet? Bob 17:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is very likely the same piece that was published in Trumpet (according to the Locus Index, it is). I'm not sure when it happened, but sometime between the time I verified it and now, the piece was turned it into SHORTFICTION. It's actually a prospectus, including an introduction, a preliminary background, a set of five questions, a section titled "Detail: Kobold", and a five-page long plot outline. It should be classified as ESSAY. If this description matches the piece in Trumpet, please make a submission to merge the two and I'll accept it. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Page Count Clean Up project
Thanks for figuring out what was going on with those "ISBN" values that led to incorrect pubs. I've restored the other ones that led nowhere to the Page Count Clean Up page. I suspect from their values that these are also Barnes & Noble identifiers. But how can I be sure of that? Chavey 19:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I went to bn.com and searched for the title. Here's a link to one of the titles. You'll see the number "2940023043104" listed as the "BN ID", which is analogous to Amazon's ASIN. The editor who created the record placed this into the ISBN/Catalog #field, thinking it was one or the other. It's neither, so I moved it to the Note field. (The system assumed a 13-digit number was an ISBN so it formatted it like it was one.) Mhhutchins 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you for investigating these. Let me know when you're ready for the things that look like ISBN-10s! ;-) BLongley 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll pass on this one. Much more important fish to fry, in my view. Mhhutchins 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Vandals of the Void (Gregg)
Michael, I don't understand your entry for the frontispiece for http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?181613 Vandals of the Void, Gregg Press edition. The frontispiece is the same as the jacket art. You seem to indicate it's something used in the series of Winston books that Gregg replicated. I don't think so. You also don't give page numbers for the contents. I don't want to mess with your verified pubs, so I'll let you change things if you wish. Bob 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I added the missing page numbers for the contents. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. But I see no problem with the way the frontispiece was entered. This is the same work of art that was used in the six volumes that Gregg reprinted of titles from the original Winston series. So the interiorart records from the six volumes were merged into one. The other option was to create individual records for each book's usage, e.g. "Vandals of the Void (frontispiece)", and then make them all variants of one interiorart record. But there was no problem when all of the frontispieces in Gregg's "Saga of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser" were merged into one record (some of which you primary-verified).
- There's nothing in the record that indicates (or even seems to indicate) that Symes' work was ever used in the original Winston series. It was just a name I chose because that was the name that Gregg used to promote the six-volume series. I'm open to any suggestions to renaming it.
- The fact that it was the same as the cover is irrelevant, because this record is for its use as a frontispiece. A case could be made to make it into a variant of the cover art record, but it seems that each of its use as a cover has its own record. So each of the six cover art credits would have to be varianted to one record before we could variant the interiorart record to that record. Mhhutchins 03:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. I didn't realize that the same jacket art was used for six different pubs; it doesn't surprise me that the frontispiece art is the same, but kind of does that the jackets are. Live and learn. Bob 17:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think Gregg, knowing its market was chiefly librarians, didn't waste money and effort on presenting jackets that would attract buyers, especially for the relatively small percentage of books on which they did give jackets. Look at the covers they did for their other series: Asimov's Lucky Starr, Anderson's Ensign Flandry and the Worlds of Poul Anderson series, Norton's Witch World, Space Adventure, and Time Traders novels, and Leiber's Saga of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. All the books in each of seven series had the same artwork as the others. Mhhutchins 18:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Underwood-Miller vs. Underwood/Miller
I went through the UM books I have, some 60 in all. Of these, 16 use the slash, the rest use the hyphen. One, the first to use a slash, uses both in different places. There is some consistency. The 16 slashed versions all occur between October 1979 and September 1981. However, within that time period, there are 6 hyphenated cases as well as the 16 slash cases. They are not consistent within a series either. The Demon Princes are generally slash, except for "The Killing Machine", which is hyphen. The "Planet of Adventure" four are all hyphenated, although three fall within the slash time span and the fourth is adjacent to that group.
So the hyphen was used at first and then exclusively after 1981. Bob 22:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Would you object then to a merger of the two names, or would you rather that all records through September 1981 remain separately credited from the later publications? Either way is OK with me, but I'd prefer they be merged with a note explaining the differences in how the publisher's name is presented. But then I have no investment in how the individual pub records are credited and as the primary verifier of most of them, you would. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 02:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer that they be merged into the hyphenated form. After all, there are canonical forms for other publishers, why not Underwood-Miller? Bob 12:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon my jumping in. The current policy as stated in this help page (2nd bullet) suggests that variations in publisher name can be converted to a canonical form. I would prefer that we use a canonical name. I can imagine myself wanting to find out what UM published in a given year. I can't think of an instance where I'd want to search for what was published with a certain variation of the name. Perhaps, that help page can be amended to suggest that variations can be noted in the notes field. If everyone agrees, I would suggest, in this instance, that the hyphenated version of the name be used. The Locus Index, Clute/Nicholls (including the new online version), Chalker/Owings and Wikipedia (full disclosure: I started that article), all use the hyphenated form.
- Actually it sounds like we do agree, Bob added his comment while I was typing mine. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we agree then that the two publishers be merged as "Underwood-Miller" with the support of the standards that say we can determine a publisher's canonical name. I'll do that and add a note explaining the slash, using Bob's research about its usage. Thanks to you both. Mhhutchins 15:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- The note you added says that the slash was used from the inception of UM. Not true. As it says above, from Oct 1979 thru Sep 1981. The first few books used the hyphen. Bob 18:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit the data based on the research you did. That function should be available to any editor. If not, let me know exactly how it should be worded and I'll fix it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made the change. Let me know if it's OK. Mhhutchins 20:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Looks great! Thanks. Bob 19:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities
Is your verified Invisible Cities a NOVEL or a COLLECTION? The title records (main and variants) are listed as NOVELs, but all the pubs (minus the OMNIBUS) are listed as COLLECTIONs. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's one of those "in-between" things. Thematically a novel, but made up of individual "stories", often only a couple of pages about each of the cities. It would be very difficult to record each one as a separate record, because most of them are presented in parts which are then scattered among other stories. I'll change the pub records to NOVEL type. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Continuum 1 and 2 and 3 and 4
More supplements to E&O
Michael, I need advice (or maybe direction). I have 5 pubs, all single stories by Lovecraft. They are the same size and the same paper as the Volume 1 Arkham Samplers, and were part of the package when I purchased the Samplers. They have no information on them other than the title of the story, the author and the story itself. They range from 4 pages to 12 pages and the pages are simply folded together (no staples or glue). I'm certain they were produced by The Strange Company as supplements to E&O, like the Samplers, but have no way to prove that other than the similarity in size and paper, the fact that they were part of a package with the Samplers, and the fact that the editors of The Strange Company are fascinated with HPL. The stories are "History of the Necronomicon", "Polaris", "The Outsider", "The Tomb" and "Dagon". Is there any way these can be entered in the data base? Bob 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's a tough one. I'm not sure that they would actually qualify as publications, as they don't seem to have really been published. They could just as well be stories printed off and passed around, thus not officially published. If you could prove that they were published by the Strange Company, you could create chapterbook records. Or if you had evidence that they were published as supplements to each of the Arkham Sampler issues, you could add them as contents. Without this evidence, primary or secondary, I don't think they would be eligible for the database. Mhhutchins 19:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Islands in the Sky
Hi, Michael. Have a question about this Tuck-verified pub. Is the cover artist credit coming from Tuck? This book is crediting the cover to Gerard Quinn, though with pub. date of 1954. Cheers, P-Brane 07:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC).
- I didn't add that credit based on the Tuck verification, which only gives the credit to "Quinn". Someone must have "interpreted" this to mean Peter Quinn, even though there are no other records for this artist in the database. If your secondary source credits it to Gerard Quinn, I would suggest changing it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- About the date, Tuck gives it as 1952. There are three OCLC records: two give 1952 and one gives 1954. Mhhutchins 13:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Will change to Gerard noting the source. Cheers, P-Brane 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
Day of the Minotaur
Nongenre short fiction
You wrote to MLB: "Stories by "authors with a considerable speculative writing history" are not eligible for entry, even if they have sneaked into the database through the back door."
However, ISFDB:Policy#Rules of Acquisition says (#4) "Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold (see below). This includes any non-genre works published as standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but exclude non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book." (emphasis added).
I can see arguments for changing this, particularly since we don't have a NONGENRE type for short fiction at this time. OTOH I can see arguments for treating all non-genre work by a given author in the same way. But if your advice above is to be our practice, then the RoA should be changed and we should all be on the same page, I think. -DES Talk
- And I agree. Unfortunately, there's no such a thing as a NONGENRE SHORTFICTION type, and I don't see its development any time soon. If a user sees a list of SHORTFICTION works on an ISFDB author's page and can't assume that they're SF, the ISFDB has lost its meaning. In fact, a user should assume everything listed on an author's page is speculative fiction unless specifically categorized as nongenre or nonfiction. I think the rule you point to is contradicted (and trumped, IMO) by another rule: only the speculative fiction works published in nongenre magazines are only allowed into the database. Why shouldn't this rule apply to all nongenre publications? For example, an anthology entitled The World's Finest Mystery and Crime Stories? We've never preferred one form of publication over others, so why should books have different standards than magazines when it comes to inclusion? The rules forbid the creation of a publication record for a western pulp magazine that contains a western story by L. Ron Hubbard, but if there were an anthology of westerns with that same Hubbard story would we create a publication record for it? I would hope not. It's hard enough maintaining the integrity of the db as it is. Mhhutchins 13:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are over interpreting the rule you cite. It is a later addition, very specifically tied to adding partial contents of non-genre magazines. I take it to mean "If you are entering a non-genre magazine or anthology because it contains some genre short fiction then don't enter anything but the SF." I don't see that as contradicting "If an author is above the threshold, all his fiction regardless of length and all his book-length non-fiction gets entered, no matter what publications is was included in." So a story in a non-genre magazine would be IN either if it is a genre story or if it is by an above-the-threshold author. This seems a perfectly consistent approach to me, and I don't see it as causing the skies to fall. It would increase the demand for a non-genre short-fiction type, but I don't see the numbers being so huge as to cause the db to "lose its meaning" until we have one.
- It is true that the help doesn't explicitly say this, but then it doesn't explicitly say what you suggest either, and needs to be change in either case. And it does very explicitly say that non-genre short fiction by above the threshold authors is IN, and if we are to change this there needs to be a R&S discussion, i think. -DES Talk 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I wrote the draft for most of Help:Entering non-genre magazines, so I am confident that it was not intended to narrow the RoA in any way. I just checked the history, and that provision was present in the very early drafts. -DES Talk 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually you did restrict the first rule by saying in the second rule that only spec-fic works in non-genre magazines should be entered. It should be modified to give the "above the certain threshold" exception. And then open the floodgates for publication records for mystery, western, and adventure magazines that include non-genre work by authors "above the certain threshold, a subjective decision made by any editor who is partial to his own favorite author. Mhhutchins 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I did. If so, it was not my intention to do so. And no one else seemed to think that a significant change in the RoA was being made by that help page. I think that if we want to change RoA #4, and close the floodgates you see, then we need to do so explicitly and openly. Alternatively, the non-genre magazines page should be modified as you (ironically) suggest. I don't actually think that we would be opening the floodgates so widely, but I could be wrong. Perhaps we need to create ISFDB:Authors considered "Above the Threshold". -DES Talk 19:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually you did restrict the first rule by saying in the second rule that only spec-fic works in non-genre magazines should be entered. It should be modified to give the "above the certain threshold" exception. And then open the floodgates for publication records for mystery, western, and adventure magazines that include non-genre work by authors "above the certain threshold, a subjective decision made by any editor who is partial to his own favorite author. Mhhutchins 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"The Year's Best Horror Stories: Series IV", by Gerald W. Page
Your verified publication was listed as "DAW Books No. 212". That conflicts with C. J. Cherryh's Brothers of Earth, which also claims to be DAW #212. I verified that my copy of "Brothers of Earth" was listed as 212 on its cover (no number listed on its copyright page). The cover of "The Year's Best Horror Stories: Series IV" seems fairly clear that it is DAW #217, so I changed the pub record to that. You might wish to check whether this was just a typo, or was an example where DAW has one number on the cover and a different number on the copyright page. Chavey 18:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was a typo. The correct number is 217. Thanks for finding it. FYI, at the time of this book's publication DAW had not yet started adding the number to the interior of the book. I'm thinking it was somewhere the late 500s when they dropped the yellow spines and changed their logo. The first one in my collection is No. 589. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't checked that aspect in my own copies, so I'm not sure when that change happened. I suspect that including the number in two different places is also part of the cause of having the same number used for two different books: They update it on the copyright page, then forget to update it on the cover. There are at least 8 numbers that appear on two completely different books. Chavey 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have a concern about the reprints that are being entered into the DAW Collectors publication series. It's my understanding that in the early years of DAW's history when a book was reprinted they removed the "No." from the book's cover and replaced it with just the catalog number. Yet, I'm seeing a lot of later reprints that have been added to the series. Has this been your experience? Mhhutchins 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've been adding books where the person writing the notes said "DAW Collectors No. 1234", or whatever. But I suspect that a lot of those notes don't really mean that the number was on the cover. On the other hand, there are a fairly substantial number of reprints that did have the number, so I don't know how to tell the difference. Even good cover photos don't settle the question, because we often have a photo of a "similar edition" used, if the editor said "Yes, that's the picture on the cover of mine." So I'm not sure how to resolve this, other than by a larger round of messages of the form "Can you verify that you really meant it when you put this number in the notes?" Chavey 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Kistenpass from Flurb #4
I'd like to propose that KSR's Kistenpass from Flurb #4 be changed to non-fiction, as it appears to be a autobiographical account of a hike in the Swiss Alps in the same vein as his Lötschepass from Science Fiction Eye #8. Albinoflea 06:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're right. It is a memoir. Nothing in the table of contents indicated this, but it's clearly an essay. I've changed it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Realms of Fantasy, February 1998
- Thanks for finding the error and correcting it. Mhhutchins 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Best SF Stories from New Worlds
Sorry, didn't realize you were working on it. Imagine my surprise when poof! a second title was there. :-) I approved the deletion I had put on hold. --MartyD 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I should have placed P-Brane's submission on hold before I unmerged the US pub from the UK title. Looks OK now. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Possibly matching interviews
Do you have to hand your copy of Science Fiction Review, Summer 1986? It contains an Interview with Tim Powers and James P. Blaylock, which I suspect may be a reproduction of this interview from the PKDS Newsletter #8, one of the whole series I'm currently indexing. The PKDS interview begins with an introduction by Andy Watson, and the first line of the interview is "You guys got together literally every Thursday night?" and ends "Yeah. Look what you did to the elves!" Look familiar? PeteYoung 06:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Similarly, this interview from Science Fiction Review, Summer 1985 might be a match for this one in PKDS Newsletter #5 from December 1984. After Watson's introduction the PKDS interview begins "What's your feeling about the accuracy of events depicted in VALIS?" and ends "I don't even know about that." PeteYoung 12:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Those two issues are buried deep. Give me a chance to pull them out and I'll get back with you. Mhhutchins 01:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Both interviews are from the same set of sessions, but appear to be different, one more so than the other. The first interview has an introduction saying that "more" of the interview appears in the PKDS Newsletter. While the second one's introduction makes it clear that it includes material that was cut from the one published in the PKDS Newsletter. I feel the records should remain separate and not variant (we don't variant based on textual differences). I'll add notes to the title records of the two interviews I entered to make the differences clearer. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- When I say "different" I mean that the two interviews published in SFR are different from their counterparts published in PKDS Newsletter. Mhhutchins 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Figured that. I'll add similar notes re. interview length to the PKDS records. I've made a cursory scan of the remaining 15 issues not yet indexed and I hope there's no more material borrowed by SFR... no more interviews, at least, as far as I could see. Save you another trip into the hinterlands of your collection. :) Cheers for digging them out. PeteYoung 18:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Chrysalis, vol 2
Before I forget, I just wanted to say thanks for working through all those MakeVariant and TitleUpdates associated with my cleaning up Les Martiens the other day; I'm sure it was a slog. Albinoflea 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Kind of tedious, but it's all in a day's work. I'm hoping that eventually there will be a more automated way to fix the records for translations that were entered pre-2011, but that doesn't seem to be high on the developers' to-do list. I was the sole voice who fought for (and lost) an entirely different way of entering translated titles, other than using the variant approach. It seems to have worked out well, but I can't help but think that if we had been more patient, a better system could have been developed. And with it, an automated way of handling existing records for translated works, which were relatively few when the floodgates were opened to allow more, even before the software was fully implemented. There are still bugs in the current software, which you discovered when you had to manually correct the language of every title record which was added to the pub record, even though the pub record had the correctly assigned language. I've not heard any of the editors who pushed for the change complaining about the bugs. I guess they're too busy working on the submissions to make corrections. Mhhutchins 06:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I must say that I agree with your lone dissenting opinion regarding the use of the variants to document translations, as ultimately there needs to be a way to distinguish between types of variants; and while I think it's an improvement it seems a bit short-sighted and inclined towards the reuse of existing structures for purposes they weren't intended for. Granted, the pub I chose to update did a good job of highlighting the bugs in the current implementation and workflow.
- From an abstract view, many cataloging organizations seem to be moving towards a model that inserts an extra level of grouping in between what the ISFDB calls the title and the publication, used to differentiate translations and their versions but also text variants and various types of adaptations. Much of this information is currently being inserted into various note fields and not being captured in any structured way. A true title variant isn't impacting the whole of a text/work in the way that a translation does, and should reside as the publication level like they did before.
- Granted, attempting to implement something at this higher level is going to take some serious mucking through the code, and prior to that some (I suspect unnecessarily) heated debate about what the ultimate desired functionality and display should be... but perhaps having gained some experience with how things are working now will give some insight as to how to proceed. Albinoflea 07:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not being a programmer I had no idea how it could be done, but I knew instinctively that a whole new function was necessary. And pushed for something just as you describe: one that could handle textual differences, including translations, revisions, rewrites, and adaptations. I described it as a "relationship" function that could relate one title record to another, yet each would have their own set of publication records. I visualized it as a connecting horizontal function in what is currently a vertically-structured database. Alas, with the thousands of translated publications in the database and hundreds being added every week, I think we're beyond the point of ever seeing this realized. The perfect time for the implementation of a function that you and I visualize has passed. By the time I realized that translation support was being wedged into the variant function, it was too late. I can only blame myself for not being "in the loop." If I had been there earlier, and been more vocal about my concerns, I believe it would have made a difference. Mhhutchins 14:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not too late. At the moment the different types of variant can be spotted fairly easily and we can assign "serialisation", "translation", "different title" or "different author" to the relationships. That can be accomplished with some mass-update scripts when we're ready to display things as desired. The display is currently an issue, we're going to have to consider how to suppress unwanted languages at the title level for instance, but the boat hasn't sailed yet and the current reworking of translations will not be in vain. (It's actually a bit premature to rework existing publications as it's going to become much simpler in future, but if people are willing to do it the hard way for now we can let them.) BLongley 15:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's encouraging. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Bill, it's certainly not too late. Worldcat and LibraryThing have both implemented this sort of change in the past year or so, and while I hate to use them as examples as they are both a bit of a mess, they also both have much larger datasets than us to slog through. (Granted they both pay their programmers too, but that's another story.)
- Ultimately there's no perfect time to implement a function, except maybe at the very beginning, and even then you run the risk of creating something that doesn't reflect the way the users of the site are going to use it. And I am also reminded of this cartoon. And while I'm not a programmer myself, I'll see if I can coax my local install into getting up and running again so I can at least help with the testing process. Albinoflea 03:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The Company of Glory
Slaughterhouse-Five interior art
I've just added the most recent UK edition of Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, and was somewhat taken aback that there was previously no database record for the interior art. It's not been listed in any earlier verified publication so far (including one of mine, not currently to hand), and no Note for any pub mentions any either. As I have no idea how far back in time the interior art first appeared I've dated the record (for now) 0000-00-00. You have the earliest verified pub here... does it contain any? Mine has full-page drawings in both Chapter 5 and at the end of Chapter 9 (plus another small drawing of a hand-written message also in Chapter 5). Thanks. PeteYoung 19:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to add it to your verified records. I suppose other verifiers didn't think it was worthy of inclusion, and I think mine was entered before we started adding interior art records. Vonnegut did this quite often in his works. I just thought of it as an extension of the prose. You can date the records the same as the first edition, because I'm sure they were there from the start. Mhhutchins 19:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No Flesh Shall be Spared
Hi, Michael. Just noticed that you've rejected the edit to change the author of this pub from Carnel to Thom Carnell, claiming that "The novel is credited to "Carnel"". What's the basis for you claim? I hope it's not just the preliminary version of the cover that displayed at amazon website. Cheers, P-Brane 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- It may have been. But the publication record was credited to "Carnel" as well. You can't change the title record without changing the pub record. That can be done in one submission to update the publication record. If you intended to change the publication later in a second submission, I apologize. Mhhutchins 01:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'll change the pub record. Thanks, P-Brane 01:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
The Gold Coast
- I don't see what value is added to either the publication record or the database by creating content records for uncredited maps. They're mentioned in my original notes. If they had been credited, at least they'd be linked to the artist's page, but otherwise they're only bundled with thousands of other records. I just don't see the point, but I'm open to hearing your view on the matter. Mhhutchins 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was primarily motivated to record them after noticing that the early uncredited maps for The Wild Shore were redrawn for the Orb edition, at which point they're credited, and I felt like it would good to be able to contrast these two versions at the record level rather than having one version only reside in the notes. And since I was doing The Wild Shore, I figured I'd just go ahead and do the rest of the trilogy as well, but that's just the usual unhealthy urge for completeness. None of my copies of Pacific Edge have maps, so the madness should end here.
- There's nothing in my reading of the Rules and Standards that appears to discourage the practice, but I know that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. The section on Interior Art that deals with cartoons is the most explicit, where anything that is signed should be included, and anything that is uncredited but significant can be included. Assuming the "significance" qualifier also applies to maps and other types of interior art seems to set up a gray area, especially for a map, because it's hard (for me at least) to think of a map that would qualify as completely insignificant. But then again, since some editions will include the maps and others won't, it also can't be argued that the maps are essential.
- At the moment there are less than 300 Interior Art entries that have map in the title and uncredited as an author, and most of those seem to have been created by a small handful of editors. (A few that may be yours too: Islandia, Gla Taus?) I did a search though the Rules & Standards archive and another through the wiki restricted to User:Talk pages, and followed through numerous conversations that seemed to boil down to "I don't see the point/feel the urge to enter them, but if you want to go ahead", so there appears to be a fairly ingrained ambivalence about the matter. Albinoflea 07:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that if there isn't an explicit rule against a practice, there should be an allowance for it. And the point I was trying to make was that basically there is no point in adding records for uncredited maps. But you make a good point as well, and I also lean toward inclusion in situations where there is no strict policy for exclusion. I'll accept the submissions. (And I may have entered those records for uncredited maps, but both records were verified five years ago and my beliefs may have "evolved" since then.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that. I hadn't realized either, until digging through the Rules Archives) that on the site there seems to be a stronger urge to be inclusive when dealing with magazines as opposed to books; I'd always sort of approached the two in the same manner, but it's clear that not everyone feels that way. Albinoflea 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Found a signature on the cover of [this]. Approximately 1" up from the bottom, on the 'spray' can. Runs vertical about 1/4" in from the right side, reads 'szafran'. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Życie jako układanka z kotami na wysoki połysk
Just a heads up that I've submitted an entry for the Polish collection Nebula '92, which contains a translation of the Bishop story Life Regarded as a Jigsaw Puzzle of Highly Lustrous Cats. Albinoflea 04:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the publication. I'm holding off adding Michael's translated titles until the software can better handle their entry. Feel free to add any you may come across while entering publication records. Mhhutchins 05:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, not sure how many more I've got, but if I find any more I'll let you know. Albinoflea 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a scan of Ariel #2 http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?3022 (or Volume 2, if you prefer). I also added the LCCN. But I have some disagreements with your entry. My copy does not have an ISBN, nor is Ballantine mentioned anywhere in the pub. You can see from the cover that Ballantine is not mentioned there. I also wonder if the pub is a magazine rather than an anthology, since it was published quarterly (or was meant to be so published). Volume 1 called itself a magazine, after all.
I notice that my volume 3 says that it is a "Second Edition" (Oct 1978, vs. April 1978 for First Edition) and gives its ISBN as "27617". Still no mention of Ballantine. Then my volume 4 does have "Ariel Books / Ballantine Books" on the cover and the title page says "Ariel Books" over "distributed by Ballantine Books". It also has a full ISBN and says "First edition".
Should these differences be included in the notes? Bob 23:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Volume 2: The notes as stated in the primary verified record are correct. "Front cover gives the publisher as Ballantine Books, and the spine gives the publisher as Ariel Books/Ballantine Books." The ISBN is derived from the SBN printed on the spine: "345-27319-2". Looks like yours is a different edition, and requires a separate record. Please cancel the submission to update the current, and clone it to create a new one. I strongly believe the type as given in my record should remain ANTHOLOGY. If you think your copy is a magazine, feel free to enter it that way.
- Volume 3: My copy is also a second printing, so I'm going to create a new record and move my verification to that one. But Ballantine Books is promimently given on the front cover, the spine and the title page. And the full ISBN is given on the copyright page: "0-345-27617-5", and the SBN in on the spine: "345-27617-5". The catalog number "27617" is printed on the front cover.
- Volume 4: Appears to be identical to your description. So no problem there.
- It may be that your copies were distributed through the magazine distributor and mine through the book distributor (Ballantine). Mhhutchins 00:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I cancelled the submission and cloned Volume 2, as you suggested. Don't forget I uploaded the cover scan, which won't be correct for your edition. I'll also clone your new version of Volume 3. Bob 21:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Submission to clone accepted. You can add the URL (http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/5/56/RLTHTSYV781977.jpg) of the file you uploaded to your new record, and I'll eventually get around to scanning the cover of my Ballantine edition to add to its record. Mhhutchins 22:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Sharon (K.) Yntema
- The problem wasn't with the record, because it was correctly entered, and its title record had been properly varianted. It's just that "Sharon K." had not been made into a pseudonym for "Sharon no middle initial", thus creating a "stray" record. Fixed now. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sneaky! :-) Thanks! Ahasuerus 07:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on being the first to pass the 200k contributions mark! BLongley 11:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Here's my current "To Do" List:
- Reach 250K contributions on the ISFDB.
- Actually read a book.
- Mhhutchins 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The Dying Earth
Sea, Ship, Mountain, Sky
In your verified trade version of The Year's Best Fantasy & Horror: Fourteenth Annual Collection, the story on page 149 is listed as Sea, Ship, Mountain, Sky. In my hardcover version, it is titled "Ship, Sea, Mountain, Sky". As these are usually identical simultaneous printings, I would expect them to be the same. Would you mind double checking yours? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're correct. In the paperback edition, it is also "Ship, Sea, Mountain, Sky", but it appears that the original title was "Sea, Ship, Mountain, Sky", at least according to the Locus Index. So until someone can do a primary verification of original magazine publication, I've created a variant record for its reprint in the Year's Best anthology. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 04:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
DAW Collectors publication series
Could you take a look at the revisions that I did to the "number discrepancies" section for the DAW Collectors series? This was a major compression and, I hope, is clearer. Let me know if you have any improvement suggestions. Thanks, Chavey 02:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The table does a much better job of displaying the discrepancies. My only suggestion is that the opening should read:
- Originally given only on the front cover as the "DAW Books No.", the designation was changed in June 1984 with #581 in the series. The number appeared on the cover as "DAW No. ###", and on the copyright page as "DAW Collectors No. ###".
- You might also want to add that DAW's hardcover editions have the number only on the copyright page. And that DAW's first hardcover publication had no Collectors number, and that a number was only assigned to it when it was reprinted in paperback. Mhhutchins 05:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks much. I added both of your suggestions. Chavey 06:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The Illustrated Challenge from Beyond
This pub http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?390646 seems to me to be really messed up. I've left a note with the primary verifier, but I'm not sure he's responsible for all of the problems. First, he classified the pub as an ANTHOLOGY; all other copies of this story are CHAPTERBOOKS, which I think is a better classification. He gives the editor as Marc Michaud, the founder of Necronomicon Press; the only mention of Marc in the pub is as owner of the copyright. But the thing that bothers me most is that the individual chapters are classified as variants of the whole. So he ends up with five of the same story as chapters. I hope the primary verifier will fix what he can, but the variant problem may not be his to solve. Bob 03:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- This story has always been a "challenge" (pardon the pun). All round robins are problems. I think everyone who has a primary verified copy of it should get together and decide how it should be handled. The major problem is that some editors have the individual parts as SHORTFICTION, while others have each as part of a SERIAL. It's obvious that each author should only be credited to his own part, but when you variant it against the whole then the whole should be credited to all five of them. I'll start a discussion on the Community Portal and invite all the editors who have done a primary verification to participate. Mhhutchins 05:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
DAW Collectors publication series
You verified C. J. Cherryh's Merchanter's Luck, 3rd printing. It's one of DAW Collectors reprints that has a note with the "DAW Collector's Number". Can you tell me whether this number actually appears on this edition of the book? Thanks much, Chavey 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The exception that proves the rule: the number is printed on the front cover of this third printing. I've added a note to this effect, and then added the record to the series. Mhhutchins 02:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm being surprised by the number of verifiers who are reporting that their copies do, in fact, have the DAW number on either the cover or the copyright page. Almost all of the books I pulled from the series are getting put back in. I didn't realize there were so many exceptions. Chavey 03:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A Gent from Bear Creek
Your comments in the discussion of "The Challenge from Beyond" brought the Howard novel "A Gent from Bear Creek" http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?720565 to my attention. This is a "made-up" novel; Howard used mostly short stories that had been published in Action Stories, added some new chapters and some tying paragraphs to create the novel. But in the data base, it's listed as a collection. This now looks to me like it should be designated a novel, and all the SHORTFICTION in it varianted to it. The reason I bring this up is that I have another pub to enter that includes "A Gent" as part of it, and I need to know if I can enter the novel as part of the content or if I need to list the individual chapters. Bob 16:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- All of the records (one primary verified) currently give it as an collection of related stories. So does the Wikipedia article. But the Howard Works database considers it a fix-up novel. If you feel strongly that the title should be changed to a novel, you'll need to contact the other primary verifier (Willem H.) to discuss it. Some factors in determining whether a book is a collection or a fix-up novel is, in my opinion, if the original stories are presented intact, that is, given separate title pages, and that there is a table of contents. A fix-up novel doesn't retain the titles of the individual parts, and it is difficult to isolate the individual stories from the others. If you both decide that it is a novel, you'll have to remove all of the content records from each of publication record. Shortfiction records that make up a novel are not varianted to the novel title record, but you can update the novel's title record to give the stories that were used to create the novel. (Similar to this title record.) Mhhutchins 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the guidance! Bob 20:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Road of the Eagles
Michael, you rejected my submission to unmerge two pubs from a shortfiction title. The problem is that there are two stories with the same title (both by Howard), and the two I wanted to remove (there are now 3) are not the same story as the others. If I cannot unmerge them, how do I separate the two stories? If you're interested in the background, see http://howardworks.com/storyr.htm#road2. Bob 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unmerging of shortfiction is currently rather buggy and not for the faint-hearted. The problem is that the Publcation author will be on the unmerged title, not the author of the shortfiction - these are not always the same person, although it obviously is usually so in the case of collections. Remove title from pub, deleting it, and adding the title again but not merging them is the safest workaround: although I hope Ahasuerus will get round to implementing the bug-fix shortly. (I submitted it ages ago, but he's been busy.) BLongley 21:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Will do. Thanks for the help. Bob 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you'd read the note I left with the rejection, it said Don’t "unmerge" pubs from shortfiction titles. Remove shortfiction titles from pub records., which is a succinct way of saying the same thing Bill just said, but without going through explaining why. I'd hoped the message would have sufficed. Mhhutchins 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did read it, Michael, but it wasn't clear to me. Sorry, I'm sometimes slow. Bob 15:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The Supernatural Index
I seem to recall that a while back you were looking for The Supernatural Index: A Listing of Fantasy, Supernatural, Occult, Weird, and Horror Anthologies. If you are still looking, there is a relatively inexpensive copy for sale here. Ahasuerus 02:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks ever so much. I purchased it within a minute of seeing your message here. It was an amazing price, even if the seller is hedging a bit on the condition ("near fine" is more than good enough for my purpose.) Since I've been looking for a copy, I've yet to see one for less than $150. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 03:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent! Hopefully you got to it first since I assume that I am not the only one on the internet whose robots are on the lookout for this title :) Ahasuerus 04:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I just got the confirmation from the bookseller that the order has been processed. So I guess that means I was the first to order it and I got it. Mhhutchins 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are all set. Congratulations, a tasty morsel indeed! :-) Ahasuerus 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- It arrived today, and it looks like it just came off the press. If anyone needs me to look up anything about horror, supernatural, fantasy, or weird fiction anthologies published up through 1994, just ask. Mhhutchins 19:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
L'alternativa - Urania Argento #3
Hi, while drawing inspiration (i.e. copying) your excellent notes on L'alternativa, I noticed what I believe are two typos: the correct name for the publisher is Arnoldo Mondadori (not Arnold Mondadori), while 'cover' in Italian is Copertina (not Cpoertina). Moreover, are you sure your copy of the pub have no printed price ? The price in Urania Argento usually is in the upper right corner of the cover, and it can be seen on the posted cover image. Bye --Pips55 20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, it's right there staring me in the face! That's why I missed it. Thanks for finding the errors, which will more often pop up when I'm working outside my native language. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 23:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Easton Press editions
I was Primary2 verifying some Easton Press books that you had verified back in 2007, specifically Kate Wilhelm's Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang and Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake. Two questions: (i) The "+" in the page count for "Where Late" doesn't seem quite justified, according to current standards, and seems in disagreement with the lack of a "+" in "Dreamsnake"; (ii) It seems that these books should have a note such as "Collector's notes inserted", as is done in the WorldCat record for Dreamsnake. Chavey 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- (i) The "+" in Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang indicates the two unpaginated interior art pieces. Where does the current standards state that we shouldn't included unpaginated pages? And I didn't notice that there were 5 unpaginated pages in Dreamsnake. Where are they?
- I misunderstood the "+". I thought it meant that there were 2 extra unnumbered pages after the numbered pages. And there are 5 of those unnumbered, blank, pages in Dreamsnake. Chavey 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ii) Both records have this statement: "Collector's Notes" (uncredited) are on a double-sided laid-in sheet. The term "laid-in" is more accurate, bibliographically speaking. Mhhutchins 05:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Somehow I missed those notes. And I agree with you about "laid-in". Chavey 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Floating Worlds art credit
Almost certainly a typo, but could you check the inside back cover design credit for your verified pub Floating Worlds. It should certainly be "Sue Michniewicz", not "Micheniewicz". She's also mentioned as such in your Note. (Her name is spelled correctly in your verified pub No Enemy But Time in the same series). Thanks. PeteYoung 16:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
PS. FYI re. your note, Michniewicz is a cover designer for Gollancz. She designed both of the SF Masterworks series, the Fantasy Masterworks series, the SF Collectors' Editions, those bizarre Greg Egan covers... ad infinitum. PeteYoung 16:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Typo fixed. Thanks for catching it. Mhhutchins 17:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Just in case it has passed its usefulness and you forgot about it, I thought I would mention (remind?) you of a test volume you apparently created: TestMHH, an anthology with lots of test stories. Chavey 06:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- That test accounts for most of the authors who are in the database solely because of reviews. Without the content records that accompany the test publications (there's another one as well), it would be impossible to work with newer additions to the cleanup script that finds such authors. If you find any truly spec-fic authors among the content records, feel free to add a new publication record for their work and then delete the content's title record (but not the test publication record). Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I kind of understand. But not enough to know whether something I just did impacts this record. Walter Wager was a pseudonym for Walter H. Wager. However, the only books by Wager were "only as by Walter Wager", and the only item actually credited to "Walter H. Wager" was this test story. So I dropped the alias from "Walter" to "Walter H.", so the canonical form of that name is now the way it appears on all of his books. But I'm not sure, then, if "Walter H." should be kept, deleted, or pseudonymed to "Walter". Chavey 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The only way to see if an author is in the database solely because of a review is to run this cleanup script. After you've done that, you'll see a list of less than 100 titles. Click on the first record (for this review of "Artificial Earth Satellites" by L. V. Kurnosova). Clicking on the author's name you'll see a blank page. Click on the "Show All Titles" link. Still, a blank page. So any user of the ISFDB has to wonder why is there a page for an author, but there is no record of a publication by the author. If you do an advance search, enter "L. V. Kurnosova" in the Term 1 field of the Title search form, and change the search type to "Reviewed Author" you'll see why this person is in the database, and why their summary page is blank.
- Running the cleanup script reveals all of the authors whose summary pages look just like this author's page: blank. So how can such pages be "repaired"? Occasionally, this can be legitimately resolved because one of several reasons: the reviewer gave the wrong spelling of the author whose book is being reviewed, or the editor who created the review typoed the author's name. If it's determined that the both the author and title are correctly entered, there is a way to illegitimately resolve this issue: create a pub record for the title being reviewed even if the book would not otherwise have qualified for inclusion in the ISFDB. I call this illegitimate because such pub records dilute the database by adding records for such non-spec-fic books about "teacup fortune reading" and "self-healing". So the only way to legitimately resolve the issue (after it's determined that the spelling of the author's name was correct) is to change the REVIEW into an ESSAY. I personally don't have the time or inclination to do this for all of the titles, although I do it for publication records which I've entered. But there's another problem in finding these authors: the cleanup script only returns the first 100 authors. So I had to find a way to get to records that could be fixed because of author misspellings, but couldn't get to because the script only returned the first 100. To do this, I had to remove authors earlier in the list: I created a test anthology record to contain shortfiction records by the authors on the cleanup script so that there names could be removed from the list. This was the only way to get to the authors that were further down on the list, many of which I've cleared from the list because they were simply mistakenly entered, either because the publication misspelled the author's name, or the ISFDB editor misspelled it.
- Now back to "Walter H. Wager": even if I delete the test record he would still have a "blank" author page. Because the review which created this name is still in the database. Once you've read this response, I will update the review record to give the proper author credit to "Walter Wager", and then I'll delete the test record. After I've done this, the summary page for "Walter H. Wager" will disappear, the result of the removal of all records credited to that name, including review records. Mhhutchins 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a reasonable way to do things. Presumably, this means that if someone went do that issue of Delap's, saw that there was a review of "Viper Three" by Wagner, then clicked on that name, they would be surprised to discover that there was nothing about "Viper Three" on that page. They might be able to infer what that meant, but there would be nothing there to explain what its absence meant. (Is that right?) Chavey 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. If I were positive that Viper Three was a spec-fic novel, I could have created a pub record and then linked the review to the title record. The problem is that the review mistakenly credited "Walter H. Wager" when the actual book was published as by Walter Wager, otherwise the name would not have appeared on the "authors without pubs" list. I'm going to correct the review record and the summary page for "Walter H. Wager" will disappear. But the review record still won't link to a title because Viper Three is not in the database. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
British pb edition of Blue Mars
Hello, Michael. I wonder how the date for this pub found its way into the listing. I seem to have the second printing of this edition (according to the no. line), but it is stated 'This paperback edition 1996' with no actual printing date for my book, so the record in ISFDB may be the 2nd printing. Is there any chance for you to look up the matter in Locus (maybe it's listed in this issue?) Stonecreek 09:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like it comes from the Locus online database, which may have been incorrectly dated. But I wouldn't think that a mass-market paperback edition would have been printed the same year as the hardcover (1996) unless it's later in the year. Could the note in your copy possibly be referring to the 1996 trade paperback edition? Mhhutchins 12:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it clearly states 'This paperback edition 1996' and I'd think that Voyager could tell a tp from a pb edition. But while thinking about the problem it occurred to me that Interzone's Books Received column could also shed some light into it, so I'll take a look there. Thank you for helping, though. Stonecreek 13:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly stating it doesn't necessarily make it true. As a bibliographer you've surely encountered enough errors in publications to learn that publishers can err too. I wish you good luck in getting to the bottom of it. Mhhutchins 22:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, since both Locus and Interzone had the pub. date as of April, 1997, it surely was an error on the publisher's side. Thanks for your help. Stonecreek 07:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"Transylvania Mission" by Lavie Tidhar
Our record for HebrewPunk states that the story on page 28 is called "Transylvania Mission". However, an author-provided bibliography on this Web page calls it "Transylvanian Mission" and that's how it appears in our record for Apexology: Horror. Since the source of our HebrewPunk data is "Locus Books Received, February 2008", I wonder if you could double check the spelling in that issue of Locus? TIA! Ahasuerus 16:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- The print edition of Locus doesn't give content listings, so whoever added the contents to the Tidhar book must have gotten it somewhere else and didn't source it. So I started looking and found this OCLC record which may have been the source. Or it may have come from the listing on the publisher's website. I'm not saying the author is wrong, but maybe the publication was mistakenly titled and he was giving the correct one. But look at this listing of a reprint anthology from the same publisher which also spells the title as "Transylvania Mission" even though the ISFDB record for that anthology (another goddamned unsourced record) titles it as "Transylvanian Mission". Until the records are primary verified, or until moderators start asking submitters to source their data, we're not going to get a definitive answer. Mhhutchins 16:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this! I poked around some more and I think I may have found a clue -- Google Books lets you preview "Apexology: Horror" and the title page reads "Transylvanian Mission". However, not only the table of contents, but also the editor's two paragraph introduction at the top of the title page calls it "Transylvania Mission". I suspect that the extra "n" was accidentally added by the typesetter (or some modern equivalent thereof) when the reprint anthology was being put together. How about we document the findings and VT "Transylvanian Mission" to "Transylvania Mission"? Ahasuerus 20:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. Please proceed. BTW, how did you get to the title page of the story in the ebook? I could only preview the contents page, introduction, and first story. And I could find no search inside function. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I used regular Google Search and it displayed a link to the title page of the story :-) Ahasuerus 21:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah-ha! That never occurred to me. Thanks for the idea. Mhhutchins 21:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)