User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2012Sep-Dec

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The many facets of Andrew Smith

While accepting a Fixer submission, I discovered our Andrew Smith entry was a mash-up of quite a few different people. I've been trying to tease them apart. I'm down to someone to whom I'm hoping I'll be able to append "(artist)". One credit is for a John Stewart obituary in your verified Locus #542(March 2006). Does the magazine by any chance say anything about who he is? It seems plausible he could be Andrew Smith the artist, contemporary of John Stewart. Thanks. --MartyD 11:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't give any bio for the obit's writer, but I'd bet it's the artist. Mhhutchins 13:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, January 2012

While verifying my copy of Asimov's Science Fiction, January 2012 I noticed and corrected one error. The title type for the Novelette Bruce Springsteen was previously listed as 'essay'. I have corrected this (for both the parent and variant), to Novelette. - Thanks Kevin 20:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Not sure that I was the one who made it into an essay though, but I'm glad it's correct now. Mhhutchins 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Butler's Le motif

About my submission to update this record, The publication, I have on my shelves is dated of February 19, 1980. Its a hardcover ,the cover have no illustration, just generic pattern in red. The dust jacket is the one present on the ISFDB page, which is a part of an interior illustration, no tag, perhaps Philippe Adamov. There is a front endpaper illustrated with tag by Yvon Cayrel . Both illustrators are crédited on the book description.

By the way, the publisher is not OPTA, who collapse 1978, but "Nouvelles Editions Opta" since the n° 68 - Evelyn E. SMITH : "Planète impopulaire"

A complete description of the book is here : http://forums.bdfi.net/viewtopic.php?pid=42874#p42874 Dr Mabuse 17:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The cover artist field is restricted to crediting only the artist who created the cover art. The endpaper artist's credit can be added to the record as a content, which I will do for you.
About the publisher: we sometimes regularize a publisher's stated name. But it's strange to hear that OPTA didn't publish after 1978. How can you explain this 1987 OCLC record? And this series of publications through 1987? If the publisher changed names, we can correct the publication records, but many of them have been verified by editors with the OPTA name. Please leave a message on this editor's talk page. He was responsible for most of the records in this series.
A last thing: this discussion should have taken place on your talk page. It is wiki etiquette to keep topics on one user's talk page to avoid the "ping-pong" effect or a misunderstanding due to cross-posting on different pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Approaching Oblivion

I think the Locus note in [this] record belongs to a different edition, most likely [this one]. The price and catalog # of the first record place the date in 1977, and a price of $1.50 is much too low for a 1981 printing. Never having seen an issue of Locus, what do they usually include for data on a book? --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you've seen a listing in their online database, then you've seen exactly how the same publication would have appeared in their print publication. Here is the entire listing for the book in question:

Ellison, Harlan. APPROACHING OBLIVION (NAL/Signet 0-451-007718-0, $1.95, 176pp, pb) Reissue (Walker 1974) collection.

Someone has changed the price from the original record, maybe the same person who added the line "3rd printing (per number line) of Jan 1976 Signet ed." to the record. Of course, we'll never know who did this, and never know what was their source, because the moderator accepted the submission without asking the editor to provide a source or do a primary verification of the record. My solution to this is to clone the record to create an undated third printing at $1.50. Then update this record, changing the price back to $1.95, and removing the note about it being a third printing, and the cover image. I'll do that now. Mhhutchins 01:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Series or type?

Hello, Michael! Is there now a consensus on the POETRY COLLECTION type suggested by Biomassbob as a title series? I can't find a discussion on the general pages. Did you reach a conclusion for yourself? Stonecreek 09:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

He created a topic here, and I'm the only one who's responded to it. I don't believe these titles should be placed into a series, as they have nothing in common. How can a poetry collection published by Arkham House in 1957 have anything to do with a slim book published by PS in 2010? They're books of poems by the same author. It's like making a series called "Story Collections" for the twenty or so collections by Harlan Ellison, and only Ellison's books are eligible for inclusion. Mhhutchins 13:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"gwenda bonda"

Could you please check if the review of Franny Billingsley's Chime in your verified Locus, #605 June 2011 was attributed to Gwenda Bond rather than to gwenda bonda? TIA! Ahasuerus 03:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's credited as by Bond, but you have to admit that her name should have been Bonda. Mhhutchins
But then again, "The name's Bond... Gwenda Bond" also has a certain ring to it :-) Ahasuerus 03:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Masterpieces of Fantasy and Wonder edited by David G. Hartwell

I recently acquired this book at a garage sale, and according to the cover image, it was you that entered this page http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?276710 on this site. The information on the contents page and many of the stories' title pages differs, slightly, from what you have entered. All in how the authors are listed. May I change this information? Also, the title page states that this is a Guild America Book / Doubleday Book & Music Clubs, Inc. So shouldn't this be listed as a Doubleday Book & Music Club / SFBC and the Guild America put in the Pub. Series field? This has been explained numerous times and it still seems a fuzzy area to me at times. Don't waste your time with an explanation, a yes or no would suffice. Also, Kathryn Cramer is listed as having assisted Hartwell in this publication, does that mean that she's really a co-editor? I have no problem with listing her as such, I'm just curious as I thought that "assistant" editor didn't rate a full entry credit. MLB 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the book, and only uploaded the image to the server. (Otherwise it would have been primary verified, although it's possible I may have forgotten to do that!) It's best to keep the publisher as stated. We handle book club editions differently from trade editions (rules here). The addition of "/ SFBC" to the publisher field indicates that it is a book club edition that was offered as a selection of the SFBC. The publisher is actually "GuildAmerica" which was the imprint used by Doubleday from 1989-1998 to indicate an original publication exclusively for club members. All books in my collection published by GuildAmerica is given as one word with a camel-backed "A", usually in the form of a graphic logo rather than regular type. Some of the earlier titles may have a space between the two words, but we've regularized it so that all of the publisher's books can be accessed through a single search. BTW, it's an imprint, not a publication series. About the editor credit, there is some wiggle room when it comes to crediting editors, but in this case it doesn't seem that Cramer should be given co-editor status. Feel free to change it or not, but if you do, record in the note field the editor credit as given on the book's title page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to add: please update the contents to reflect exactly how the stories are titled and credited on their various title pages. This listing appears to have come from the Locus1 database, but they may enter titles and credits from the Table of Contents, and not the title pages as we do. Mhhutchins 17:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Rat Tales

the earlier, 1987 version of this book has a title of The Moscow Moffia Presents Rat Tales everywhere except the copyright page. For differentiation, should I change that earlier anthology to that title since they re-used it for the 1994 volume? Ofearna 00:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. Even though, I've added notes to each pub's title record, this should prevent some unsuspecting editor from merging the two. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Tik-Tok

Added cover artist for Chris Moore to Tik-Tok by John Sladek, same as with this edition.--Dirk P Broer 12:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The record you've sourced isn't verified. We'll have to find some corroborative source. Mhhutchins 14:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Pottawatomie Giant and Other Stories

I recently bought a copy of the trade edition of this title, and to my surprise it had the limitation sheet, stating it was #97 of 200 copies. Except for the missing dustjacket, the only difference between your "special signed edition" edition and my not so special but still signed edition seems to be the backcover. Mine has the coverart and price information there. I uploaded a somewhat larger coverscan here. Can you compare this with your copy, so I can adapt the notes? Thanks for checking, --Willem H. 19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't have the trade edition, but the limited edition without a dustjacket. Did you purchase it from a retailer and not the publisher? You may have got a bargain if you didn't pay the full list price of the limited edition. The image you uploaded is identical to the boards of my copy, same ISBN, credits, etc on the back cover. In other words, the boards of both editions are the same, and only the tipped-in limitation sheet makes it the limited edition. Mhhutchins 20:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Amazon.uk has it for £16.99, a bargain, even for the trade edition i.m.o. The signature is a bonus, I guess I'm lucky. I'll verify the limited edition and delete the scan. Thanks! --Willem H. 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Last Celt

Michael, I added content to the tp of The Last Celt, which you verified. Most of it is content of "The Golden Caliph". It will all be merged with other uses of the same content in other pubs; in each case, this was the first publication of these items. Bob 20:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept the submission (not even going to bother checking the book, my only interest in Howard is bibliographic, and I picked this one up in a bargain bin.) I wish you'd asked someone about this before you went through the effort of adding the same set of records to each of the two pub records. Someone could have stepped you through a process that would have saved you many submissions. Mhhutchins 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Image-taking opinion

Not hugely important, but I'd like to know what you think. I was linking an author's webpage, and here the picture says "click here for publication-quality photograph". That "about" page has a copyright statement at the bottom, but the publication-quality photograph/page says nothing. Does that look like an implicit permission to take and publish that photograph? --MartyD 12:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The copyright statement is for the entire contents of the website, including the higher resolution image file. I don't see any implication that it would be otherwise. All he's saying is that if a publisher needs a higher quality photograph, here it is. He's not giving up ownership and the copyright by just saying "here it is". We can still "take" the smaller image and claim "fair use" (using this template), but should ask permission first. Mhhutchins 15:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Robert Foster

Hi, I just added cover artist Robert Foster to this publication.
More interestingly, Robert Foster is two people: The artist (1928?-1977, see here) and the Middle Earth adept and Assistant Professor of English (born 1949, see here). We'll have to do something about that. Horzel 14:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Locus, #330 July 1988

Just working through a 2PV on this issue; you have a publication note that seems like boilerplate that you didn't finish up: The Books Received listing includes several mini-reviews (one or two line comments) by . I'm assuming that should be filled in with Charles N. Brown and Faren C. Miller. Also, Faren Miller's review of Anachronisms begins on p55 instead of p17. I've uploaded a cover scan to http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Image:LOCUSJUL1988.jpg but figured I'd wait on adding it to avoid multiple edits on the pub. Feel free to add a link to it, or let me know and I'll submit it. Was Great Blurbs of Future Books (p37) a recurring feature, similar to Bisson's This Month in History? It has that look, but I haven't stumbled across one before. Albinoflea 23:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was using a template and must have failed to complete the one about the mini-reviews. Go ahead and make the correction for the page of the Miller review. That probably happened when a review column continued on a later page. I don't recall the "Great Blurbs" piece, but may have overlooked it. You can add it if you feel it's of significant importance. (I didn't add everything or I'd still be working on Locus issues.) I'm not going to pull out my copy, but will ask you to please make the necessary changes, including adding a cover image. (I may eventually get around adding those images to earlier issues, but that's way down on my list of priorities.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, done.
As Great Blurbs of Future Books was not credited (and really would only be significant if it was a repeating thing) I'll leave it out for now, but keep my eyes open when I look over other issues. Albinoflea 00:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hal Duncan story in Winter 2007 Postscripts

Could you double-check the title of Hal Duncan's story in Postscripts 13? The record currently lists the story as "Island of the Pirate Gods," but its interior art as "The Island of the Pirate Gods," with the definite article. The story also appears under the latter title in Wilde Stories 2008, unless there's an error in Locus1. Thanks, BrendanMoody 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I failed to notice that the story's title was incorrect when I updated the original entry. It's been corrected and merged with the other title record. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 17:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Arkham House: The First 60 Years

I don't know if you originally entered the unpublished record for Joshi's Arkham House: The First 60 Years. Based on the note that it had not been published as of 2012-08-18, I went back through the list of integrations to that date and found that you updated the record, though you may not have added it originally. It's possible that it was even me, though I have no memory of adding this one, nor can I find it in any of the secondary sources from which I would have added it. The reason I'm bringing it up, is that I'm wondering if the forthcoming book mentioned in Locus is really the nonfiction Sixty Years of Arkham House and was mislabeled as an anthology. Arkham did publish a 60th anniversary anthology about the same time, but it was edited by Peter Ruber. While I probably have issues of Locus from that period, they are not in any sort of order and I would likely have to dig deep in the attic to find them. Unless you think the mention in Locus indicates a third planned book, I think that the unpublished title is likely one of these other two and perhaps should be deleted. Thoughts? Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember updating that pub recently, adding the note. At the time it was dated, but I don't recall the exact date, probably 1999 or 2000. After a good deal of research, well actually, about 15 minutes, I came to the conclusion that this anthology was never published, thus the dating of 8888 and the note. At the time I felt it was better to keep the record and mark it "unpublished" to prevent someone from entering it later based on an (incorrect) secondary source. The title was included in the "Forthcoming" lists of several issues of Locus around this time. Here is a link to the Locus website, which reproduces a portion of one of those Forthcoming lists. I've just noticed that it's listed as "nf" (a nonfiction book), so the ISFDB record is incorrectly typed. This makes me certain that work was retitled and become Sixty Years of Arkham House. If you agree then we can delete this record, but make a note in the published book's title record that it was first announced as Arkham House: The First 60 Years. Mhhutchins 02:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm actually about to head to bed, but I'll make the changes tomorrow. The publication record (of the published book) needs work anyway. I was making a second pass on my library and working the the Arkham titles months ago when I got distracted by new acquisitions, and I've never made it back. I'll fix both the title and publication records and delete the errant title when I'm done. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfit for Eden: Postscripts 26/27

Hi, Michael. In this verified pub, the author of the story "The Scribe of Betelgeuse V" is Eric Brown. Cheers, P-Brane 03:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

You're correct. I must have copied the credit from the previous story. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 04:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Atomic Murder

Could this title be Atomic Murder, instead of Atomic Monster? Thanks.--Rkihara 00:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I guess my sf sense overpowered my eyes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Cipher

I added the cover artist to Kathe Koja's The Cipher along with a note as to the source. I hadn't read (or recalled, since I must have seen it before) your note about waiting until the outcome of the discussion until after I had made the edit, and if I had thought this was at all controversial, I certainly would have consulted you first. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The same source also credits Bad Brains to Lieder. I'll wait for your assent before making the change to that record. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
There's no problem with adding the cover art credit as long as it's sourced. I just like to be notified of changes to any record that I've primary verified. I don't believe it's controversial. My note is directed more toward editors who want to submit changes without having a discussion or even notifying me first, especially newer editors who are not aware of the protocol. In cases where I've found cover art credit for records that were verified by other editors, I just leave a note on their talk page, allowing them the opportunity to make the change, or not...that's their call.
Please go ahead and add the credit to the second record. Thanks for letting me know. Mhhutchins 15:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Moon Pool

I think we both added the 1932 Liveright printing of The Moon Pool from Tuck this evening. I'll delete mine, but wanted to leave you a note so that we don't both delete our respective copies leaving us with neither. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I would not have deleted it since your submission followed mine and I would have no idea that there was a subsequently entered duplicate in the database. (I seldom look at the recent integrations listing.) The record I added for a 1932 Liveright edition is based solely on Tuck's listing. According to all OCLC records, all Liveright printings simply have the 1919 copyright date and not a publication date. This record for a 1929 publication is suspect, because Tuck doesn't show a 1929 edition, although it's possible he missed it. But look at this Abebooks listing by Robert Gavora, a bookseller who has been around long enough to trust. It states that the first Liveright edition was published in 1932.
The notes in this record (the one that prompted me to create the 1932 record) is probably wrong, since it states that it is the first edition by Liveright. And I find any record for an 80 year old book whose date is based on an Amazon listing to be highly suspect. The difference between that record's price and Tuck's price might indicate it's a later printing of Liveright's edition. But that's going to be hard to date without any interior evidence. ISFDB rules would have the book's date zeroed out without a more reliable secondary source, but I'm not going to be the one to tell that to the verifier.
BTW, the publisher was known as Horace Liveright until it was incorporated in 1931 as Liveright, Inc.. In 1933 it became Liveright Publishing Corporation. So a 1929 edition should be published by "Horace Liveright". If this record gives the publisher on the title page as "Liveright Publishing Corporation" then it's a later (undated) printing. A first (1932) edition would give the publisher as "Liveright, Inc.". Mhhutchins 05:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The notes in your source for the cover art's 1929 date is suspicious of that book's credit for the artwork, thinking it was possibly a movie poster. I seriously doubt that (was there ever a movie?), but I don't know why Dragoondelight was suspicious. Mhhutchins 06:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I went round and round on what to do with the cover in the Broecker book. I hadn't noticed Harry's note (I'm working from the Barnes and Noble edition), but it is definitely a book cover. The caption characterizes it as "1929 Reprint" but doesn't mention the publisher. I found these ([1] [2]) both of which have the same dust jacket with Liveright printings. I considered whether the first auction was of this copy on Google books because the stamped title on the cloth cover matches. The GB copy mentions The Ship of Ishtar so is after 1926. The publisher is listed as "Liveright Publishing Corporation" which further dates it after 1933, as you point out above. Regardless, I decided that the same cloth cover could have been used across several printings. I also discounted any Liveright copies for sale with the 1919 date realizing that these printings all appear to have only the copyright date as evidenced by this Worldcat record. Broecker does have occasional errors. Tuck is also occasionally wrong, though thankfully rarely. In this case, I think we've got evidence of more than one Liveright printing, though Tuck lists only one. Ultimately, I decided to go with the date as Broecker presents it making it clear that he was the only source for the date. I wouldn't have a big problem zeroing the date on the 1929 and leaving the Broecker date only in the notes, if you feel we've got enough evidence to consider that date as likely wrong.
I was the one who prompted the change to this copy. It originally had a date (I think 1952) with a note saying the date was approximate. I had asked that the date be zeroed, with the approximation given in the notes. I noticed the pending edit using Amazon as a source, and I was a little unsure whether that was appropriate, so I decided to see if another moderator would question it, which didn't happen. I'm inclined to leave it be for now. The date is at least sourced. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The "NYMPH" o' ManiAck

What do you think about merging The "NYMPH" o' ManiAck and The "Nymph" O' Maniack? The more stylized capitalization is from your verified Echoes of Valor II. --MartyD 10:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to a merge. If the stylization carried on into the actual body of the work I'd push for keeping it, but it doesn't. I'll merge them and then note the difference. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
One thing though, the "o" should remain uncapitalized because it's a contraction of "of", not an Irish name. Mhhutchins 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Once again I feel the need to apologize for all the extra trouble I put you through. Your taking me to task though has paid off and I've figured out how to always do the covers correctly. So once again...sorry.Don Erikson 23:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your saying that. So often I feel like I'm the one having to play the "bad cop", and just as often, I don't like being in that position. Even if it comes off as harsh, I do try to be as tactful as I possibly can. Despite how some of the editors here may feel about how I go about doing things, it's not personal. It's all about the database and what I believe makes it better. (And I do understand, and accept, that others may have different opinions.) So a response like yours makes me feel I may be doing something right. And I apologize in advance for the next time I come across as a jerk. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I went back over the past week's uploads and downloaded, re-sized and re-uploaded 88 cover image files. Mhhutchins 04:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Aquliad

There is a signature on the cover of [this], bottom right, but my copy clips about half of it and there are some small edge chips that make discerning who it is quite difficult. I think the first name is Venus but the second and third parts .... Would your cover show any more?? Thanks for checking. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my copy isn't as severely cropped and the entire signature is visible: Kevin Eugene Johnson. Feel free to update the record to give the signature as the source for the cover art credit. Mhhutchins 18:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

German translation of With a Little Help from Her Friends

FYI, just submitted a German anthology, Der Drachenheld, that contains a German translation of With a Little Help from Her Friends. Albinoflea 05:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

New Message

Thank you for your helpful comments on giving sources. I will do it in the future. Is there a way to edit my pending submissions to add them, or should I redo them? BungalowBarbara 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not necessary. It appears all of them were properly sourced, and they've been accepted. I really appreciate your efforts. There's one publication that I have a question about, but I'll leave a message on your talk page. It's best to respond to messages on the same page on which it was posted. BTW, to add a new message to a user's page, you should click the plus (+) tab at the top of their talk page. This opens a new dialog box and a space for a subject. Also, it's better than editing the entire page which can cause problems if another editor is leaving a message on the same page at the same time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions about The Fairies' Ring

Per your question about The Fairies' Ring: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?39493

Thank you for the corrections and suggestions. The titles are not the same in the TOC and on the story itself. For example, Thomas the Rhymer appears as "Thomas the Rhymer (a tale from Scotland)" in the ToC. On the title page of the story, it says "Thomas the Rhymer" with "Scotland" below it. So I will have to correct these title records. Should I just give the title as "Thomas the Rhymer" and put the rest in the notes? Or do "Thomas the Rhymer (Scotland)" ? I want to get this all fixed up while I still have the book in hand (it's from my local library system).

Also, I will correct the date of the historical poems & stories to "unknown" unless I can find out the correct date. BungalowBarbara 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but it should have been made on the page on which the topic was first posted. That prevents the "ping-pong effect" of jumping back and forth to carry on a discussion. Mhhutchins 00:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Now to the question: Just enter the name of the titles as they are given on the stories' title pages. Omit the country designation. You can update the pub's note field to indicate the countries from which the stories came, if you wish (but it's not mandatory). Thanks.

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, September 1971

Can you confirm the title of Neil Barrett Jr.'s story in this magazine? We have it in the database as "A Walk on Toys", but the note states "A Walk on Toy". Locus1 has the reprint in http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?243741 A Different Vintage] as the second title, and my copy of Other Seasons also has "A Walk on Toy". Thanks for checking, --Willem H. 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's "A Walk on Toy". I knew that without even looking, but I checked just to be 100% sure. It's not possible that both Swfritter and I missed this, so I think someone may have merged the original title record with a wrong one. I'll make the correction. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 00:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Vonnegut variant titles created automagically?

Yesterday you accepted my initial submissions for this Vonnegut book. If you remember, I had to change the author from "Kurt Vonnegut, Jr." to "Kurt Vonnegut", thereby creating many new title records. Yesterday night I was too tired to finish my work and make variants, but today I notice that the "varianting" has already been done. Do you know who did my work for me? Was it you? Or have there been changes to the ISFDB programming in the past few months that I don't know about yet? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't I wish it were "automagic"! No, I did it. I saw several dozen titles on the "non-Jr." page, so I varianted them all (one by one), including the relatively small number in your pub. I'll do that when I see a pseudonym has been set up and there are titles present. There's usually no way that the casual editor would be aware of such cases unless they go to the summary page of the pseudonymous author, and with so many titles present, it wouldn't have been obvious that they all needed to be varianted. I'm glad to see that you were aware of the situation and had planned to fix it. It shows a pretty good knowledge of how the db works. Mhhutchins 00:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think the process of creating variants is not particularly tricky if one has done it before, it's just time consuming, especially for non-moderators. But you are right: I certainly would not have varianted all those titles that are not part of my pub, even had I seen them, because I am much too reluctant to change data that I cannot verify. Anyway, thank you very much for doing my chores, I'm trying not to feel too guilty... Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Collector's Nightmare or Opportunity

Since you are one of the few here who have some of these, thought I would pass a scenario past you. I just got home from viewing a rather astonishing collection of Easton Press editions. 208 in all, with about 90% still in the shrink-wrap. And I haven't the knowledge about them to make an educated offer. Can't just let them pass. Virtually all are from the Signed First Edition series. The young fellow [he may be 17-18?] had them given to him, but is internet savvy enough to at least have found AbeBooks, though I think that may skew his idea of 'worth' as opposed to 'value'. Any thoughts are welcome! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What a lucky stiff! He could probably sell them for at least $50 each, maybe more for any sf & fantasy titles, but only if he sold them one at a time. In a bundled deal, he'd probably average $25 each. He could take his chances on eBay, deal with all the hassle, and watch the money trickle in, or sell the lot to a single dealer (or collector, in your case) and walk away with a fat wad of cash (for a teenager, at least). Were they all sf & fantasy titles or were some from other Easton Press series? Mhhutchins 03:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to shut down for the night. Gotta get up early to work at the polls tomorrow. Gonna be a long day! I probably won't be back until Wednesday. Mhhutchins 03:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
All SF & Fantasy. He reads fantasy a lot but the only editions he's keeping are the Asimov and McCaffrey titles. There have to be duplicates in the set, there just aren't that many volumes in the series. There are also about 60-70 other books from other publishers, mostly limited editions/slip-cased, but a lot of horror which I'm just not into. I was thinking $20-25 as well, but that's over $5000!! Need a backer!! ;-)) I told him it would take at least a few days to put together an offer. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Weiss

Just wondering if Margaret Weiss in your verified Science Fiction Age, May 1996 may be Margaret Weis? Ahasuerus 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the same publication that credited Anne McCaffrey as "Anne McCaffery", so it may have been entered correctly. Give me a little time to dig out the issue. Mhhutchins 15:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Finally got to it. It was my entry error. I'll correct it. Thanks for finding the mistake. Mhhutchins 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Artist for Future City ed. by Roger Elwood

This is Angus McKie for Future City ed. by Roger Elwood (from The Flights of Icarus). Denis 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Interior artwork from Visions of the Future

One question. Is interior artwork The Plains of Tartarus from The Flights of Icarus (you can check it there) same with inerior artwork Isaac Asimov Double No 1 from Visions of the Future? Thank you. Denis 12:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same painting. Mhhutchins 13:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Denis 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

SFBC The Robots of Dawn

User:RUSSWOTHE added a note to The Robots of Dawn about an N51 gutter code (previous notes mention N52 and O11). I didn't know if you want to consider that the primary code and record N52 as a known reprint instead of the primary code or if you wanted to do something else with it, so I did nothing with the SFBC listings. --MartyD 11:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be the earliest one to be confirmed, so I'll update the listing. It would be nice if he could do a primary verification of the record, so that the notes reflect who verified which code. I'll leave him a note. Thanks for the heads up. Mhhutchins 15:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Gottfried Helnweinn vs Gofffried Helnwein

Hi Mark, Can you check whether the cover illustration of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone Magazine, June 1989 was indeed done by Gottfried Helnweinn and, if so, could it be a typo by the magazine for Gofffried Helnwein?--Dirk P Broer 09:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

All of my issues of TZ have been packed away, but give me a day or so and I'll dig this one out. Mhhutchins 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Found it. That's the way it's credited. I'll create a pseudonym and variant. Mhhutchins 19:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Silverberg's Worlds of Wonder

Interesting little note on http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?28317. The copyright is granted to "Asberg, Ltd." rather than Silverberg's incorporated identity of "Agberg, Ltd." I don't know how this affects the copyright of this collection but it's interesting.SFJuggler 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it actually makes a difference, and even less sure whether's it worthy of noting. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Empire of Two Worlds

Precised pub date for your verified here. Hauck 15:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the previous source of the date (Amazon.co.uk) from the note field. Mhhutchins 20:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Downriver

Your thoughts on http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?347665 before I even attempt to touch it. It's generally considered a novel but the structure is more a "fix-up" novel of twelve related (previously unpublished) tales. The whole title of the book is "Downriver (Or, The Vessels of Wrath)/A Narrative in Twelve Tales" and is broken into twelve titled tales, each one tied to a photograph presented on the front and back endpapers and numbered to match the different sections of the "novel." Question: Do I... A: Treat this as a collection and list the contents? B: Treat it as a novel and put in a lengthy description in the notes section? C: Leave it alone, unverified, and run screaming into the night? SFJuggler 07:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A "fix-up" novel implies that parts of the work were previously published and that an effort was made by the author to change those parts to make them into a novel or create new material that connects those parts into a whole. From your description, Downriver isn't a "fix-up". But it could still be a novel. Sometimes the distinction between a novel and a collection of related stories can be rather fine. So a few questions have to be asked:
  • Was it marketed as a novel or a collection?
  • Is there a table of contents? Is each story given its own title page?
  • Can each story be read as a self-contained work? Would removing any of them damage the integrity of the work, whether narratively or thematically? Are there characters that appear in more than one story?
Mhhutchins 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

SFBC edition dating question

I was dealing with of the Ace hardcover edition of Silver Borne, where the editor found "First Edition: April 2010" stated. I notice we have the Ace / SFBC edition dated 2010-03-30, which matches the date Amazon had for the hc, citing the SFBC website and the April 2010 SFBC catalog. Do you think it likely that should be made 2010-04-00 as well, or just leave it? --MartyD 12:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the book was actually published on March 30, 2010, and the publisher's stated date of publication is April, 2010. This is typical for publishers, most of whom only month date their publications. The publication date of a book published in the second half of a month is "rounded up" to the next month. It's my preference that we use the book's stated date (month, year), over the actual date (day, month, year). I have accepted submissions by primary verifiers which change the publication date to the stated date, and I've accepted the opposite: a submission from a primary verifier which changes the stated date to the actual date (as given by Amazon). This situation has come up several times over the past few months. Perhaps we need to establish a standard? Mhhutchins 14:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This all started with my reverting a date change (that also added the April date statement) based on the Amazon-supplied publication date. And I encouraged a second person to check his book, rather than going by the date from Amazon. I thought that WAS the standard. Plus I've seen some pretty far-off dates on Amazon (not just user-submitted, but also for delayed publications). I'll run it up the old R&S flagpole and see how much flak results.... Thanks. --MartyD 14:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it was the de facto standard that the stated date trumps the actual date, but I've accepted submissions by primary verifiers which have changed the date to the Amazon's actual date. (I drawn the line when it comes to Amazon's dating for books published before 2000.) There have been several cases where verifiers have used a laid-in review slip to change to actual dates for older books (I've personally only done that when there is no stated date for the very few review copies in my collection.) I see it was BungalowBarbara who prompted this discussion, and I handled several of her submissions over the past few weeks that changed dates to Amazon's dates. In all cases she noted the source of the actual date and I accepted the submission, but didn't realize she was overriding the stated date. Mhhutchins 14:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been letting day augmentations go through. This was the first one I ran into changing it to a different month, which was why it caught my eye. I posted this, so we'll see what people think. --MartyD 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Clarifications

The back flap of the dust jacket on Guards! Guards! states "Jacket art by Doug Andersen" and the signature "Andersen" is visible on the cover. The NAL logo is on the spine of the dust jacket and book, while the title page and copyright page both list Victor Gollancz Ltd. I don't see Roc anywhere. As for Reaper Man, the spine of the jacket and book have the NAL logo and the title page has the Roc logo.--MannGil 21:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. My only suggestion is that in the future you respond on the page on which the discussion began (in this case, your talk page.) This avoids the ping-pong effect of having to go back and forth between the users' pages in order to keep track of the discussion. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Worlds Without End

Added the year to [this], source Tuck. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. Don't know why we didn't look there in the first place! Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Moonheart 20th Anniversary

I added notes about unnumbered pages for color plates and sketches that were in several locations from art in [P|261978|Moonheart] and you rejected them. How should I add that information? the color plates are not numbered, they're between numbered pages and the sketches appear in more than one place. Should I add the same art to the contents more than once? I'm confused and just want to know how to do this correctly--usually the art's only in one place or has numbered pages. Ofearna 10:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I rejected the submissions were given in the rejection, which you should be able to read. You were giving the page location of the work in the work's title record. A title record is not unique to a single publication. So the page location wouldn't apply if the work had appeared in an earlier publication or will be reprinted in a future publication. If you're unable to give the page location in the "Page" field of the content record, then give it in the "Note" field of the publication record of the book which you're working from. Mhhutchins 15:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Slew-footed, ham-handed, haplessly new to Wiki.

I made an edit to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?381121 Rocket Science, you commented on my talk page. It is darn near impossible to figure out how to respond by reading the Help pages. Edit and add my comments below? I think so. <adds comments furiously, saves page> Now what? Does that automatically notify you? Completely unclear. Therefore I reluctantly pollute your talk page to let you know that my talk page has an answer to your original comment. Feel free to delete if I am hosed in my understanding of this. Thank you. BillPatt 03:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Driftglass

Yesterday at Borderlands in San Francisco I picked up a mint condition copy of Driftglass for just a few dollars... I think because it's a Book Club Edition they thought it must be much less valuable than a (non-existent) priced copy of the same book. PeteYoung 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange. You'd think a specialty bookseller would realize its value as the first edition, regardless of its lowly status as a bastard half-brother book club edition. Mhhutchins 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, two things:

1. Delany's name is (once again) mis-spelled "Delaney" on the title page, something that's not mentioned in your note. As PV you may wish to note that or even change the author to the already-existing variant; PeteYoung 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I never noticed that! (It's also misspelled on the book's spine.) I'll make a correction. Mhhutchins 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Mine has it spelled correctly on the spine... PeteYoung 19:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see, not the jacket spine, the boards. PeteYoung 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
On the spine of the book or the spine of the dustjacket? My copy gives the title of the book followed by "Delaney" (not the full name) and the publisher's name at the bottom. Mhhutchins 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Crossed-posts, but you now see what I mean. I usually speak of the "book" and the "dustjacket" as two separate entities, since there's no guarantee that they'll stay together. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

2. My copy came with a slip of paper, probably printed by Nelson Doubleday as it's in full colour and appears to have been removed from a publication that notifies Book Club members of forthcoming publications. At the top it states "Things To Come" with the date "July 1971", which verifies the date, and at the bottom of the promotional copy on the reverse side is the statement "Members' Edition $1.49", which verifies the price. Do you wish to add those details to the Note (or shall I)? I'll of course be doing a P2. PeteYoung 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm going to be updating the author credit, I'll add this more definitive source (the actual book club announcement flyer). Thanks for bringing all of this to my attention. Mhhutchins 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Author's Note (The Forever War): Thanks for the merge

Yesterday night (or better: this very early morning ☺) you accepted my submission to create this pub. I assume you then did the title merge for Author's Note (The Forever War) for me? Thanks for that. There is a certain disconcerting effect, though: When I go hunting for a title to merge that no longer exists, I ask myself "What did you do wrong this time?" Then when I notice what probably happened, the next question is "How many times has he been doing that and I didn't notice?" So I am writing here as some sort of reality check: If you regularly need to clean up the mess I leave behind me, please let me know so that I can improve. If, however, the merge you did happened just as a side-effect of some other task that you were doing anyway (just like the Vonnegut varianting a month ago), then again my thanks! Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 11:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Any time a new record is created that is a duplicate of one that already exists in the database, they have to be merged manually. There is no automatic merge unless you clone an existing publication record. Occasionally I will do that for editors, as in this case. You can check the "Recent Integrations" page to see if the moderator has done it for you. Mhhutchins 15:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid the Recent Integrations page is moderator-only... Ahasuerus 15:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I never knew that. Is there any particular reason why non-moderators aren't able to access that page? It seems rather innocuous. Mhhutchins 00:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure why Al chose to put this page in the moderator-only area, but my first guess would be that he didn't want robots/spiders (i.e. search engine programs that scan the Web for changes) to access it. If they could scan our full list of submissions -- all 1,000,000+ of them -- it could put a significant extra load on the server and further degrade performance. Granted, every well maintained Web site (including ISFDB) maintains a file with a list of rules which tell robots which parts of the site to ignore, but these "rules" are just suggestions, so some robots ignore them and try to download everything. Ahasuerus 00:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Or you can just go back to the record you just created and click on it. If there are more than one publication associated with the title, then you know it's been merged. If only the one publication that you created is listed under the title, and you know the title is already in the database, then you know they have to be merged. About "cleaning up your mess": that's not how the moderators think about it, or at least, I don't think of it that way. There are multi-step processes for data entry, and sometimes I find it easier to do it rather than wait for the editor who has already been waiting for the submission to be approved. (It may have been so long that the editor may have forgotten an extra step or two is needed.) It saves us both the time between "cleaning up" the record. That doesn't mean I'll be able to do it every time, but I try as best as I can. Other moderators may work differently. I can't say. If I'm not certain that the editor knows the correct follow-up steps, I will lead them through the process for the first few times to make sure that at least they learn the correct procedure. Again, other moderators may not do this, so it's best that the editor becomes familiar with the process just in case another moderator handles it. If you would prefer, I can leave all follow-up steps for you. Mhhutchins 15:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
As I said I was just making a reality check to see whether I fouled up in some way but didn't realize it. Now that I am satisified that this is not the case, let's just continue the way we did up to now, and if I find you (or someone else) did the follow-up edits for me I will not worry and regard it as a bonus. Thanks for your patience, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection

Re: Resurrection by Paul S. Kemp

I noticed that the first printing has the Canadian price as C9.99. My 4th printing shows the Canadian price as C8.99 (everything else is identical). I don't have the first edition to verify that C9.99 is correct and I don't want to clone it just for a change in Canadian price.--Astromath 01:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and clone this record in order to enter your 4th printing, making changes to match your copy. Don't make any changes in the record for the 1st printing. It's not been verified and there's no source given for the Canadian price, so it's best to just leave it alone until someone who has a copy can verify it and confirm the price. BTW, in the future it's best to ask such questions as this at the Help Desk. I may have been logged off and not have seen your message for a couple of days. Asking on one of the Community pages allows more moderators the chance to help you. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Cover art for Ten Thousand Light-Years From Home found

Hello, Michael! I think I have found the artist for your primary verified book, see here. I have found it via Woodroffe's Mythopoeikon, though. You might want to add the artist (or shall I?). Stonecreek 21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In a strange case of synchronicity, I was just updating the record for the Tiptree collection about an hour ago! I'll update the record and add the source for the cover art credit. Thanks! Mhhutchins 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be honest: that wasn't coincidence. I sometimes look for uploaded cover art for works of authors or by artists I am interested in, and I just saw your update. Glad to have been of some help. Stonecreek 21:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well. I guess it wasn't the forces of the Universe cooperating in our petty little efforts. It's still appreciated. Mhhutchins 21:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A Little Intelligence in Magicats!

Can you check the author credit for this story in your verified edition? In my reprint it's credited to Robert Silverberg and Randall Garrett, and I suspect all editions of Magicats have that credit. Thanks, --Willem H. 16:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

They must have discovered the error and corrected it in later printings. My copy of the first edition credits Garrett only, on the story's title page and on the contents page. Mhhutchins 17:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I placed a note for future verifiers on the two unverified pubs. --Willem H. 20:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"O Master Caliban!", by Phyllis Gotlieb

I was verifying this copy of the book, which you have verified. My copy is identical in all respects to yours, and claims to be a first edition, but has 244 pages instead of the 256 pages listed with this book. That may be an error, or maybe in 2007 you were counting unnumbered pages, or maybe I have something different than yours, but I'll let you decide if the page count should be changed. I added a note to the pub about my page count. Chavey 22:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My copy also has 244 pages. I must have overlooked it when I updated the original publication record. I'll make the correction in the record. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 15:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Locus, #313 February 1987

In your verified Locus, #313 February 1987, should it really be a "1985 Locus Recommended Reading List" (p26) or a "1986 Locus Recommended Reading List"? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a typo. Thanks for finding the error. I'll make the correction. Mhhutchins 15:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Death Arms

Added the Afterword to the contents of [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to remove the note that "The Afterword was present only in the limited edition from Morrigan" an obvious error since it appears in this St. Martin's edition. Mhhutchins 15:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sundiver

Re: Sundiver
The notes say that the artist's signature cannot be found on the cover. I think I found a signature, but I'm not sure. Just beneath the subtitle "The Ultimate Voyage" seems to be a series of letters that I can't read. Just to make sure that it is not an aritfact of my copy, I found another image here. That image also has those same letters. They are very faint. Could you look on your copies to see if they are there as well? I'm notifying the other verifiers of my find.--Astromath 00:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Further examination under high def scanning the letters seem to spell Jim something or other. I think it may be Jim Burns who did the cover of the 2nd volume, Startide Rising.--Astromath 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't make out a signature. That would be a strange place for the author to sign a work of art. Mhhutchins 00:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it would be a strange place. [*shrug*] I'm no expert. Since I cannot read it, I'm certainly not about to change the record just for a guess. Maybe the other verifiers can read it (or not).--Astromath 03:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead Man's Hand

Re: Dead Man's Hand
Are you sure that your copy has $4.95? My copy (which is 1st printing by number line as well) shows $4.50. I'm not changing it in case yours is truely $4.95. I don't know if this makes any difference but my number line is this: RAD 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1. I have no idea what "RAD" means.--Astromath 03:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just checked and my copy is a second printing. I'll remove my verification of that record and create one for the second printing. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. (BTW, I believe the RAD indicates the printing press, but I'm not 100% certain.) Mhhutchins 03:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and notify the other two verifiers in case they have the same problem.--Astromath 03:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Among the Dead

Just verified the hardcover edition of [this] collection and the title is slightly different. "... Leading Up to the Apocalypse". The 'Up' is missing from the cover of the Collier edition, also from the title page? An aside, Clute/Nicholls notes the Collier edition as 'revised', perhaps that's why the subtle title change? --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No "Up" on either the cover or the title page. I'll unmerge and create a variant. I would think the difference would be greater than just one word, but without a side-by-side text comparison, who's to say? Mhhutchins 03:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2012Sep-Dec&oldid=306524"