User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2013May-Aug

A probable typo in the name of artist Charkes Brock

Hello, Michael! I found the name mentioned above in this pub., whereas the note states Charles Brock. Stonecreek 14:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a typo. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Our most recent newbie

Thanks for trying. The level of comprehension problems make it seem unlikely that he would have become a net positive contributor -- i.e. that time saved from his contributions would have exceeded the time spent trying to help him. Chavey 16:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the time/effort spent compared to value returned was relatively high. Yet I sincerely remain willing to help him, even though his last postings make it clear that he's not willing to accept it. Mhhutchins 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the impression I also got. I really couldn't find a single harsh word in the whole exchange. Stonecreek 16:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian. That makes me feel better. I've been told that I can be too harsh with new editors, so I try to be aware of the tone of my exchanges with them. Sometimes even that doesn't work and I fail. All I can say is I tried. Mhhutchins 17:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Christian -- I think you hit the right balance between trying to convince him that he needed to read some of the postings above, and absorb them, without having been too harsh with him. Chavey 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Darrah. You may have noticed that a new submission from him is in the queue. Me...ten foot pole...nada. Mhhutchins 01:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Details here if you want to see some slow progress. Chavey 04:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no progress. Half of the corrections you made were for things he'd already been informed about. He's obviously not reading the notes we've been posting on his talk page. BTW, the letters in that record have to be disambiguated. And I'm not even sure if the publication qualifies for the db. Pulp fiction isn't necessarily speculative fiction. But I'm going to be the last person in the world to tell him that. Mhhutchins 05:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he at least got some things right, which seemed an improvement (I did disambiguate the "Letter"s). I accepted the publication because we have all of Pulp Review, which was the follow-up to "The Pulp Collector" by the same editor. In looking more closely, I see that "Pulp Review" contained some speculative fiction stories, and that the indexed contents were limited to those contents. But this fanzine seems devoted to non-fiction. The contents listing looks like there are at least a modest number of genre essays, so I propose that I leave this issue in until we can evaluate the spec fic content of the fanzine. In about 2 weeks I'll be by a library that has a full run of the title, so if I don't spend all my time with my new grandchildren :-), I'll try to check it out and see what content items actually belong in. Chavey 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Mhhutchins 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Black Madonna question resolved

I've updated the Black Modonna discussion on my talk page. AndonSage 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Author unification

Hello, Michael! I do presume that the authors of this and this essays in different issues of Locus could be the same as Fred Clarke, Arthur C. Clarke's brother - but could you shed some more light into the issue (especially in the case of the letter in #492)? Thanks for considering, Christian Stonecreek 18:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on the contents of the letter, these are the same person. I'll create a pseudonym and a variant record. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 18:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sideshow by Sheri Tepper

Hi, I have a copy of Sideshow out from the library & would like to make some changes concerning the map. To notes, I'd like to add "Map artist per copyright page." (and also "Canada price $C26.95" but you have said we don't need to ask about that). To contents, "[vii] •  A Plague of Angels (map) • (1993) • interior artwork by Claudia Carlson" -- the same as the SFBC edition here. Is this OK? Oh, and the OCLC number once I find it out. BungalowBarbara 06:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You threw me for a loop for a moment there. I checked and my copy of Sideshow doesn't have a map. But then I followed your link and saw you intended to mean A Plague of Angels. I'm not sure why the verifier of the book club edition used roman numbers to count the unnumbered pages before page 1. The ISFDB standard is to count those pages using regular numbers, and only use roman numbers if at least one of the pages are numbered that way. I've updated the record to include the map (using the import function), and updated the note field to add the Canadian price. Feel free to add the OCLC number, but I find the practice of adding OCLC numbers to primary verified records a wasted effort. In fact, most records with ISBNs already have a link to OCLC/Worldcat (under the "Other Sites" menu.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, my bad! A Plague of Angels it is. Looks great! I'll keep the OCLC stuff in mind. Wasn't sure what was standard policy. BungalowBarbara 04:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no standard when it comes to recording the OCLC record in the ISFDB record's Note field. It's only my opinion that it's a waste of time except in a relatively minor percentage of cases: non-primary verified pre-ISBN publications for which the data is based on the OCLC record cited. If an editor chooses to record the OCLC record number in the ISFDB record, there is one standard: it should be in the form of "OCLC: XXXXXXX", and they have the option of linking the records using HTML. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Locus, #383 December 1992

Hello! Could you please check author's last name on p.47 for this 1224337. Orriz vs. Ortiz. If it's no typo, then it should be a pseudonym of 150416. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

It's a typo. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 02:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Burgled Heart

Hello. You have Reginald-ed 417837 as NOVEL but it's a COLLECTION (of 3 titles: 1599243, 1079934, and 1079940). Could you please check. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 05:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC).

The original record was entered incorrectly, and I failed to catch it when I did the Reginald verification. All three titles associated with this work have been changed to COLLECTION. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictures at 11

Saw the note in [this] about the artist. The [pb] does credit the way Locus indicates [no Rodriguez-] but the © for the artwork is 1995, after the tp edition was published. Not sure how that works as the two covers are the same. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the tp is not credited, and it is the same artwork for the mmpb which is credited, I will give it (mmpb) as the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Stableford's World SF Conference

Hello, Michael! I do suspect a congruency between two titles: this and this, the second one appearing in Locus #367, which you verified. The one in Interzone #52 takes one page and begins: "The international organisation of sf professionals, World SF, has now spent more than ten years building bridges (...)". The second section begins: "Chinese science fiction has had a rocky historical ride." and has some remarks on translated sf for the Chinese market (Russian sf was translated, American sf only sparsely) and on the fate of "the most presigious figure in Chinese sf, Zheng Wenguang." The third section begins: "Many of the Chinese writers were, as might be expected, full of propagandist fervour for sf.", has some musings on the standpoints of Guo Jianzhong and Liu Xingshi as well as on the Chinese sf magazine 'SF World' and ends with a paragraph on Stableford's feelings: "For myself, I was both delighted and proud (...)". The last sentence is "I hope that they are right." Would you be able to take some exploration into the case? Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 13:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Even though it's the same subject and covers the same general ideas, the pieces are not the same. There are no lines that correspond exactly with those you cite here. The essay in Locus has five paragraphs, totaling less than 700 words, taking up almost one column of a three-column-wide page. You were right to question whether the pieces could possibly be the same, but in this case, they're not. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clearance! I'll add a note that these titles shouldn't be varianted. Stonecreek 18:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Evangels of Hope

Michael, you verified two publications containing Evangels of Hope and entered information on a third. It seems to me this "essay" is a review of SF in Dimension by Alexei and Cory Panshin. Shouldn't it be classified as a review? Bob 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

REVIEW-typed records do not allow the ISFDB editor to enter the title of the review/essay, only the title and author of the work under review. So this ESSAY can not be changed into a review and retain the title "Evangels of Hope", a title which was used in all three of its publications. (You must admit this analysis is not a typical "review" of the Panshins' work, but is more about their view of the sf field and their agenda as demonstrated in this work.) If you feel strongly that this is a review, I would suggest your adding a REVIEW record to the publication record for Shayol #4. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Bob 23:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Behold the Days to Come: A Fancy in Christian Politics

Dirk changed the author "Jospeh Adderley" to James Adderley. Adderley has a single publication in the database for which you have a Reginald1 verification. Per the archive.org scan of the publication (linked in the title record), "James" is correct. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a note that Reginald1 mistakenly credits the author. Mhhutchins 13:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ace poser

Michael, I know you've done some work on the publisher history of Ace/Charter/Grosset etc. Any light you can shed on [this] oddity? Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Definitely two printings with identical prices and catalog numbers. From here, I would think the best approach to determining an approximate date is to check the title pages of our Ace editions from this time period to narrow down when Ace added Charter and/or Grosset to their title page. According to this source, Grosset & Dunlap bought Charter Communications in 1977. (Wikipedia gives it as 1976.) If you wish, I could pull out some of my Ace books circa 1976-1977. Mhhutchins 14:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That date helps. Charter was on the title page for a number of years by itself, and checking the notes I received from Stuart Wells he has dates for the company name switches/additions: Charter from 9/70 to 12/74? [his question mark], G&D 7/76 and then C/G&D 10/76. That should mean the one I've temporarily called [B] is the earlier printing and would be the one mentioned in the Delap Calendar. The other printing can't be too much later, say early '77? Two ads are the same in both, but they were used right up until the whole ad format changed at the end of October '78. My ad data is coming together, but slowly, so can't [yet] use the other ads to pin this one down any better. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. Let me know if you need me to check any of my Ace paperbacks, either for this info or the ad data that you're compiling. Do you have any intention of one day adding your info to the ISFDB Wiki pages? Mhhutchins 21:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Most certainly, though I think I'll need help setting up a page that others can contribute to. Right now it's just a raw spreadsheet. I'll run up a white flag one of these days! lol --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Citizen of the Galaxy

Appears we have another set of Heinlein 'twins'! [1] and [2]. Differences explained in the notes. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that I've luckily verified the one that matches my book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Darkness

I just verified a copy of this book club edition. According to the notes the gutter code should be on page 217, but my copy has it (36K) on page 213. Can you check if this is a typo? Thanks, --Willem H. 08:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My copy is a later printing with gutter code "H 21" on page 217. I will clarify the Note to specify that the page number is for that printing. Please update the note accordingly to account for the page number of the gutter code's appearance in your copy. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the information about my copy. --Willem H. 17:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A probable typo in the illustrations copyright on Insomnia

Hi Michael. I found a probable typo on this pub regarding to the illustrations copyright. On the notes field it reads ""Illustrations copyright © David Johnson, 1984" stated on the copyright page." In my copy of this book the aforementioned line reads "Illustrations copyright © David Johnson, 1994". Could you check that please, thanks. --Jorssi 22:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're correct. It's a typo. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 23:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Instead of starting a new topic, I'll put this here. Hope it's ok. I recently submitted Stephen King Omnibus: The Dead Zone / Cujo, but now there seems to be two records of the same title that are identical, the other being this one. Is that intentional or just a mistake? In any case, I verified it. --Jorssi 10:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You added an OMNIBUS content record for the title when you created the publication record. The system automatically creates a title record (the reference record) for the publication so now there's two in the record. I noticed it at the time of the submission but failed to bring it to your attention, and didn't remember to delete it. In the future only add title records in the Content section of the entry form for the book's contents and not one for the book itself. I'll fix it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

I didn't see any comments here so wondered how you like the Sourcing improvements? Ahasuerus probably needs some encouragement if we're to roll it out further. Sorry the announcement got buried among some stuff you're less interested in. BLongley 20:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. And it did seem to get buried. I haven't used the "Add Pub" function in awhile, (only adding new pubs), so I'll see how the changes look. Thanks for the heads-up. Mhhutchins 20:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've become a bit disillusioned with editing and moderating now that my books are all packed away: I would really like to get back to software improvements, but it's only recently that Ahasuerus has cleared the backlog from last year. I think I'll spend the weekend absorbing his changes and maybe we can get to the next round of improvements. BLongley 21:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds great. I'm getting somewhat burned out myself. And have really cut back on moderating, especially with new editors. I just can't handle the back and forth required to train new editors. It's better all around to leave it to other moderators. Mhhutchins 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Burnout is a real problem on volunteer projects. Well, it can be a problem on all projects, but it tends to be a bigger one when you don't have the added incentive of hungry kids asking you to feed them -- or buy them a Porsche for graduation :-) Ahasuerus 23:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Classics of Mystery Volumes VIII: An Omnibus of Continental Mysteries, Part I

Hello, You've Reginald1'ed 352265 with the author of story on p. 49 as by "Alexandre Dumas-Pere". Ashley/Contento, I believe, gives it as by "Alexandre Dumas". I believe the story also has subtitle "Dr. Ledru’s Story of the Reign of Terror" (I was able to get a snippet view part of the page some time ago, but cannot replicate my success:) Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 07:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC).

Reginald1 doesn't provide contents, so any Reginald1 verification wouldn't indicate that the contents are verified. (Use this chart if you're not sure what each of the verification sources entail.) Pulling out my relatively recent acquisition of Ashley/Contento, I see that the editor who entered the contents into the ISFDB record used it as the source for "Solange" as by "Alexandre Dumas-Pere" in the Book Contents section. It is credited to "Dumas, Alexandre (1802-1870)" in the Author Index and to "Alexandre Dumas" in the Story Index. There is no listing for "Dr. Ledru’s Story of the Reign of Terror" or any indication that the stories are the same. Mhhutchins 07:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Great! So I will change the credit to "Alexandre Dumas" sans Pere. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 07:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC).

But according to Ashley/Contento, the story is credited to "Alexandre Dumas-Pere" in this collection's contents. (Perhaps that wasn't clear in my previous statement.) It is their convention to give the contents as credited in the book, but credit the parent author in the author and story indices. If they are our only secondary source, and until there's a primary one, the story's credit should remain as is. Mhhutchins 13:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I see I'm too late and the change has already been made. Oh, well. Hopefully, a primary verifier will come along and confirm it one way or the other. Mhhutchins 13:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Checking further, I see now that your correction of the record's author credit has made it a variant of an identical record. You'll have to fix that or return it to its previous credit. Mhhutchins 14:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope to become a PV for the book in a couple of weeks:) and settle the matter. Will leave it alone meanwhile. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC).

In the Midst of Life

Hello! I am a bit puzzled by the following two pubs: [1] and [2]. They seem to be the same, but the first one is Reginald1'ed by you and the second one has Reginald1 as n/a. Maybe you could move your verification to the second one and delete the first? Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 08:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC).

There's no pub record for the second link, so I'm not sure how to respond to the request. Mhhutchins 16:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There is, just with stray character in it. Sorry, here it is in good shape: [3]. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 23:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Author photo template question

An editor tried to link to the photo on this page, which I didn't allow, but I sent email to the site asking about linking and/or copying. I got this response from Steven Bauer, husband of Elizabeth Arthur and writing to me at her request:

As for the photograph, you have our permission either to link to the photograph or to copy the Russell Lynes photo and use it on your sight. Mr. Lynes is now dead; he was a friend of the family, and when Liz used his photo of her mother, she felt it was sufficient to give photo credit to him. So as long as you use © Russell Lynes, you should feel free to upload the photo. Whatever works best for your site and your contributor.

I realize linking directly would simplify my life, but I am thinking in this case it's better to upload the photo. If you agree, what do you suggest about a template, if any? By Permission doesn't quite cover the case where permission came indirectly. Should I use it and make the "holder" be Arthur or Bauer and then explain the circumstances in the details? Do something else? Forget the whole thing and link directly? Thanks. --MartyD 14:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think uploading it to the ISFDB server and using the By Permission license should be sufficient. There's a "Details" where you can add further explanation of the circumstances about the image. Either way you decide to do this, there's currently no way to show the copyright statement when it appears on the author's summary page (it only appears on the wiki page). Perhaps the software should be amended to allow a copyright statement to be displayed in cases like this. Mhhutchins 16:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had an idea: I expanded the JPG and embedded a copyright statement so it's visible on Joan Vatsek's page. And I tried to put plenty of details in the Wiki page. If you don't think altering the jpeg is ok, let me know and I'll replace it with the original. --MartyD 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I like it. I'd never thought of that solution and it looks fine to me. Mhhutchins 00:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A Dreamer's Tale

Hello! Your Tuck-verified pub states publisher as "Modern Library", which is not quite correct. The publisher is "Boni & Liveright" and the book is in this pub series. Corresponding worldcat listing is this. Modern library as a publisher was started in 1925 when "Boni and Liveright" sold it to Bennet Cerf. During Boni and Liveright years, "Modern Library" was not an impring, in fact all the reference to the "Modern Library" was on the jacket and/or cover. The more details can be found here. So, I propose, to restore the correct publisher with the note that Tuck lists it as by "Modern Library". Ditto, this pub. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 00:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC).

I've made the correction and noted Tuck's mistake. (I assume he wasn't as discerning about publisher v. publication series as we are here at the ISFDB>) Thanks for bringing this to my attention. BTW, when linking to an OCLC record (whether here or in an ISFDB record), you should use the URL provided in the permalink. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

About the Chesterton title, according to this OCLC record the publisher was Modern Library. What is your source for a different publisher credit? Mhhutchins 02:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

SFBC Statement of Edition

I was poking about the SFBC pages in the Wiki, and ran across this statement "For almost forty years, SFBC editions .... never carried an edition statement (e.g. First Edition, First American Edition)." but on a recent acquisition I found this...Orphans in the Sky SFBC where I definitely have a book club jacket and I also have a statement of printing. Do you think this is a case of the club simply releasing the trade edition with a new jacket (doubtful I think now, since it's Putnam), Re-using the same plates without removing that line, or that I have a married SFBC Jacket with a Trade book? Or alternatively, we might want to adjust the SFBC page to state 'almost never' or something similar? I defer to your expertise... - Kevin 18:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Further research indicates that this may truly be a book club edition with a statement of printing. Kevin 18:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There will be exceptions, so I'll amend the statement. As they say, "never say 'never'." About Putnam, I've discovered that the publisher has at least once used Doubleday presses to print a trade edition. There may be more. It's just that no one thought to look for gutter codes on Putnam's trade editions. Mhhutchins 01:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And I was curious and checked... my second impression Trade of Time Enough... has no gutter code, so either it was intentionally omitted that time or that printing returned to a Putnam press perhaps. Cheers and Thanks again. Kevin 04:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Psiren

Hi, Michael! I don't know if you know, but I'd think to ask you first: maybe in this pub. there is a note of a prior publication of Vinge's Psiren here. The titles of the shortfictions are identical, but the lengths vary a bit (short story vs. novella). It still seems possible provided there is much text on the pages of the CHAPTERBOOK. Stonecreek 18:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This situation was discussed about a year ago, and it came to the conclusion that the 1980 edition was probably expanded for the 1981 novella. Until someone does a primary verification of the CHAPTERBOOK, it's probably best to keep these records separate. Looking over the record, I have a strong suspicion about who the original editor may have been (based on the style of the notes). I'll ask the editor I suspect if perhaps he failed to verify the record, and if so, ask if he'll do a word count for the CHAPTERBOOK version. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for directing my attention to this discussion that i hadn't caught of last year. I'll wait and see what comes up. Stonecreek 08:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Change to FSF 02/1984

I changed the attribution for a cartoon from Rex May to Baloo as signed and added the caption in FSF 02/1984. I see on this discussion page that you want to discuss any proposed changes before making alterations. I apologize for jumping the gun and will keep this in mind in the future.--Rkihara 15:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't include cartoons in any publication record (detail ad absurdum), so feel free to make any changes in those kinds of records in any of my primary verified records. Mhhutchins 16:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Algernon Blackwood - The Wave (1916)

You queried if this is genre. Bleiler78 codes it as 'Mystical'. It's in Clute/Nicholls (but not in Clute/Grant), and says it involves reincarnation.--SGale 19:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to the conversation? I've forgotten ever making such a query. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Keith Minnion typo

You've verified this title. On page 8 there's an interior artwork that's credited to Keith Minion. That should be Keith Minnion. --Jorssi 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My issues of CD have been packed away, and at the moment I'm not sure exactly where! I'll start looking for them. In the meantime, I'm going to correct the record, assuming it's a typo on my part. If I learn later that it's a typo in the magazine, I'll create a variant record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a copy of the magazine. In my copy it's Keith Minnion. I'll do a primary verification. Thanks. --Jorssi 14:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That will save me from looking for my copy. I'm quite willing to take your word for it. You hadn't made it clear originally that you had a copy. Mhhutchins 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Martians

Thanks for reworking that submission; I was wondering how it got done without appearing in my Recent Edits list. Albinoflea 11:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There's also a "My Rejected Edits" list which should be checked occasionally. If I don't leave a note on your talk page, I'll try to explain the rejection there. Mhhutchins 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Publishing vs. FPCI

Michael, I've been going though the Crawford pubs listed in "Daddy!". Most so far seem to list the publisher as "Fantasy Publishing", but at least one has used "FPCI". Both are correct and commonly used in the literature. But it seems to me that consistency would be a good idea for users of the data base. Up to you moderators, of course. Bob 17:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it should be consistent, but without a primary source I wouldn't know which one is more "official" than the other. And it's possible that the publisher himself wasn't consistent when crediting the books. Do you have any of these and can you verify the publisher as given on the pub's title pages? You might want to contact any other primary verifiers to see if they can determine a pattern. I see there are at least four permutations of the name other than FPCI:

• "Fantasy Publishing" (used consistently and only for issues of Witchcraft & Sorcery)
• "Fantasy Publishing Co." (only 1 PV'd record)
• "Fantasy Publishing Co., Inc." (consistently used for the issues of Spaceway)
• "Fantasy Publishing Company, Inc." (which seems to be the most popular choice.)

Some of these can be easily combined without any problems if it's determined they're the same publisher. I'll see what I can do from this end. There are only two records (both PV'd) giving "FPCI" as the publihser. One of the editors is no longer with us, but the other is active. I'll see if he has any objections to changing the credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

For the Weinbaum it's "Fantasy Publishing Co., Inc." on title page, exactly the same for the issues of _Spaceway_. Changed the first.Hauck 19:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I entered the "Witchcraft & Sorcery", and they used "Fantasy Publishing Company, Inc." for most issues and "Fantasy Publishing Co., Inc." in the last issue. I thought it was standard practice to eliminate the "Company, Inc." from publishers' names. Bob 00:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no documented standard about the entry of publisher credit, as far as I know. I try to use the title page for books and the publisher's statement in periodicals. In most cases, we tend to use the most common form of the publisher's name, but even that is disputed among various primary verifiers. I personally feel it doesn't help anyone, user or editor, if half a publisher's output is separate from the other half, just because some editors added "Inc." and others didn't. It usually only takes a message on the Community Portal to ask if there are any objections to merging publishers, e.g. DAW and DAW Books. (And even that can be occasionally contentious.) In the case of Witchcraft & Sorcery, if you were the PV editor, I can merge the publisher "Fantasy Publishing" with whichever publisher you like, in one submission, avoiding having to update each record. Which one (keeping in mind that "Fantasy Publishing Company, Inc." is the most common usage) would you prefer? Mhhutchins 02:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that I didn't really answer the question because in fact I don't have a strong opinion on the subject (I fact I even prefer "FPCI" which is simpler), so don't hesitate to change the publisher's name as seems the best. Hauck 03:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Crawford wasn't consistent in his press. I cast my vote for FPCI for both simplicity and it's familiarity.SFJuggler 00:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So, same here. Hauck 08:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

But then that would mean changing 90% of the records in the database, some of which are primary verified, to match just one record. How is the publisher stated on the title page of your verified publication? Mhhutchins 00:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Newsletter No. 63

I added some words to the notes of Fantasy Newsletter No. 63, October-November 1983. I also added to the contents: most of the interiorart and a couple of reviews back on page 46. Bob 23:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the art and missing reviews. I usually don't add miscellaneous artwork which doesn't illustrate a specific work. But I'm OK with it if you want to continue adding it to later issues. It's not necessary to inform me of each issue, unless there's something more substantial that I missed. I'd like to know when I screwed up. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Picnic on Paradise

Hi, the cover artist for this Ace 1974 edition is J. H. Breslow, his JHB initials are visible in the cartouche on the right just below the air tube. Horzel 12:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Never could figure out that artist signature. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe's Riddle

You have verified this pub containing Riddle and this pub containing The Riddle. Are these the same poem? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're identical. I'll make a variant. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 17:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

An obit in Locus

Robert Lichtman has been in touch with me curious as to why his obituary for F. M. Busby in Locus #531 is not listed under the essay series 'Locus Obituary', as was his obit for Boyd Raeburn: "Seems to me it belongs with Boyd's". Thought I'd check in with you first if you want to have a look and don't agree it should appear that way. Thanks. PeteYoung 19:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. The piece on Busby is not a "Locus Obituary" as I have defined the series (since I created the series, I guess I can define it). It is an appreciation. I have chosen not to enter appreciations into the series, because most of them do not give biographical data. Officially, there is only one obituary for the deceased, usually written by the Locus staff and uncredited, providing biographical data. Occasionally, an obituary for a lesser known person (like Raeburn) is written by an acquaintance, replacing the obituary that would have normally been generated by the Locus staff. These essays also go into the series because they are the only piece published by Locus. If you look at the series, you'll see that there is only one essay per deceased person. (Unless someone has added appreciations into the series without my knowledge.) This allows the ISFDB user the opportunity to find the one true obituary that was published in Locus. For example, recently they published in one issue six pieces about Jack Vance at the time of his death. Putting only the Locus staff piece into the series keeps the series at a manageable length, and a user can easily search the page for his obituary. This would lead to the issue in which it was published, along with the other five pieces.

Looking at the issue in which Busby's death was announced, you'll see that there are three pieces: the first one was written by the Locus staff and I've placed it into the series. The other two are appreciations and are not part of the series. If Mr. Lichtman compares his Busby piece with the one preceding it (written by the Locus staff), the difference is obvious. His piece has a title, a byline, and is a personal reminiscence.

Looking at the issue in which the Raeburn piece was published, there are two pieces. The first piece, untitled and credited at the end to Lichtman, was placed into the series. The second was an appreciation/reminiscence by Gregory Benford, which I did not place into the series. As above, the differences between his piece and Benford's is obvious. (Benford's has a title and a byline.)

Even when comparing the two pieces by Lichtman to each other, the difference is obvious. Perhaps it's editorial, and the Locus staff chose to remove any biographical information from Lichtman's essay on Busby that duplicated theirs. I hope this explains why one of his essays is in the series and why the other is not. Mhhutchins 20:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Rather than mangle your words in explanation, I've sent him the link for this enquiry so he can read your detailed reply for himself. Cheers. PeteYoung 05:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Kalimantan

The Legend Novellas series has all publications listed under the publisher "Legend / Century" except for your verified Kalimantan. My copy has "A Legend novella published by Century" on the copyright page, which would account for the imprint nature of the publisher credit on all other records for this series. I'm suggesting a change to the publisher field for this pub to match the rest of the series. Also notifying Stonecreek. Thanks. PeteYoung 19:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be "Legend / Century". Not sure why it wasn't, but have changed it now. Mhhutchins 20:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Endless Frontier II

Added a cover image to [this], but not the artist. Also added a full-cover image to the [2nd] printing which shows Vincent Di Fate's signature on the back cover. I think maybe the first printing's barcode block obscures the signature? Since the notes would reflect the source differently if the last is true, left that up to you. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The signature is present on my copy (in my case, visible only with a magnifying glass). I'll update the record for the 1st printing. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 02:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, looking through this, and adding more notes (heck, it was out of storage, so I may as well take the opportunity to clean-up this old verification), I see that it has separate editor introductions to each story, some of substantial length (three poems on a single page has a five-page introduction!). And because they have their own title pages, I think they should have their own content records. What do you think? Mhhutchins 02:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have Vol II but I always add titled intros to the contents. I see they were all added to Vol I .... --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)