User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2014Jan-Apr

"The Bleeding Man", by Craig Strete

I added the cover artist for this book (your copy didn't have a dust jacket) based on the dust jacket credit for my library binding edition of that book. Based on the same edition, I also added a cover image. Chavey 16:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the artist credit. I will update the record to give your edition as the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cover image for Soucoupe volante

Thank you for your tips. I'll have another go at it soon — but not tonight, Josephine Mhhutchins ! Linguist 23:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

If you need further assistance, just ask. I could walk you through the steps. BTW, wiki etiquette suggests that you respond to messages on the pages on which the discussion began. I know it may sound silly at first, but it keeps everything in one place, and makes it easier to follow the discussion. Thanks! Mhhutchins 23:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Bone Dance

I have added a slight bit of content to Bone Dance by Emma Bull. MLB 00:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept the submission, but such pieces fall into the category of "Totally Unnecessary and Trivial Content", in my humble opinion. Mhhutchins 00:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Testing new messages notification

Let's see how well it works... Ahasuerus 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The white text on gold background (to my eyes) doesn't pop as much as I would have expected. It also opens in "diff" mode. Is it possible to just go directly to the talk page itself? The editor should be able to figure out what's been added by the dates of the posts. (I never liked the "diff" mode from the start, and would just go directly to my talk page instead of clicking on the "My Messages" link. Maybe that's just me. I think most editors new to the wiki environment would be even more confused by the "diff" display.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point about the "diff" mode. I'll see if I can change it later tonight. Ahasuerus 19:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictures lie

Mine seem too, anyway (I don't know about Katherine MacLean's) : I tried to upload this scan with a better definition than the existing one, but it came out exactly the same. I must have done something wrong, but what ? Any idea ? Thank you in advance, Linguist 20:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

Hit the "F5" button on your keyboard. When you loaded the original image, your browser kept it in your cache. The ISFDB server doesn't have an auto-refresh, so you have to do it manually (with the "F5" key in most browsers) and that will clear you cache. Then you'll see the image you uploaded. It's something that has happened to ALL of us. Mhhutchins 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the explanation ! Linguist 22:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

Magic ! It works ! (as the incomplete enchanter eventually said). Linguist 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

Journey Into Space

There are two Pan editions of Charles Chilton's Journey Into Space (more easily seen via the cover art record). One is primary verified and the other is a Tuck verification by you. I suspect the primary verifier might have missed your record (or was confused by the price on the cover image though that looks like it was added by a reseller; at least it doesn't match the price in your record) and created a new record. Mind checking to see if you think these should be consolidated into a single record? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what happened (the verifier was confused by the stickered image, even though the price is stated in the record, and whoever added the image to the record didn't note the discrepancy.) I'll delete the original record and ask the verifier of the second one to confirm the price as given by Tuck. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 19:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've decided to keep both records in the database. A check with the verifier of the other record shows that it is not priced at all. As I surmised to him, his copy was probably printed for the overseas market. I've replaced the image of the original record with one that clearly shows the price. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 21:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixer changes

Well, it looks like we are getting there. The only concern that I have is that moving Amazon's "page count" data to Notes may have made it easier to miss CHAPTERBOOKs like "Spying on Gods".

BTW -- not that it has anything to do with ebooks -- it would appear that the editor of Spark: A Creative Anthology, Volume IV is Brian James Lewis, "president of the Empire & Great Jones Creative Arts Foundation", rather than the artist Brian Lewis who died in 1978. Ahasuerus 05:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I'll disambiguate Lewis into another author. About overlooking CHAPTERBOOKS, it would be no more harder to look for it in the Note field than in the Page Count field. (If the Moderator is one who looks for such things to begin with.) While we're on the subject of Fixer, even though the Amazon categorizes a publication as ANTHOLOGY, he always types it as NOVEL. Was that intentional? Mhhutchins 06:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Originally Fixer submitted Amazon's "anthologies" as ISFDB ANTHOLOGIES. Unfortunately it turned out that Amazon was using the term "anthology" to describe single-author collections as well as multi-author anthologies, so it was causing more trouble than it was worth. Especially considering the fact that it takes only one edit to change a NOVEL to a COLLECTION/ANTHOLOGY, but multiple edits to change an ANTHOLOGY to a COLLECTION.

However, now that I am thinking about it, Amazon tends to list anthology authors as well as editors, so perhaps it may be possible to fine-tune the algorithm by looking at the number of authors in the Amazon record. I'll see what I can do :) Ahasuerus 17:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

James Bama

Michael, the book James Bama: American Realist appears as it should in Bama's Summary Bibliograpy, but the cover (also by Bama) does not. How come? Bob 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's there as a variant. (Doing a title search would have found it.) When you added this publication, I remembered the cover art as a Doc Savage paperback. So I did a quick search of his Doc Savage covers and found it. Mhhutchins 19:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Figured you would know. Thanks. Bob 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Change needed to Science Fiction Review #18

There is a missing review in Science Fiction Times Aug. 1976. It is of Robert E. Howard's A Witch Shall Be Born (Grant, 1975) by Richard E. Geis on p. 42. This was verified by personal communication with James Van Hise, who reprints said review in his Sword & Fantasy #7. Lee 17:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

For the most part REG's "Small Press Notes" in various issues of SFR were not actually reviews, but notices about upcoming or recently released publications from small presses. This particular "review" consists mainly of an extended excerpt from the book, two short paragraphs about the book, and a single long paragraph about other Grant publications. Whether it's actually a review is debatable, but its inclusion as a separate content in the publication record could open the doors for someone who would want to list all of the works mentioned in this and other columns in the series. I will make an exception in this case, only because it was reprinted, and hope that no one takes it as a precedence to add other "reviews" from this column. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, in no way, shape, or form are there reviews of Red Nails and The Tower of the Elephant in SFR #18, unless one could consider the singular parenthetical "(lovely work!)" in describing Barr's drawings in Red Nails to be a review. I will direct the editor who created and verified the record Sword and Fantasy #7 to join this discussion. Mhhutchins 17:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand your hesitation about these "reviews", Michael, but based on the material in Sword and Fantasy, I think they all are. "A Witch Shall Be Born" is most clearly a review: "Man, nobody writes with that verve and panache anymore.." and what follows is clearly opinion on that book. And to me, Geis' comment on the other two, "These books are expensive, but worth the price for the Howard collector and the fan of means who love fine books (and dynamic, exciting reading)." makes this a review, if only minimally. Perhaps you feel it is a problem because these are really reviews of a specific edition of the each book, but since they are the ONLY editions, that isn't a big concern to me. I don't think it is necessary to revisit the S. F. Reviews, but would not object if other editors who have copies of them want to add reviews where they find opinions on the books expressed. Bob 18:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but I would object. The ISFDB review is linked to titles (works), not publications. And a "review" which only calls the work "...dynamic, exciting reading..." is far from a real review and doesn't have anything close to the same value as another review which is linked to the same title. Placing them on the same level is ludicrous. An ISFDB user who seeks out this publication because they expect an actual review would be burned and deservedly upset at the ISFDB for leading them down this back alley. Mhhutchins 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

From "Help:Screen:NewPub" the guidance for Recommendations is "Note that you should only include books that are actually commented upon. If a reviewer mentions that a publisher has re-issued a work, but does not comment on the quality of the book, don't include it. Even a brief comment, such as "recommended", is enough to qualify, but without any comment the review should not be listed." (italics added by me) I think the contents of Geis' articles do contains qualifying "brief comments". Bob 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Storylen bug

Based on our recent discussion I have done some further digging and found the Title Merge bug that was causing storylen values to be set to "None". As luck would have it, the bug was fixed on 2014-01-24 as a side effect of the Series Number changes, so we should be all set. Unless, of course, there is some other place in the software where the value of "None" is not handled correctly. Oh well, one bug at a time :-) Ahasuerus 04:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw "None" somewhere last week, but can't remember exactly where. I'll keep my eye out for any further occurrence. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Dead of Winter Maps

I've added an item for the Jim Odbert maps to The Dead of Winter spurred by your question on my talk page. I also added a note stating where his credit can be found. I kept with a single entry for both maps as was done with their other appearances and thus have not entered a page number. Though an argument could be made that since they are printed one after the other, the first page of maps could be used. Let me know if you think they should be handled differently. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 13:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. My original question was prompted by another editor's submission, and I didn't stop to realize that I have several volumes in the series. I'll have to pull them out to see if they have the same maps. (Back when I verified them, it wasn't a regular practice to create records for such contents.) Thanks again. Mhhutchins 17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers and so on

I don't want to start yet another discussion on the rules page, since there are a couple of active conversations there, but I wanted to drop you a note to say I think a bit more clarification could be made in the help, in the not too distant future, based on the comments you made to me about the difference between pagination and page count, and a couple of related points. The help currently says that a page number should always be entered in brackets if it was derived by counting, but I don't believe we actually do this, and it leads to some ambiguities. For example, it's common for stories to start on pages with no numbers, but we don't bracket those. Also, in cases where (say) a preface starts on the 7th of an unnumbered set of pages preceding page 1, numbering that as [7] would not distinguish it from a [7] that is part of the main run of page numbers but which happens not to have a page number printed. A case such as [469] in a book with, say, 468 pages, is unambiguous, of course. Mike Christie (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the help section for giving page numbers for contents should be clarified. I'd bet that more than half of all stories in collections (book publications) don't give the page number on the title page of the story and the number must be determined by the preceding page numbers. I doubt that any users actually brackets page numbers in these cases, and having moderated thousands of records, I can assure you that I wouldn't let them get through if the editor took the literal approach that the help page implies. So it should be a slam dunk as far as getting an agreement to change the help documentation. But I agree that we should wait until the other discussions fade out before bringing this up. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Larry Niven's Rainbow Mars

Please see ISFDB:Community Portal#Larry Niven.27s Rainbow Mars. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, March 1984

I've changed the title for Farber's text (and attendant artwork) from _A Surfeit of Melancholic Humours_ to _A Surfeit of Melancholic Humors_ as per title page (toc is false). Hauck 11:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 18:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be a bit more complicated. Could you take a look at this discussion on my talk page and let us know what you think. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 15:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've given my two cents worth on the matter. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird Tales, March-April 2004

I added navigation links to the March-April 2004 issue of Weird Tales. I also added added letters where we already have the author in the database. I seem to recall that you may have suggested that all letters in magazines should be included. Was that your position, or am I thinking of someone else? The ROA limit to well know SF personalities, which I've interpreted as I noted. In any case, let me know if you object the changes and I'll back them out. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 20:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I may have very well said that all letters should be entered (I don't recall), but if I did, I've backed off that position. In fiction magazines, listing only well-known persons in the field is OK with me. The only ones for which I list all letters are Locus and the New York Review of SF, but then again, those are the only two periodicals I enter now. This is just a wishy-washy way of saying I don't mind if you add letters, regardless of their author, to any of my verified records. Mhhutchins 20:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cummins Gogell

In your verified Delap's F & SF Review, August 1976, there is a review on p16 credited to "Elizabeth Cummins Gogell". I believe this would actually be "Elizabeth Cummins Cogell" (see review on p26 of the same pub). Would you mind checking if this is a typo or an error in the original pub? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. It was a typo on my part. I've corrected the record and varianted it to the canonical author. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 18:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ides of Tomorrow

Altered the notes for [this] as my copy does have the copyright page. Tried to send you scans of the title/copyright pages through the site email but not sure if they'll show or just be file names. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the record. I've responded to your email. (I don't believe you can attach files to the wiki email system, but then again, I've never tried.) Mhhutchins 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Regenrobolde / Regenbogenkobolde

Hi, Michael! It seems you reverted the title and publication change I submitted earlier. The only reason I can imagine for that is that the review in Galileo cites the original title as Regenrobolde. However, if you use the link to Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, you'll only find 'Regenbogenkobolde' as an actual title. (You may want to search for the author's name at this source.) Also, 'Regenbogenkobolde' would translate exactly to 'Rainbow Goblins', while 'Regenrobolde' doesn't exist in German. In this light I submitted the changes and rereverted them to 'Regenbogenkobolde'. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 09:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This record showed up on the clean-up script that finds CHAPTERBOOKS without a shortfiction record. There was already a shortfiction record for "Die Regenrobolde" in the database which was the parent to the English-language record "The Rainbow Goblins". So I added the shortfiction record to the German chapterbook record, and merged the two. Then I noticed the title of the chapterbook didn't match the shortfiction title. So I went to OCLC and saw that it was also "Die Regenrobolde", so I corrected the title of the chapterbook and its title record. I suppose the editor who originally varianted the German language title of the shortfiction record used that as the basis for the title. Either way, I never would have even noticed this record, if it had been properly entered with a shortfiction content record. Thanks for finding the mistake and making the correction. Mhhutchins 18:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then it was a case of bad coincidence. It just makes you wonder where WorldCat got its information from, I thought they do rely on the national bibliographies if they are existant. Thanks for the clearance. Stonecreek 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Artist H. Tom Hall and Tom Hall

Michael, when I was working with a cover from H. Tom Hall, I noticed an artist Tom Hall. Looking at the covers by the latter, they appear to be from the same artist (particularly looking at H. Tom Hall's website). Should the latter be a pseudonym? Bob 23:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it should be. I create a pseudonym and variant the records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Locus #203 and H. G. Wells omnibus

See this. I accepted the 2nd entry, where the editor says no price or date anywhere. I saw the existing entry, where the price and date presumably comes from the cited Locus #203, Aug 1977. Do you have that, and, if so, is there any way to tell from it whether a price and/or date appears on the book itself? I'm guessing these two are probably the same (perhaps only) edition, but I don't know how to tell given the information at hand. Thanks. --MartyD 12:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the Locus listing in its entirety:

Wells, H. G. SELECTED WORKS (Heinemann, £3.95, ne, collection) 905712.00.5

("ne" means "new edition") It's in a list titled "SF BOOKS PUBLISHED IN BRITAIN, MARCH 1977". There's no way to knowing if the price is actually present, yet I doubt Locus would show it otherwise. As for the publication date, the odds are that the exact month of publication isn't stated in the book itself and is based solely on the Locus listing. My original record probably had the publication titled as Selected Works, so the title was most likely changed by the editor who added the contents. (I have no way of being able to prove that.) The cover which is now linked from Amazon is very likely to be the one for the 1977 edition since there are several Abebooks.com dealers who give that same cover as scans of their copies of the title. I would suggest leaving both records "as is" in the database and wait until a primary verifier comes along. Mhhutchins 04:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I will leave it. Thanks for the research and help. --MartyD 12:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Make Room! Make Room!

Just entered a record for the second [printing] of [your] third. Dated it from a code [see notes] in the back. Perhaps your copy has a similar code? Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my copy doesn't have such a code. BTW, there already was a record in the db for the second printing. Mhhutchins 05:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Best Science Fiction of the Eighties, No. 2

I've just obtained a copy of the Hayakawa Bunko Best SF of the 80s anthology via interlibrary loan; volume 2 has a translation of The Quickening in it. I did see you had it listed on michaelbishop-writer.com but not sure if you have a personal copy... If not, do you want/need any scans or info from it before I send it back? Albinoflea 17:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Are the details of the listing correct? And can you confirm that I have the correct cover art for the book? Sometimes it's hard to tell when it comes to Japanese publications. Missing details include the price of the book, and the page numbers on which the Bishop story appears. I'd appreciate that data if available. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The details you have listed and the cover are correct; ¥940 is the price, pages are 7-57. Albinoflea 23:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Against my initial instinct, decided to enter it in while I had it. Albinoflea 04:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And if I'd saw your submission in the queue, I would have instinctively passed it by. :) Mhhutchins 07:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A Treasury of Great Science Fiction, Volume Two

My copy of this edition has gutter code of K36. Can I add this to the bibliographic notes? I don't have date for the code, so I'm not entirely clear how to append this information. Thanks. TAWeiss 02:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this record? (It's always a good idea to link to the record in question.) If so, just edit the record to add the gutter code to the list of others. "K36" indicates a 1969 printing. Here is a page that explains how to get the printing date based on the gutter code. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Winter 1986 issue of Last Wave

I made one small change to the Winter 1986 issue of Last Wave. I increased the page count to include the covers. I also linked to a scan of the cover. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 03:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

At the time I uploaded it, the binding format suggested that it be handled like other perfect-bound publications, i.e. using the last numbered page as the page count. But because it's typed as a MAGAZINE, I can see why it must follow those same standards, which were obviously created by people to whom it never occurred that magazines aren't always printed on cheap paper that grow brittle and fall to pieces as they age. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

German interview of Michael Bishop . . .

. . . on p. 419 of this book just entered. The interviewer has obviously read much of Bishop's novels, so this may be of some interest for you. Christian Stonecreek 11:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about this interview, Christian. Mhhutchins 16:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And - tataaa - here's the link that I obviously had forgotten before. Silly me. Stonecreek 19:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I went to MB's page and saw the latest interview. Mhhutchins 19:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Odyssey, Summer 1976

I have Odyssey, Summer 1976, but I cannot get at it at present, but according to Black Gate Magazine #10, p 60, the cover artist for this magazine is given as John Schoenherr. I have added it to your listing if you accept it. MLB 20:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Does it mention the cover by name or does it actually show a photograph of the artwork? (As has probably been brought to your attention before, it's best to discuss changes in a primary verified record before making a submission to change it. Some moderators aren't as conscientious as others about accepting such changes.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I also see in your submission to update the record's cover art field that you don't give the source for the credit in the Note field. Per ISFDB standards, the source for any data that isn't stated in the publication must be provided in the record's Note field. I'll try to pull out my copy (if I can locate it!) to see if I may have missed the cover art credit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 16:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. This can be found on page 60, column two, at the very top, of Black Gate #10, Spring 2007, in the article by Rich Horton. MLB 17:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot, there is a black and white reproduction of the cover. MLB 17:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Rose Madder pub differentiation Q

I'd appreciate your opinion about this (£6.99, from a book in hand, with full 1st edition numberline) vs. this (£5.99, unstated source, seems likely to be Locus1). Do you think they're likely to be the same, with an incorrect price in Locus, and so should be combined with an appropriate note, or do you think they're likely to be two different editions and should be left as-is, Locus1-verifying the £5.99 one? Thanks. --MartyD 11:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think both should remain in the database. It looks like the Linquist record is for export so it may be priced higher than the domestic edition. I've verified that the information of the other record comes from Locus1. Mhhutchins 17:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Analog 1

There were two records for [this] edition. One had no notes, no image. The second [why it was added ...] had both so I deleted the lesser record. You had Tuck verified that one, so the linked record needs to verified. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

SF 12

My Canadian copy of [this] credits Lehr with the cover illustration on the back cover. It's not present on the US edition? --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My copy's buried deep in storage. Give me a few days to dig it out. Mhhutchins 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Gutter code N17 on Dilvish, the Damned

I accepted a submission adding a note about gutter code N17 to Dilvish, the Damned, with a comment that this is April, 1985. Could it be, however, the actual 1983 original gutter code? I will ask the editor where the April, 1985 came from. Thanks. --MartyD 03:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be April 1983 which would make it the first book club printing. In 1985, the gutter codes started with AA and P. Mhhutchins 04:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Speculator" reviews, by Paul di Filippo

I recently added a non-fiction record for Who Was Dracula?: Bram Stoker's Trail of Blood, by Jim Steinmeyer. Your collection of Filippo's reviews in the Barnes & Noble Review included a review of that book, entered as an essay, so I converted that to a linked review. Chavey 19:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

SF Commentary 87

You may already be aware, but the latest issue (87) of SF Commentary has a feature about Michael Bishop. It is available at eFanzines. It looks like PeteYoung has a project for adding this fanzine, and I don't want to step on his project by adding it myself. I've also got plenty of things on which I'm currently focusing. Anyway, I though you might be interested in the content. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 13:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. MB had already sent me a PDF of the pages on which his poem appears. At the time the issue had not been published and I was waiting for its appearance before adding it to the db. Since this has been a project of Pete's, I'll give him a chance to add the issue. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 16:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Added now, in both paper and ebook formats. Paul Di Filippo's essay Michael Bishop's Fantasies on page 23 is stated as being first published here under the title 'Michael Bishop', so I've added it to that pub and made the variant. PeteYoung 00:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. "Unaimed Prayers" is also a reprint, first published here. Since "An essay-review" is more a description than a subtitle, I've merged the two into one record, dropping the subtitle. I've added a note about the subtitle to the title record. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 02:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The New York Review of Science Fiction, November 2005

In this verified publication, would you please check if the review on page 23 is credited as "Haines" or "Hanes". If it is indeed "Haines", it should be varianted to "Hanes". See the "Stacie Haines" author edit I have on hold for the rationale. Once you make the appropriate change, I'll reject the edit. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is correctly entered as credited. I'll create a pseudonym and make it into a variant. Please reject the submission and explain the circumstances to the editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Publisher for Foundation

Preceding the entering of Foundation #4 I took a glance at its copyright page and found that the publisher statement was not for The Science Fiction Foundation but for North East London Polytechnic on behalf of the Science Fiction Foundation. I entered also The Science Fiction Foundation as publisher for other issues, but shouldn't the credit be for North East London Polytechnic according to this statement? (This wouldn't affect this sole issue but all from #4 up to somewhere around #40, including the ones you and I primary verified). Stonecreek 18:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to change the publisher to reflect the statement printed in the publication. I only have half-an-idea about what "on behalf" means, and am not aware of any rules about entering such publisher credit in the ISFDB. If you choose only to use the first half, please give the full statement in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Way of the Wizard cover

I was going to upload the correct cover, and update the contents for this pub, but I received a note that you had already deleted this image. I speculated that the original upload was too large or ill-formatted in some way. Would it be okay for me to upload a correct image? TAWeiss 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would receive such a warning. Usually that only happens when there is a file on the server with the same tag (in this case "THWFTHWZRD2010"). I checked and there isn't. It's possible that the file was too large (more than 150K) or the image was too large (more than 600 pixels). As long as the image doesn't exceed those standards, proceed to try again. If you get the same warning, you can choose to ignore it. Mhhutchins 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. That "warning" is typical if there is an attempt to upload a file which has the same tag as a previously deleted file. Don't let that stop you from uploading a file, as long as it is within the standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mutant Season

Added the introduction to [this], not sure how we both missed it .... --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Lady of the Bees

Corrected a statement in [this] record as Hickman's peculiar 'signature' is on the artwork. The lightning-bolt S [period] emdash endash [period] is on the lower left wrapping slightly onto the spine. I think the emdash endash combo is Morse code for 'H'?? Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen that signature. Do you know of any publication whose cover is explicitly credited to Hickman which has the same signature? Mhhutchins 04:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just answered my own question: here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Question on Titles

Hi! You advised me that untitled interior art which does not illustrate a specific content should be titled the name of the publication and disambiguated if necessary. I've since seen a rule which says " Interior art should have the same title as the fiction or essay it is associated with. If it is independent of other content, and has no apparent title, give it the title "Untitled".". Is this a rule that has been superseded by current standards and not yet corrected? I've run across a couple of instances of "untitled" art while trying to second verify some mags. Should I enter these as changes? Which brings up another question - the Primary Verifier on this has asked for pre-notification of any changes. Is the protocol for this, then, to not enter changes but to advise him that they exist and see what his response is? As a newbie, I'm just getting used to this and don't want to step on anyone's toes. Thanks. Vornoff 22:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that standard has been changed but never documented. Thanks for finding it. Concerning changes to Primary Verified publication records: it is ISFDB etiquette to notify the PV editor of major changes, i.e. submissions that change any of the data fields except as noted below, before making a submission to edit the record. (Note: adding data into empty fields, other than the Note field, is also considered changing the record.) If the PV1 editor is not active, and there are other PV editors, notify them first. If the PV1 editor is not active (based on a notice at the top of their user talk page), and there are no other PV editors, post a message on the ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard. If you're adding notes, publication series data, or linking a cover image, you can notify the active PV editor(s) after the submission is made. Mhhutchins 00:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian Aldiss's Best Science Fiction Stories of Brian W. Aldiss (1965 edition)

While making changes to the "Recent Integrations" page I noticed that you had linked this Locus Poll award for "Best SF Stories of Brian W. Aldiss^Man in His Time (1989)" to Best Science Fiction Stories of Brian W. Aldiss (1965 edition). Did you mean to link it to Best SF Stories of Brian W. Aldiss (1988 edition) instead? Ahasuerus 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It probably should have been linked to the 1988 edition. But I'm certain that the original award specifically had "(1965)" in the title. (Otherwise I wouldn't have linked it specifically to the 1965 edition). I thought that it might have been one of those "best ever" polls that Locus runs occasionally. Looking at the poll now I see it's the annual one and the original award title was incorrect. I'll link it to the 1988 edition. Mhhutchins 21:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A Swords(wo)man from Carcosa

Paul Edwin Zimmer's Summary page shows the following two Serial entries:

• A Swordswoman from Carcosa (Part 1 of 2) (1986)
• A Swordsman from Carcosa (Part 2 of 2) (1986)

Since both of these works appeared in your verified Fantasy Book issues, could you please double-check the pubs? Also, Zimmer's Wikipedia article claims that it was a single novella and part of the "Dark Border" series. Ahasuerus 23:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be "Swordsman". I'll variant them to a new SHORTFICTION record of novella length. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 23:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, can you write a script to find non-varianted SERIAL titles like this? Mhhutchins 23:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I could have sworn we already had ... oh, I see, it was a Wiki project. Sure, let me create a Feature Request. Ahasuerus 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Moderan

I've found the cover for this publication between the rotating images on this webpage, so the cover artist can be modified from Adams to Norman Adams. Could you perform the update? Horzel 10:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I saw other spec-fic related titles there as well that need to be updated on the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 17:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Science Fiction Age, May 1997"

A quick question: Is the title of Karen Haber's story in Science Fiction Age, May 1997 "Your Eyes, My Darling, Back and White and Blue" or "Your Eyes, My Darling, Black and White and Blue"? Her collection The Sweet Taste of Regret uses the latter spelling. Ahasuerus 13:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be "Black". I've corrected it and its interiorart record, and merged the titles. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 18:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Lost in Translation

I responded to your question about Lost in Translation on my talk page. Sorry for the delay. AndonSage 23:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Burroughs Canaveral Pubs

You appear to have entered information on a number of the Burroughs Canaveral publications. Some of them (for example The Gods of Mars) show two pubs, one for 1962 and one for 1963. There is usually a note stating that the price changed at the first of the year. I have a pub, The Land That Time Forgot, that shows a publication date of 1962, but has a $2.95 price sticker over the price on the jacket flap and on the back of the cover where other Burroughs titles are advertised. It seems to me that there was no separate printing, just an increase in price. Should there be separate editions listed for 1962 and 1963? I would think that a single listing would be appropriate with a note that there are two prices. Bob 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That data is from Tuck. I'm not sure what criteria he used to determine if there should be a listing for a separate printing. This is his listing for The Gods of Mars:

(Canaveral, 1962, 348 pp., illus.-L. Ivie, $2.75; 1963, $2.95)

I've always assumed he only lists new printings/editions. Until someone comes along with a copy of the 1962 printing with a price sticker of $2.95, we'll leave the record as is, giving Tuck as the source. Mhhutchins 02:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Tuck's listing for the Canaveral edition of The Land That Time Forgot is almost identical to the one I've given here for The Gods of Mars. The oly difference is the page count and illustrator credit. I missed the 1963 printing when I was using Tuck to enter the Burroughs printings which were missing from the db. Mhhutchins 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The Gods of Mars is one of the books listed on the back of the dust jacket for The Land That Time Forgot with the $2.95 price sticker over the original price. Anyhow, I'm going to enter the latter book as the 1962 edition with a note that there is a sticker over the price. Bob 14:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Gerald's Game

I recently bought a copy of this book, at least, it's identical except for pricing on the dust jacket. Mine has two prices on the front flap; "Canada $27.99" on the top and £14.99 on the bottom. The book is printed in the U.S.A., and matches all of your notes. Do you think this is a different publication, or should I just add a note about the dustjacket and verify the existing pub? Thanks, --Willem H. 18:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If the interior, that is the book itself, is identical, I don't think we should create a new publication record for a variant jacket with a different price. I'm shocked that a book would have such a wide variance in prices. Even if copies didn't sell, and they were remaindered at a cheaper price, I don't think they would print up new dustjackets. They'd just put a sticker on the book. The front flap of my copy prints only the US price ($23.50) without a Canadian price. I'll add a note to that effect to the record, and you can add a note about the printed price on your copy's dustjacket. Mhhutchins 19:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see now what happened! I mistakenly read £14.99 as $14.99, thinking you had a US copy. Now I understand: you have a copy of the first printing which was intended for non-US markets, even though the copyright page didn't change. Penguin does this quite often. In that case, please create a new record for your copy. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Mhhutchins 19:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I didn't know about this habit of Penguin. Hope there's no copyright on your notes, because I copied them. :) --Willem H. 19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)