User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2015Jan-Apr

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Algol/Starship

Hello, Michael! Judging from the two issues of Algol from 1976 & 1978 I own, I wondered about the categorization as fanzine for these issues, because they look far more as magazines to me: contents and publisher's advertising point toward that. I know it started as a fanzine but do you know about a discriminating timeline when it could be counted as a magazine? And is there any definition of fanzine vs. magazine that we make use of? Christian Stonecreek 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the publication would be better typed as MAGAZINE. When I verified those issues, they were already entered into the db as FANZINE. I had just started here and didn't want to rock any boats! Then I didn't understand why fanzines were given the disambiguation in their title records, but now I believe it's the FANZINE type wasn't created until around 2007. Please proceed to make the necessary changes to any I may have verified, and the non-verifed records as well. Mhhutchins 19:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it be safe to merge this essay and the one on p. 87 of this book?

Also, I'd like to add the cover images and some more contents to some issues of Starship (reports on my addings will follow). Stonecreek 19:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to proceed to add cover scans and any missing contents. Back then we weren't so detailed when it came to contents. As for the Ellison, let me pull out my copy of the Ellison collection and get back with you. That long title may actually appear there as well. Otherwise, we'd have to variant the title records. I'll get back with you. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The Ellison essay has the same title as published in Algol, so I've merged them. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 19:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Algol received Hugo nominations as a fanzine as late 1981 - even after the title change to Starship.--swfritter 21:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the fanzine designation was based solely on its circulation and not to the quality of product. Mhhutchins 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW, you've had a submission sitting in the queue for awhile. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Submission gone. The SFE entry calls it a semiprozine. And the fanzine article states in the first line that a fanzine is about fans. So, no matter what the print quality, by that definition the early issues may not truly have been fanzines anyway. In any case the Hugo nominations were not for "fanzine" but for "Best Amateur Magazine." Good luck figuring out the transition issue.--swfritter 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I only have a few copies. All look rather professional, even more so than Locus at the time. They even had full-color slick covers. I'll leave it to those who have copies of the earlier issues to determine how to classify them. Mhhutchins 23:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I added some contents to the Summer 1979 issue of Starship. After reading some items by Derek Carter I suspect that this piece appears as an essay, but is a camouflaged piece of SHORTFICTION. Derek Carter's Canadian History seems to write a hidden (= made-up) history of Canadian inventions. Christian Stonecreek 09:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make it fiction. There of plenty of satirical pieces written in essay form that I wouldn't consider fiction. (One day these non-fact articles might actually get their own type here on the ISFDB.) When I get a chance I'll read it to see whether it should be re-typed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that there are other pieces with the same name in other issues of Algol/Starship. That alone should be enough to consider it a semi-regular feature or column, and shouldn't be typed as SHORTFICTION, in my opinion. Mhhutchins 00:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Fictionmags documents many of the issues. Note that issue #21 has an ISSN. Perhaps it becomes a magazine with the first issue that has an ISSN? Note that issues #15 thru 20 are not documented.--swfritter 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Collision Course Illustrations

In Thrilling Science Fiction, August 1974, the novella "Collision Course" is illustrated by Finlay. Is there only one illustration in that story? Bob 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a single illustration that's spread over half the title page and the whole of the following page. It depicts a couple of caped half-naked men floating in the air while three others watch from below with a spaceship in the background. Hope this helps. Mhhutchins 04:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael. Just what I needed. Bob 14:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Title dates afte Publication dates

FYI -- just in case it got lost among other Recent Changes -- I have answered your question. Ahasuerus 17:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Asimov's SF Adventure Magazine

Hello. For the two magazines that you verified, can you check the following:

  • Fall 1978 - That the page count should be 120 instead of 118 and that Russell's poem appears on page 49 instead of 48.
  • Summer 1979 - That the page count should be 120 instead of 118, on page 8 the letter column is missing, on page 23 the credit for interior art is given to Rich Sternbach instead of Rick, that the centerspread artwork is signed by (Paul) Alexander instead of George Barr, and that Kelly's story should start on page 80 instead of 81.

Thanks for checking. John Syzygy 22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure all of your corrections are valid. I'll dig out my copies and make the changes when I get a chance. Thanks for letting me know. Mhhutchins

Locus, February 1983

I notice that in your verified pub above the reviews are listed out of order, such that some that were done by Faren Miller fall below the 2nd review column by Dan Chow. I know they're individually credited but would you have any objections to my using the pipe character to order these correctly? If that's ok, would you have an objection to my doing that in any I see of other issues? Also, I'd like to add some Locus covers if that's all right. Thanks Doug / Vornoff 02:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to either request, or that you do the same with other issues. Just to be clear, the reviews weren't "listed out of order" when they were entered. They're displayed out of order, and at the time this record was created the editor had no way to change the way the contents were displayed. ESSAYs were always displayed before REVIEWs. Now that we have the option to change display, I've had to give that a low priority among the other tasks I do here. Thanks for taking on this task. Mhhutchins 02:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, will do. I knew that that was the problem (which of course wasn't a problem at the time), and didn't mean to imply that they were entered wrong. Doug / Vornoff 03:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

New York Review of Science Fiction?

Are you just a little bit behind? I am starting a subscription as I write and would be willing to take over the mag. If such is the case, if you have Aug-Dec of last year, do you want to enter those?--swfritter 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still getting them. Just haven't had the chance to enter them due to other duties. Please feel free to enter as many issues as you like. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll enter numbers 312 thtough 316, which was dated December 2014, but not published until January 5. The new publisher has been falling behind schedule to the point where it's being published in the following month. Eventually, I suppose, he'll have to published two issues in one month, or just skip a month (and David Hartwell would probably be very upset if that happens!) Mhhutchins 02:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The December issue came with my subscription, so I will do that one. Kind of backwards from the magazines that are dated a month later than they actually go on sale.--swfritter 03:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll enter numbers 312 through 315 when I get a chance. If you want to look back at the issues I entered for earlier in 2014, you'll get an idea of the format I used for the Notes, including providing the actual publication date. That date can be found on the Weightless Books website. I dated the record itself based on the cover date Mhhutchins 03:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
December 2014 entered. The time taken to enter a magazine, especially those with reviews, can be unpredictable. I usually spend more time adding titles reviewed in Strange Horizons than I do entering the other contents. Same with F&SF. There were a couple of photographs that I did not enter. If it has been the practice to not enter them I will follow the convention.--swfritter 23:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless you're Annie Leibovitz or Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon or Helmut Newton, I don't consider a photograph to be artwork. :) I don't think I've ever entered a photograph into the ISFDB! Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Locus #269, June 1983

While going through Locus #270 I was reading Brown's editorial and he mentions he made a mistake in the previous issue and entered the name "Joseph Nicholls" as author of the BSFA report when it should have been by "Joseph Nicholas". "Nicholls" only has that credit whereas Nicholas has many. I'd have taken a stab at fixing it but don't know if you want to make it a variant or wipe out the name entirely as the person doesn't exist. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 01:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Since it was an acknowledged mistake, I'll correct the credit, and make a note of the acknowledgement. Thanks for finding this! Mhhutchins 01:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Cemetery Dance #50

Mr. Hutchins: I just found a listing for this [Cemetery Dance, #50, 2004 hardcover. As you are the primary verifier, I thought I would drop this into your lap. I can list what I know about this from several sites, and then import the contents from your listing, sans the page numbers, as I don't own this. However, is this a hardcover issuing of a magazine, or should this be listed as an anthology? There's about a dozen of these according to the Cemetery Dance site. Small presses are fun, no?

I'll create a record and import the contents. This is the magazine bound with a hardcover and a signature sheet. I consider it a variant edition, and will enter it as a magazine. According to the publisher's website, eight issues of CD were published in limited hardcover editions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I added a cover image from this site. This book seems to have had no dust jacket. MLB 07:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Locus #272

In the above you've not entered the news item "Brian Aldiss Wins Campbell Memorial Award" which is credited to James Gunn (name exactly as credited), starting on p. 1 and continuing/ending on p. 11. I didn't add it as I didn't know if you omitted it on purpose, so thought I'd mention it. Don't know if you want me to add credited articles that may be missed. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 20:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I may not have realized that it was a bylined article. I usually don't enter uncredited news items (as my note explains), but if I missed a credited news item, please add it. Just let me know on this page when you find such pieces. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Submitted. Doug / Vornoff 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Locus, #333 October 1988

I made a submission to remove a single HTML tag from the note field of this pub record that was causing it to render poorly within my browser. This change seems to be in-line with the format of other notes for this magazine verified by you. Uzume 12:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Asimov's August 31, 1981

Just one typo and an omission to check in this pub. On page 20, the co-artist should be FreelanCenter and not as FreelandCenter. On page 68 there is an article by Charles A. Crayne (appearing as Chuck Crayne) titled Commentary on "I Think I Started Something". Was this omitted for a reason or is it just an oversight? Thanks for checking. John Syzygy 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding both the miscredit and the omitted essay. It made me look back to the previous issues for the Pournelle piece which prompted the response by Crayne. So I added records for two individual essays which were given a group title. Otherwise, someone looking at the ISFDB record of Crayne's essay wouldn't be able to find the object of his commentary in the db. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 21:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You have entered the essay as on page 60 and not 68. I have submitted the correction. Also, I am reviewing my copies of early Asimov's and finding more typos and such. Would you prefer a single pub record per post or a multiple listing in one post? Syzygy 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The latter, please. Keep a list and when you get five or more post a single message here. All of my issues are packed away, so it would be easier to tackle several at a time. Appreciate it. Mhhutchins 00:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Syzygy 00:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Locus #274

In your pv'd Locus 274, which is under submission for cover add & pg changes at this time, you credit Rachel E. Holmen with Odds and Ends (Constellation Report) on p.20. Actually, on p.20, the article is indeed titled "Odds and Ends" but it is signed at the end of page 20 by "Charles N. Brown". On p.21 an untitled continuation of the report dealing with the "Right Stuff" panel is signed at the end of p.21 by "Rachel E. Holmen". It looks like maybe this is part 2 of "Odds and Ends" with Holmen doing the second part since it isn't separately titled. Doug / Vornoff 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. I mistakenly went to the end of the article to get the credit, without realizing that it was two pieces. I'll create a second record crediting Brown. Thanks for the eagle eye in finding this. Mhhutchins 23:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Doug / Vornoff 00:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Author names

You recently rejected some title author changes but you quoted the wrong works/pubs so your logic does not really work:

Perhaps you can explain the rejections? Thank you. Uzume 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that there's a problem with how the submission is displayed to the moderator. I'm not sure if you're able to access the submission record, but this is how it looks to a moderator: here. We are given a list of publications in which the title appears, so I clicked on the link to that publication and saw that the author credit for that title matched the author credit of the OCLC record. So I rejected it. Now I see that the moderator screen has a basic flaw when it comes to variant/translated titles, because this title doesn't actually appear in the publication displayed on the moderator screen. A variant of it does. I'll ask Ahasuerus to join this discussion and request that the moderator screen display only the publications in which that actual title appears, not its variants. I'll make new submissions that match the ones I rejected. Thanks for bringing this to my attention so that the problem can be fixed. Mhhutchins 05:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This also means I have to make pseudonyms as well. Mhhutchins 05:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup, it looks like a bug. Thanks for identifying it! Ahasuerus 06:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I can see the submissions but I am not sure I see them the same, however, I agree that it is showing up incorrectly as I see it at initial submission time how it flags the pubs that might be affected (even when in a variant case there are no actual pubs directly affected; it affects how they show up as translations/variant data but the original pub data is still unaffected). This sort of thing may be a hold over/misconception from before we used variants for translations. Yes, that was why I made the "introduce author" message in the submissions moderation comment sections (they are new authors that I planned to make pseudonym towards). You bring up an interesting point though. The original Japanese would certainly have the author credit in Japanese; not in a roman script. At some point when we have a critical mass of publications, it seems to me the canonical author name will need to move to native script (it makes sense that most authors would be most popular within their native language and script). Thank you. Uzume 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This happens to be one of the reasons why I have been thinking about adding "romanized" fields to the database. If we convert author names to Japanese/Chinese/Cyrillic/etc, it will become impossible for people who are not familiar with these alphabets (or scripts in some cases) to search for them unless we happen to have Latin-based pseudonyms in the database. Ahasuerus 06:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe romanized fields would be valuable (but we do need rules for them to be useful). By our current rules, we would only happen to have such when there are pubs for such (e.g., when there are translations). I do not think the literal English translation fields are as useful (and any literal translations rules would be hard at best and likely impossible without a paragraph of explanations in many cases). Uzume 06:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Locus Obituary series

I noticed there are two separate obituary series for Locus: Locus Obituary and Locus Obituaries. Was this intentional? Vornoff 17:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No. That was a mistake. I'll fix it. Mhhutchins 17:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, talking about obituaries, I've been entering some Science Fiction Chronicles and entering their "Obituaries" column as an uncredited content, with notes as to who the subjects are in the note section. Also I've added a series to the Obituaries column. Is that overkill? Should I just enter the column and not make it a series, or should I omit the column and just enter significant personages listed and make a series out of them. Occasionally there are credited obituaries outside of the column which I presume could fall into the same obituary series. Thanks for any advice, Doug / Vornoff 17:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Locus does the same thing for significant people in the field. 95% of all obituaries appear in a column titled "Obituaries". I do not create a content record for the column, only for the individual obituaries, whether they are credited or not. (Most of them are not.) I also differentiate between appreciations written by non-Locus staff, and those that are written without credit by the Locus staff. The appreciations are not entered into the Locus Obituary series, only the Locus-originated ones are. I would suggest that you use the same method for SFC. But I'll leave it up to you to decide the standard for SFC since you're the editor making the effort to enter them into the db. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the purpose for adding individual records into the series was to allow the ISFDB user to quickly find the issue in which the obituary was printed. A series that only lists uncredited columns seems rather useless to me, especially if the individual obituaries only appear in the Note field of the records. That would make it very difficult for a db user to search for individual obituaries. Mhhutchins 18:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Good input - I need to think on it a bit. I'd been coming to the same conclusion about the usefulness about the Obituaries entry/series the way I have it. Thanks for the help. Doug / Vornoff 21:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Locus #276

While updating Locus #276 I added "1983 Locus Index" on p.43. Doug / Vornoff 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dick's Author's Note (A Scanner Darkly)

I'm interested if this essay may be also incorporated in your printing. Or should it have been in fact a later addendum? Christian Stonecreek 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's there. I missed it. I've added it to the record of my copy, plus the first printing as well. That required updating the date of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Locus #278

I notice you sometimes add reviews by Fritz Leiber incorporated in his Moons and Stars column. In Locus #278 he devotes about half a column line to Harrison's "West of Eden". Is this something you might want to enter. If not, what are your criteria for Leiber's reviews, or any, for that matter, which are embedded in columns that are not strictly review columns? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 20:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to create a separate REVIEW record when a specific speculative fiction title is reviewed. As far as I can remember, not all books mentioned are spec-fic or require a separate record since they're not eligible for the ISFDB. Please proceed to create a REVIEW record for any spec-fic titles I may have missed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Something else I failed to do: create a series for the column. I'll do that now. Mhhutchins 20:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hold the presses. I see that occasionally I would create an ESSAY to record a review of a non-spec-fic title, as in this issue. Mhhutchins 20:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll keep an eye out for any that I find. Doug / Vornoff 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Amazon and profile photos

Hello Mhhutchins, I saw that you released the author photo edit of Dirk van den Boom now. Does that mean that Amazon has confirmed the use of their author photos? If so, we (I) could add a note in the image linking rules to let other users know. Naut 07:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. I just got tired of waiting for a response and accepted the submission. I would advise that you hold off linking any further Amazon author photos until we can get permission to do so. The rules will be updated if that happens. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Maybe the rules should be clarified anyway to keep other contributors from repeating that error. Naut 10:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Locus #280

I notice in Locus #280 that on p.36 you have "Books Received - March" credited to Charles N. Brown as by uncredited. Usually you credit this column to Charles N. Brown and Faren C. Miller from the beginning paragraph which states that contents are compiled by them. This same paragraph is there in this one except it credits Review comments to Brown, Miller and Elizabeth A. Lynn. Is this why you changed the credit? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 23:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I would have made an exception here. I don't have the issue at hand (although it wouldn't take me long to uncover it). Does the opening paragraph credit who compiled the list or just who wrote the comments? Mhhutchins
Compiled by Charles N. Brown and Faren C. Miller. Review comments by Charles N. Brown, Elizabeth A. Lynn, and Faren C. Miller. Doug / Vornoff 23:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll update the record crediting as given. (Still don't know where I came up with the "uncredited" bit.) Mhhutchins 00:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine -the first 10 issues 1977-1978

Before I get into the detail of particular errata, I would like to point out changes made to some of the pub records dealing with story titles and their starting pages. The affected records and pages are Jan/Feb 1978 Pgs. 14, 50, 74 and 84; Jul/Aug 1978 Pgs. 84, 98, 132, and 160; Nov/Dec 1978 Pgs. 22, 70, 92, 114 and 144; also Apr 1979 is affected as well as other issues verified by different editors. Since my skills are limited, I'll leave it to you to research as to why these where changed.

Next, there are several titles that show a year date after it, as if to show it being previously published, yet there is no evidence of them having been so. The affected titles are Summer 1977 "Low Grade Ore" interior art one,two and three; Fall 1977 You are PV2 on this pub and many of the titles are affected by this pub. It seems to me that the magazine issue would preceed the anthology, but I'll leave it to you to sort it out. Also, the Winter 1977 issue is affected the same as way with this pub.

Next, I couldn't find specific instructions in the template for interior art that deals with so-called filler art and artwork that recylces repeatedly issue to issue for columns and such, but I remember seeing it somewhere, probably in an old discussion. Currently, the instructions state "If artwork illustrates a particular story, it should be included. If it does not, but is a significant piece of artwork, or is signed by or credited to a well known sf artist, then it should be included.", so it seems like the door is open for inclusion for this type of artwork if it is signed or identified. A case in point would be the Nov/Dec 1978 issue, Pgs. 6, 18, 41, 91, and 127, especially the latter four that is credited to 202200 Shomburg instead of Schomburg. I suspect these were added after the initial verification, also. The other items to be addressed are listed below in chronological order beginning with the first issue. Anything I was not sure about I entered in the form of a question.

  • Spring 1977 - On page 40 Asimov's story Think! starts here, not page 39; On page 77 The word 'A' should follow the semicolon; On page 101 it's Kindertotenlieder, not -leider, also commas before and after 'or' are not on title pg or ToC; On Page 149 In Zelazny's and Le Guin's reviewed books, the word 'is' should be capitalized
  • Summer 1977 - Page 37 Although not listed on p.9, this artwork might be attributed to Roy G. Krenkel (sig upper left) Compare with Winter 1977 pgs. 92, 96
  • Fall 1977 - In the Notes, since most of the other pub records state the volume number, it may be prudent to do so here; On page 12 interior art credit to Schomburg (sig) is missing; On page 54 interior art credit to Freff (sig) is missing; On page 112 artwork by Tim Kirk - is this significant enough to include? ; On page 113 should the title for this poem be Low Grav-I-Tee instead of Low Grav-i-tee? ; On page 120 the word 'Calender' in the title should be Calendar; On page 122 Artwork by S (Schomburg?), is this too insignificant? ; On page 126 a hyphen is needed between 'Dessert' and 'World' in the title; On page 142 the review of Deus Irae should have the coauthor Zelazny included; On page 142 'Ubik' and 'Martian Time Slip' are listed and mentioned in the review. Include? ; On page 143 The Rabkin/Scholes review has bullet separators as does the title record, not periods; Page 144 needs reordering
  • Winter 1977 - On page 83 Interior art credit to Freff (sig) is missing; On page 92 can this arguably be an essay? see ToC; On page 115 in the 'On Books' title, it should have ellipses after Books, not hyphens; On page 116 Science Fiction and Mrs. Brown is mentioned in the essay as part of SF at Large but is not listed on 115. Remove or leave in? ; On page 117 The Future Now mentions The Merchants of Venus which in not listed on 115 as a reviewed book. Remove or leave in?
  • Jan/Feb 1978 - If the title page issue has been dealt with as mentioned above, then I found no other problems with this pub.
  • Mar/Apr 1978 - On page 184 the Letters Column starts here, not 186, reordering may be needed
  • May/Jun 1978 - Page 54 If artist accreditation was by signature, I could not find one. How was this accredited? ; On page 105 the author of the poem appears as Jeffrey A. Haas, not Jeffrey Haas; On page 116 Sarowitz's story should start here, not 117, as well as interior art
  • Jul/Aug 1978 - On pages 18 and 54 reordering may be needed
  • Sep/Oct 1978 - In the note field, the book review note is obsolete; On page 70 the SF Conventional Calendar essay is missing; On page 142 there is a caret(^) above the o in Role of the title; On page 183 the Letters column appears here, not 179, as does Rothman's letter; Page 191 Is the L. Sprague de Camp letter worthy of inclusion?
  • Nov/Dec 1978 - If the title page and interior art issues have been dealt with as mentioned above, then I found no other problems with this pub.

I will review 1979 next and probably won't post for a while. I'm sure you will need some time to go over all of this and it will help me if you give me some recommendations as how to post in the future. Syzygy 17:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough examination of these issues, which I will pull out soon and check against your finds. In the case of dates for the INTERIORART records, when the records were first entered without a publication date. It was ISFDB standard at that time to give season-dated publications as just the year. So an issue dated Spring 1977 would be dated "1977-00-00", as would all of its contents. Later, we determined that secondary sources could be used to more precisely date such issues. Unfortunately, some of the contents were updated while others were not.
About the spot illustrations: I was then and am still of a mind that these should not be recorded, whether they're credited or not. When I first came here, we didn't record INTERIORART at all. Then we started adding them, so older records were gradually, piece-by-piece, updated. Some editors did this with more fervor than others. And some editors took it upon themselves to update records with so much trivial content that the fiction was lost among the clutter. I've personally been against such minutiae, and believe that we've gone beyond what's necessary in supplying the data that is useful to the extent of being OCD neurotic. Occasionally, I'll be approached by an editor who wants to update some of my verified records with such minutiae, and I hesitantly agree to let them waste time and effort when other, more important areas of the database lie neglected. Who am I to tell volunteers what they should and shouldn't be doing with their own time?
As for the other discrepancies you've found, I'll look them over and take them into consideration when updating the records. Looking over the records now, I see they contain much data that I never entered, so it was probably added in updates by those who are listed as PV2, etc. Thanks again for looking over these issues. Mhhutchins 18:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected all of the above that I believe should be corrected. Here are the ones I didn't change:
Spring 1977: I changed the titles of the reviewed titles, but that's really not necessary as long as the title is linked to a correctly titled work.
Fall 1977: Didn't add a content record for the illo on page 122, nor did I add the reviews for Martian Time Slip and Ubik. (They're only mentioned without comment.)
Winter 1977: "On the Martian Problem" is a facetious article, its conceit is more fictional than not in my opinion. ("Mars" in this case is the Edgar Rice Burroughs fictive construct with allusions to Tarzan as well.) I removed the review of "Science and Mrs. Brown", but kept the review of "The Merchants of Venus". The first is just a reference while the latter is a review of the novella.
Mar-Apr 1978: I'm not going to go back and re-order the listings of reviews in the hundreds of records I've primary verified (q.v. OCD). Feel free to make updates to the records to do so.
May-June 1978: I don't know the source of the credit for the illo on page 54. Krenkel is credited as one of the illustrators on the contents page.
To be clear, many of these were updated by editors subsequent to my verification, each having their own agenda. Some of those who added interior art records weren't using the standard for entry pages. I've fixed those you've pointed out. If you find more of these errors in later issues, please feel free to fix them without notifying any PV editors. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating on your decisions for the changes. Now I have a better idea of what needs to be posted here. I do realize that many of the changes were made after your PVs which, it seems to me, is in violation of your instructions at the top of this page. I will continue with the 1979 issues; I anticipate a much shorter list. Syzygy 21:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

'Random Reading' in NYRSF

Dave Langford has been making a few recommendations to tidy up his ISFDB page, and suggests putting the thirteen 'Random Reading' articles for NYRSF into an essay series. Any objections? PeteYoung 22:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding content records for these typed as ESSAY. Can you point out which issues contained them that I missed? Also, I don't recommend creating REVIEW records for titles mentioned unless they're substantial and review works which are eligible for the database. I've created many content records for the "Read This" series by various authors in this periodical, and followed the same guideline when determining whether to create a REVIEW record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I misread and misunderstood your intent. I'll put these into a series. Sorry for the confusion. Mhhutchins 16:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, does he recall the dates of the issues in which at least two other pieces appeared but have not yet been entered into the db? I don't have a complete run, but we could add those essays to the records for those issues. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Petr / Peter Holan

In Locus 290 on p.25 there's an article whose author is credited in the title as "Peter Holan" but signed at the end of the piece as "Petr Holan". There are two separate biographies, one for Peter Holan which has only this one article, and another bio for Petr Holan which has 2 articles, both in subsequent Locus issues. This must be the same man and I'm guessing a typo for "Peter" in the first Locus article. What would you do, if anything, here? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 23:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You should make "Peter" into a pseudonym of "Petr", and variant the "Peter" record to a new record crediting "Petr". Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Locus 291

In the above, Leiber gives about a paragraph of opinion/review each to 3 books, which he also provides publication data for, but I wasn't sure if you wanted them included or not. First is a children's book THE COMET AND YOU by Dr. E.C. Krupp, not in the db. The second is H.G. Wells: Aspects of a Life by his son, Anthony West. The third is Richard Matheson: He Is Legend by Mark Rathbun & Graeme Flanagan. Rathbun's name is spelled "Martk" in the title record so I've asked the pv to check his copy to see if it was a typo. There's a Mark Rathbun with 2 other titles. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

They appear to be substantial enough to create REVIEW records. If you choose to make the review of the Krupp work into a REVIEW rather than an ESSAY, you'll have to add a publication record for it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 08:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Submitted. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 08:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The Mule Rustlers

Your verified Mad Dog Summer and Other Stories contains The Mule Rustlers. Somebody tagged that story as "non-genre", but the non-genre flag is not set. I assume the tag was applied before the flag was available. However, since it is in a verified publication, I figured I'd ask if you want to double check before setting the flag. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to read the story, so I'm not sure. Is there a way to determine which user tagged it so that we can ask him/her? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Not through the website as far as I know, but I checked a database dump and was able to figure it out from there. It was Ofearna. I'll ask her. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Fortunio Matania

I see that you set the language for the artist "Fortunio Matania" to English. I'm trying to understand a bit better how we set these languages. Fortunio was Italian, and that was his native language. He came to London in his 20's, began exhibiting there, and from there got into Good Girl Art after WWI. So much of his work then, and all of his work that we have included, was for English language magazines. So since we only see him in English-language magazines, does that mean we override his actual primary language? Chavey 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The ISFDB language field is specifically labeled "Working Language" in the edit mood. That "working" isn't in the display mode, but I think it's understood. (Or maybe not!) In this artist's case, as your research shows, most of his work was for English-language publications. So having his language set as English isn't beyond the purpose of the field. Mhhutchins 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed Fortunino Matania and Fortunato Matania in the db. Would you like to establish a canonical form of the name and variant the other titles? Mhhutchins 19:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Locus #295

Hi. In Locus #295 on p.5 there is an article that looks like the interviews you enter, this time of Michael Blaine, which has not been entered. It's shorter than usual, about a quarter of a page total but there are direct quotations from him. Didn't know if you left this out on purpose. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 01:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably just overlooked it because of its length. You can create a record for it, but don't enter it into the Locus Interview series. There is a distinct difference between these interviews and others. There are usually only two (sometimes just one) of them in each issue, and they're never in the Q&A format. Their format is so distinctive that Charles Brown credited only the interviewee. That continues to this day. Mhhutchins 02:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I should have explained better. The format for this "interview" is the same as the other one in this issue of Niven & Pournelle. It is uncredited and has the same pink background with black border that the other one has. That's why I thought it might be part of that Locus Interview series. No one asks questions, there are some contextual remarks and then Blaine's remarks in quotations. ?? Doug / Vornoff 03:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Give me a day or two to pull out my copy. A quarter-page interview would be highly unusual for this series. This may have been before the format as we've come to know it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

IASFM 1979

I have reviewed the 1979 issues, and the title entry page corrections have been made where needed. There are some interior art issues that still exist which I have identified as illo; I will leave it to you to evaluate the inclusion of this art. However, I would like to point out that the editor was within the bounds of inclusion since the art was credited and/or identifiably signed as per Rules for including artwork, but apparently contrary to Series entry standards (penultimate bullet). Like you, I'm against including art, if not more so, that is attached to columns and standardized art that is meant to fill out a page and shows repeatability issue after issue. Along with a couple of overlooked issues from 1978, other errata for your attention is as follows:

  • JUL/AUG 1978 - Pages 6, 19, 155 illo
  • NOV/DEC 1978 - Pages 6, 18, 41, 91 illo
  • JAN 1979 - Page 6 illo; page 188 is Milosevic letter worthy of inclusion?
  • FEB 1979 - Page 149 the second 'To' in the title should not be capitalized
  • MAR 1979 - Page 6 illo; pg 12 all the reviews for the On Books column have not been entered; pg 46 a signifcant illo that I haven't seen repeated in any issue I have yet come across. Up to you what to do with it, but if you leave it in, I probably would disassociate it from the preceding story; pg 55 author pseudonym not needed as his name appears canonically (this is the only entry for this author).
  • APR 1979 - Page 14 Should Hôtel Transylvania be added as a review ? ; page 191 illo
  • MAY 1979 - Metadata: a note about the cover art illustrating 'The Quest' should be entered; Page 106 for interior art title, Lnell should be Knell; Page 153 the poem appears here, not 152
  • JUN 1979 - Page 5 illo; pg 57, in the Feghoot title, the word 'and' is used instead of &
  • JUL 1979 - Page 17 review of 'Children of the Atom' starts here, not 16; Page 124, in the Feghoot title, the word 'and' is used instead of &; Page 148, in this title the word 'the' should not be capitalized, as well as interior art titles
  • AUG 1979 - Page 5 illo
  • SEP 1979 - Page 6 illo
  • OCT 1979 - Page 6 illo; Page 126, The word 'to' in the title should not be capitalized
  • NOV 1979 - Page 6 illo; Page 71, in the word 'project', the p appears as lowercase; Page 191 illo
  • DEC 1979 - Page 6 illo

I have already reviewed the issues for 1980 and 1981 for errata, but I am reluctant to move on as it seems labor intensive, with many restrictions, and the issue of violating the ISFDB 'policy of notification' comes into play as indicated here, which is contrary to your primary verifier instructions discussed here. I have looked for such an existing policy on notification etiquette at this page and possibly this page, which would be the obvious starting points, but I only found a vague mention of it here which, it seems to me, is open to interpretation. If there is a more explanatory note written elsewhere, please direct me to it. If there is no explicit written policy on this covering every viable situation, then there should be, so as to eliminate existing contradictions. Until this matter is satisfactorily cleared up, I will suspend posting verification reviews and try to find something else to do. Syzygy 18:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to a database ran by humans. You're going to find contradictions. I've learned to live with them after 8 years. Hopefully it won't take you that long. Trying to reconcile all of the different statements throughout this wiki is impossible. As long as you have the publication in your hand, and follow the cardinal rule "ENTER DATA AS PUBLISHED", you shouldn't worry too much about who, when, where, and how to notify other editors. I suppose in that regard I was lucky in that I was able to do primary verifications of most of my collection before other editors came along with the same publications.
As for the help pages you linked above, frankly I got a headache trying to go to each page to find the contradictions. If you can take each one at a time and create a post for each on the community portal, we can try to iron them out. I'm not in a position to do that unilaterally, although I wholly commiserate with you. If you find that going through these issues for a second, third or fourth verification to be exhausting, I can only suggest that you not do it. (I think that may be the same conclusion you've come to.) Personally, it would be frustrating for me to do what you've attempted, and for peace of mind I've stayed away. I have thousands of issues of magazines which I have never even attempted to do a verification of, all of which were entered by other editors. I can't imagine taking on the similar chore you've undertaken.
I'll reply to those specifics for issues of IASFM when I get a chance. Thanks for taking the time to do this and letting me know about your findings.
BTW, I only did the first five or so years of IASFM and the years 2007 - 2012 (I dropped my subscription about that time) while another editor worked to fill in the other issues. We jointly created these entry standards specific to IASFM so that we could be consistent. I don't know whether editors who came after and did additional verifications of the records were even aware of those standards. Frankly, it had passed beyond the point where I even cared.
One last thing: if you see actual typographical errors in the author and title fields for the contents of these issues do not hesitate to make submissions to correct them. If the records are "questionable" based on entry standards but not in error, think twice about whether it's worth the time and effort to notify the PV editors. That's a value judgment I've learned to make and it's made my working here much much better. Mhhutchins 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of support, I think. I really don't like verifying a record until I do a thorough review and weed out as many inconsistencies as possible. I also have thousands of magazines and the thought of doing PVs for all of them is daunting to say the least. I will do what I can, perhaps learn a thing or two along the way. I will take your suggestions under consideration, especially dealing with consistency. Also, it will take me some time to post in the Community Portal/R&S as I formulate a valid argument about PV notification. Thanks again and sorry about the headache. Syzygy 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It was only a metaphorical one. But thanks. Mhhutchins 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
To a large extent it is my fault. I have made a lot of changes to the software over the last few years, but I haven't always updated our Help pages to reflect the new functionality. In part it was oversight and in part I didn't want to step on other people's toes since rewriting Help would have meant deciding which competing statements had to be eliminated.
FWIW, my approach to updating Help has changed lately. I have decided that it's better to have a coherent whole with possibly controversial statements (which can be documented and discussed) than an incoherent mass of contradictions which no one can even navigate. And so I have been working on cleaning things up over the last couple of days, mostly eliminating duplication, correcting out of date statements and editing for clarity.
Just to demonstrate how much work needs to be done, earlier today I discovered that our Help pages about user tags were badly out of date plus there were two of them with 50%+ (!) overlap. It took me a few hours to clean everything up, including updating the software to point to the right Help page, even though tags are not a controversial area. In the coming days I hope to clean up more pages while identifying the areas which will need policy decisions. As always, the main limiting factor is time and various competing software/Fixer priorities... Ahasuerus 21:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Cleaning up our Help pages is a Herculean task, one that should be added to the other Labors. I wish you well because it's one that I would hate to undertake. Mhhutchins 22:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, as one of the original concerns that prompted this post, we need to revisit the notification etiquette policy. As more and more records become primary verified, it becomes harder for editors to keep up with the current policy. This is particularly harder on new editors, and one of the reasons some of them don't stick around. (I know this from first-hand dealings with new editors.) With many editors creating a personal notification policy, it is becoming more burdensome for other editors to keep up with the differences. I'm thinking about opening this topic on the community portal, but will take some time first to form my thoughts on the matter. Mhhutchins 00:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
One possible way to streamline the notification process would be to implement FR 385. Currently the body of the FR reads:
  • Automatically add a brief note to the verifiers' Talk pages when their verified pub (or a title contained in one of their verified pubs) has been changed.
However, if the problem is Talk page clutter, then we could create a new user-specific report instead. It would list all publications that the currently logged in user has verified and that have been recently changed, the most recent edit first. The report would have the following columns:
  • Publication title, linked to the pub record
  • Name of the record field that has been changed, e.g. "Cover URL" or "price"
  • Type of change, i.e. whether it was a change to a previously populated field like Cover URL or a new value where none was present before (price, cover artist, etc)
  • Date/time of the change (submission and/or approval date)
  • User name of the editor who made the change
  • User name of the moderator who approved the change
We could also implement a "New Edits to My Pubs" flag similar to the "New Messages on my Talk Page" flag. The flag would be cleared once the editor views this report. It's not trivial, but it's doable. Would it help? Ahasuerus 01:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] You betcha, it would help! Especially for new users. Sounds like a lot of work, and I'm sure there are more pressing issues, but if it could encourage more participation and help retain more editors, it might be worth it. Mhhutchins 02:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have updated the FR. A bare-bones version could be put together relatively quickly, but I am concerned that it would be incomplete and editors would have to continue using Talk pages for certain types of changes. (Which would be bad because it would make things more fragmented.) I'll have to review the code to see how long it will take to code a comprehensive solution. Ahasuerus 02:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow! I step out of the house for a few hours and I missed all the fun. I agree that the help pages need updating, and perhaps some reorganization is in order, too. But yes, a monumental task, indeed. If there is anything I can do to help with this, please let me know. Syzygy 03:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you do any notifications of author edits for authors we had books from? With authors that have only a few titles, including ones I have publications from, I'd sort of like to see updates to their data. But I'm not sure that a change to the author record about a really prolific author should be sent to everyone who owns a book by them. Chavey 14:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Need to correct an error in a variant title/author

The title "Prospect of a World I Dream" has two entries: 1583387 and 1666702. The second entry (1666702) is incorrect and should be deleted. This work is not a pseudonymous work by Gene Lazuta. It is by Alex Kane (I), not to be confused with Alex Kane, the pseudonym of Gene Lazuta. Please see http://alexkanefiction.com/bibliography/ and http://alexkanefiction.com/c-v/ - Alex Kane (I) started doing work around 2011 and graduated from college in 2012. Gene Lazuta was publishing things back in the 1980s, when Alex Kane (I) was likely in elementary school.

I'm posting this here because I'm not sure how to go about correcting this. You can see my submission here where I tried to fix this, but apparently it only made it more of a mess. I appreciate any help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nihonjoe (talk • contribs) .

To break a variant relationship (which has been created in error), use the same function ("Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work") that creates a variant. BUT, in the upper portion of the entry form enter the number zero "0" in the "Parent #" field. (You're replacing the number already in the field.) In this case, once the relationship has been broken, the record crediting Gene Lazuta was deleted from the database. Any questions about how to perform a function for which you can't locate the help page, post it on the Help Desk page. Most moderators keep an eye on that page so it's better than posting than on any single moderator's page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for cleaning that up. Nihonjoe 17:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the younger Alex Kane's website, I've determined that he may have more credits eligible for the database. So I made the pseudonym of Gene Lazuta into "Alex Kane (I)", and gave the younger Kane the primary author name. Mhhutchins
That works. Thanks for your help! Nihonjoe 06:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup report: "Series with Slashes and No Spaces"

I did all of the easy fixes for this cleanup report. There are four series remaining, which I am unsure how / if they should be changed. These four don't have the common (Title 1)/(Title 2) format, but instead the "/" refers to an internal structure. E.g., "Dragons of Light/Dark" is sort of "Dragons of Light / Dragons of Dark", "Venus/Earth Conflict" is essentially "Venus vs. Earth Conflict", and similarly with the other two ("Feyland/Frost Universe" and "Human/Praxcelis Union"). Since I'm not sure what to do with them, I'll just leave them for someone else :-) . Since you do most of that cleanup work, I thought I'd mention it to you. Chavey 08:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You were correct to leave those as is, and they could have been "ignored" to remove them from the list. I started working on these the other day and found that about 10% of them should retain the non-spaced slash. I only changed those which were obviously two different names for the same series. The others I "ignored". For example, Bruce Sterling's "Shaper/Mechanist" stories should not be spaced, since that is the single name for a single series. I'll look over the ones you left and use the same criterion to determine if the slash should be spaced. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
That was my guess as well - that they should be "ignored". That was only about 4% of the ones that I looked at, though, so I wondered if I might have converted some that I shouldn't. I went back to review them all and reverted the following, which I think can be "ignored" when they come up on the next run:
Series that refer to two people around which the series revolves and is named:
Dale Stewart/Mike O'Rourke, Yurkovsky/Zhilin, Grandrith/Caliban, Reid/Campbell, David Rodriguez/Mari Kinsella, Jean Fairbairn/Alasdair Cameron, Jeannie Reese/John Fagan.
Other reasons for the series name:
Pat Collins/Jim Dunlap universe The main character was originally called "Pat Collins", but on the rewrite, and for later books in the series, his name was changed to Jim Dunlap.
Tony Quade/Gerry Carlyle. Each of those individual names have their own series, and this series is different than either of those. (Aside: It seems likely that there should be some kind of parent relationship connecting these three different series under one overall title.)
Elenium/Tamuli. As with the previous one, the two names here are names of different series; but in this case the combined name is used to package those two series together.
Argonia/Songs from the Seashell Archives. Listed this way in Wikipedia.
Network/Consortium. Listed this way by both SFE and Amazon.
Aton/Piers Anthony’s Worlds of Chthon. Listed essentially this way by Wikipedia.
Council/Confederation. Listed this way in both SFE and Amazon.
Lightworld/Darkworld. Listed this way on Wikipedia and Amazon.
Old Star/New Earth. Listed this way on both the author's page and Goodreads.
Bishop/Special Crimes Unit. Both the author and Goodreads uses essentially this title (except "The Bishop" instead of "Bishop").
Fantasy Newsletter/Review. Consists of two magazine titles: "Fantasy Newsletter" and "Fantasy Review". A reasonable name, but not two different names.
Fantasy Fiction / Fantasy Stories. Consists of two magazine titles: "Fantasy Fiction" and "Fantasy Stories". Just like the previous series, but with a different solution. However, this makes it two series, so I added the spaces. I would prefer it if these last two series used a common format, but I have no preference on which one.
Homesteader / Coordinator Group An Internet search found no one using either name, except for sites that are quoting us. I can't tell if this is one name for the series or two. I've left it as two (spaces around the slash); but I could be wrong.
Jane Mansfield / Courtney Stone. I can't find anyone online who calls this series by either name. Both the author and Goodreads call it "Jane Austen Addict", and that's the name of the author's web page. Amazon calls it "Austen Addict", but that name also applies to a series by Victoria Connelly (not in our system). Since no publication in the series has been verified, I went ahead and changed the name of the series to "Jane Austen Addict".
Empire/Waystation. Only one title in this "series", and it has the slash that way in the title.
Sharuq/Stingray. A poor name for a series: Someone just concatenated the names of the two books in the series. It should be called "Leviathan", which is the name of the submarine which is the centerpiece of both books; unfortunately that name is already taken. I reverted this to what it had been (no spaces), but I don't really like this as the series name.
In every other case, I've found at least one reasonably reliable source that refers to the series under just one of the names, hence conclude that it's two names for the same series, hence I've left them with spaces around the slash. Chavey 21:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Your research has shown that the all-the-same format approach isn't the way to go. Please use your findings to update those series, for the most part for them to be compatible with the general consensus. If the author has a personal website, that should be the ISFDB designation. "Empire/Waystation" was a successor to the fanzine which advised new authors: "Empire for the Science Fiction Writer" (I'm surprised we don't have records for those issues in the db), so I suggest leaving it as is. "Fantasy Newsletter/Review" should be "Fantasy Newsletter & Fantasy Review". (Perhaps we should add a rule of using the ampersand when two separately named series are under the same umbrella parent series.) The series with two characters should probably us the same rule, e.g. "Tony Quade & Gerry Carlyle" and "Elijah Bailey & R. Daneel Olivaw", but that's debatable. I think the rule-of-thumb should be: "If a single series is known by two distinctively different names without either one having an overwhelming consensus, then there should be spaces around the slash." What do you think? Mhhutchins 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for not getting back to this, but I'm glad that you did. I agree with your solutions. Chavey 08:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Bander Snatch

Hi, I've found a site that credits Bander Snatch to Dean Ellis (him again). I've sent a mail to him, asking for his source as you claim the Bantam book has the art as not credited. He has lots more, I hope his mail is elaborate enough to credit more covers.--Dirk P Broer 11:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

We'll wait for a response before making any changes. Without a reliable source, we can only speculate in the Notes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mahogany Trinrose", by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Your verified publication says, in its notes, that the copyright page states "First Edition". I have the same book with the same gutter code, but it does not say that. Instead, on the copyright page, it states "First Printing". Could you check on that? Chavey 23:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As does my copy. That's very unusual for Doubleday. In fact, I can't remember any other Doubleday title saying anything other than "First Edition" (or nothing). I've made a correction. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 02:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Women of Darkness", ed. by Kathryn Ptacek

I corrected the page number for "Samba Sentado" in your verified publication from "227" to "228" (the Table of Contents is wrong). The page number for "The Devil's Rose" also seems to be in error. You have listed "149", while the ToC says "148", so I'm guessing that you viewed the material on p. 148 as the editor's introduction, and the story starting on the next page. But the poem quoted at the bottom of p. 148 is part of Tanith Lee's story (as indicated by the placement of the 3 diamonds that Ptacek uses throughout to separate her notes from the story.) So it would appear that the story should be listed as starting on 148. Chavey 02:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please make the necessary changes for the record to comply with current standards. Back in 2007 there's no telling what I was doing! Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Destinies, Volume 2, Number 1

Take a look here for cover artist information on Destinies, February-March 1980.SFJuggler 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see Enric's (blurred) signature on the right side of the painting (which was cropped from the book cover). But why did all of the verifiers of the Ace edition of Lost Dorsai credit the other part of that painting to Fernando Fernandez? Maybe they confused the credit for the interior illustrations with the uncredited cover art? Since you found it, perhaps you should notify them of the error. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Notified.SFJuggler 02:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

James Frankel vs. James Frenkel

In verifying my copy of The Year's Best Fantasy: Second Annual Collection, by Datlow & Windling, I saw that it was listed as including an obituaries column by "James Frankel". I re-checked my copy, and all four places in it his name was spelled correctly as "Frenkel". I assumed that meant it was a data entry typo, and not a variant, so I corrected the author on that essay. In checking the page for "James Frankel", he was also listed as the obits author for the Seventh and Eighth collections. I don't own those editions, so I couldn't check the spelling there, but I would encourage you to do so. Chavey 05:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be "Frenkel". I've made the corrections and created the variants to "James R. Frenkel" on all three titles. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Rogue Moon question

Re your verified [1] of Avon's SF Recovery edition of Budrys' Rogue Moon. You verified a page count of 222 while my copy has only 192. Could please check if there may be a variant. BTW I checked other editions to check if I was missing a signature or something but I'm not.Don Erikson 06:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My copy only has 192 pages. I must have verified a previously entered record without checking the page count. I'll make the correction. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 17:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrectly Attributed Artwork

I wanted to bring this discussion to your attention because of the second part dealing with the incorrectly attributed interior art. I know we have disagreed on how this situation should be handled, and with a larger group of editors, perhaps we'll get a consensus. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Locus #345

In the October 1989 issue we're missing a review record for Escape from Kathmandu on p. 17 between Nightshade and Patterns. Albinoflea 02:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That issue is too deeply packed away for me to confirm the omission. Feel free to make a submission to update the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, submitted an edit. Albinoflea 19:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Locus #591

In the April 2010 issue, Wolfe's review of the PM Press Lucky Strike collection is improperly pointing to the novelette. Albinoflea 03:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A case of the system auto-linking to the identically titled but wrong record. I'll fix it. Feel free to make submissions correcting these mistaken links without notifying me in the future. (The verifier has no control over which title is linked, although the more conscientious of us would double-check each one...nyah, I don't think so.) Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 04:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, looks like someone already corrected this. Albinoflea 19:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said in my response: "I'll fix it." Mhhutchins 16:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Locus #329

While going over the above, I noticed that the Heinlein obituary starting on p.B is signed at the end by "Frank N. Robinson", obviously a typo, instead of "Frank M. Robinson" as you give in the content title. Is this too nit-picky to bother about or should it be pseudonymed and varianted? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, and only for myself, I'd say it's "too nit-picky" and should not "be pseudonymed and varianted". Is the byline correctly credited? Mhhutchins 04:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That's the only credit I saw for him, but I agree with you, we should probably let it be. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

SFWA Bulletin

Just a couple of minor corrections needed in your verified copies of the Bulletin. In issue #173, for Theodora Goss's essay on page 35, 'Pips' should be 'Pip', and Jo Walton's essay should appear on page 39 instead of 38. In issue #175, for Webster and Pournelle's essay on page 12, 'Alter' should be 'Alternate'. I also submitted cover scans for these issues and for #172 and #174 as well. Syzygy 17:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Corrections made. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Egg

Michael, is there any source or original title listed for Grass' poem in this anthology? Christian Stonecreek 18:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The source shown on the copyright page is given in the title record. It doesn't mention the original title. Sorry. Mhhutchins 02:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Googled and found the original title: "Im Ei" which gives the date of the poem as 1958, but included in the 1960 German collection. Mhhutchins 02:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've created a new parent title record for the work. Mhhutchins 02:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This book (in German) may give original publication data. It confirms that 1958 is the date of publication. Mhhutchins 02:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
More Googling and we have the source: the Jan-Feb 1958 issue of Akzente. Mhhutchins 02:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your efforts, Michael. I should have looked into the title record in the first place. Christian Stonecreek 03:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Di Fate's Catalog of Science Fiction Hardware

This is probably one of your never revisited early verifications (I have a lot of those myself). I would like to propose a few changes. Pagecount should probably be 135+[25], the title page states "written with Beth Meacham", I think she should be credited as co-author, the introduction by Di Fate is missing from the contents, as is the INTERIORART and I would also like to add some notes. Thanks, --Willem 19:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, almost eight years ago and a few months after I arrived here, that would have been among the early verifications. Please feel free to make those changes you suggest above. Mhhutchins 23:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. If you have the time, please check. Thanks, --Willem 18:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Interview with K. J. Parker

Your transient verified Subterranean Online, Summer 2010 contains (page 9) what is currently listed as a interview of K. J. Parker by Tom Holt. However, Orbit has finally confirmed[2] that Parker is a pseudonym of Holt.

This could simply be updated per the standards of the interviewee being listed under the canonical name (i.e. "Interview with K. J. Parker • interview of Tom Holt • interview by Tom Holt"). However, I'm not sure it should really be counted as an interview and might be better categorized as an essay? I could see it going either way. Since you're the verifier, I'll toss it over to you for your preference. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"Interview" is in its title and it's in the form of an interview. I can't see it being typed any other way. One could concede that all interviews are essays written by the interviewer, but the ISFDB created a type just for this form of essay. I'll make the changes based on the current ISFDB standard. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins 02:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Science Fiction Digest (1981-1982)

Hi. In this series I reviewed three of the four publications. In the first issue the record states a price of $1.95, as it does in the publisher's statement on the ToC page. The cover has a price of $1.50. Which price takes precedence over the other? Also, for Asimov's essay on page 7 in the pub, the title appears with an exclamation point at the end, which then would be identical with this title record. For the third issue, there lacks any notes at all, unlike the other records in this series, such as Vol/No, covers not included, etc. Also, for Silberback's essay on page 6, I believe the intent was to variant the author but not the title, which was differentiated by "-" "/" between the month designations. For the fourth issue, the co-author for the Mensa essay should be Salny instead of Sainy. Can you review these pubs at your convenience and update the records as you see fit? That would be great. Thanks. Syzygy 21:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these errors. Please proceed to make the necessary updates to correct them and to conform with ISFDB standards. In the first case, change the price to match the cover but note the discrepancy. I'll correct the "-" / "/" situation. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 22:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Changes submitted and accepted. There also was cover credit for the fourth issue which I added. Syzygy 19:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Bleeding Shadows

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1848484 should I change the title to Story Notes (Bleeding Shadows) ? Susan O'Fearna 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, generic titles which might be used again by the same author should be disambiguated to avoid the accidental merger of two identical titles. Mhhutchins 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Petey Payack

Would you mind double checking the author credit for Casting Glances on page 93 of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, February 1983? Should this be Peter Payack vs. Petey Payack? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Should be Peter. Thanks for finding the error. I'll correct it. Mhhutchins 00:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2015Jan-Apr&oldid=410587"