User talk:PeteYoung/Archives/January 2013–December 2014

Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell", by Susanna Clarke

I added a note to your verified copy of this book, specifically about the two different states of dust jackets for that book (one white and one black). In getting to this page, I also ready your blurb blaming Mary Doria Russell for your getting back into SF :-) I've had the chance to listen to some talks she's given about "The Sparrow", and her letter exchange with Arthur C. Clarke about it. She's a great writer, and a wonderful person -- although we seem to have lost her lately to her other interests/concerns. Chavey 07:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's kinda sad how she moved on from genre so quickly after Children of God. I read A Thread of Grace, and can see clearly how she structured the novel rather differently, and while 'lives affected by war' is a favourite theme of mine in mainstream fiction I still found A Thread of Grace to be lacking a certain something. Perhaps a bit more plot resolution, such as the 'plot' was, but yes, it was still a very good book.
I've always kept an eye on Russell talking about The Sparrow's troublesome screenplay. I wonder if Antonio Banderas would still be interested in playing Emilio Sandoz if it ever gets done outside Hollywood, now. He would certainly be a better casting than Brad Pitt.
But I didn't know about her exchange with ACC. Is it online anywhere? (I've googled of course, but drawn a blank). PeteYoung 08:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
About the screenplay, she once remarked that it looked like it was going to become "A film loosely based on a title by Mary Doria Russell". Her exchange with ACC involved him writing her a letter saying, in part "You realize, of course, that you lied about the physics" (referring to using the asteroid for their transportation). She replied, essentially, "I'm a biologist, so I lie about the physics. You're a physicist, so you lie about the biology." His response to that was a short letter saying "Mary Doria Russell - 1. Arthur Clarke - 0".
Part of the change in her works has been the development of her personal religious journey. When she began writing "The Sparrow", she was Catholic. By the time she was done writing it, she had converted to Judaism. As we get into her later books, her religious ideas become more important to the book. I don't mind religion being important in a book, but sometimes it can come to overwhelm the plot and other aspects. You can see some of that happening in "Children of God", and based on recommendations of friends, I didn't go on to "A Thread of Grace". Would you agree with that interpretation of that book?
As an aside, I'll mention a story about "The Sparrow" and the James Tiptree award. "The Sparrow" was not marketed as "Science Fiction", because its publisher thought that would shove it off the mainstream shelves and reduce sales. No one in the SF world knew about the book until one of the judges for that year's James Tiptree, Jr. award saw it in a bookstore at an airport. She picked it up to read on the flight home, loved it, and recommended it to the rest of the committee. Of course it won the award that year. (They had to bend the definition of the award a bit. It's for "works that explore or expand our notions of gender", which has already been expanded to include "sexuality". When we expand "sexuality" to include "abstinence", and then what happens to Sandoz, it includes the book.) Anyway, Mary is convinced that the book took off only because it won the Tiptree award, and hence that we are responsible for her being able to become a full-time writer. (She had been writing software documentation before that.) She's had a very good relationship with us since then, donating a couple of items for the annual Tiptree auction, including a (locally) famous bright pink bra, which keeps being sold, then returning a few years later to be re-sold. Chavey 15:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Great stuff! As another aside, I'll trade you a small story about The Sparrow and the Arthur C. Clarke Award. Before the award is announced, the judging panel usually head down the pub for the afternoon before the award ceremony to thrash out their final arguments on which book should get it, if there's no agreement. These discussions can of course get quite heated, but that year as they sat round the table all the judges favoured The Sparrow; not one of them was arguing for any other book. It was a rare moment of unanimity amongst Clarke Award judges.
My own discovery of The Sparrow kind of echoes the story you tell. I was at Waterloo Station in London, about to get on the Eurostar to Paris. I wandered into the station bookshop and on the mainstream shelves I saw this paperback with a rather nondescript pale blue cover. I hadn't read any SF for ages (about the only thing SF-related I had read in the previous few years was Delany's The Motion of Light in Water), so I thought, yeah, why not? By the time I got to Gare du Nord I'd nearly finished it; it had totally grabbed me and put me right back on an SF reading track. If I ever get to meet her, I'll inevitably be thanking her enormously.
Re. A Thread of Grace, yes it inevitably has religion in there, particularly Judaism and (being set in Italy) Catholicism, but over and above all that I found it to be more humanist than anything else, a testament to human decency that doesn't quite transcend the dogma, seeing as most of the characters are inevitably grounded in religion to a rather high degree. PeteYoung 16:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

SF Commentary, #81

This record pops up several times on the clean-up script that finds reviews of works by authors not in the database. I've been adding publications for the more obvious genre work, but am debating whether the half-dozen or so unlinked reviews that remain are really spec-fic, including several that are nonfiction works about Gothic fiction, which without a supernatural element would be considered non-genre for ISFDB purposes. If it's determined these publications aren't spec-fic or are not written by an author "above the threshold", the reviews would be changed into ESSAYs to avoid such "stray authors" as this one. I could do that for you if you like. Another thing: I see in your note that there is a review of a work by John Baxter which you did not create a record for. Is this the same John Baxter in the database? If so, a publication record for the work should be created for the db, the review record should be added to the magazine's publication record, and then linked to the work's title record. Even if it is not by the same author, then an ESSAY record should be created for it, since SF Commentary is a genre publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see the ones you've added from the unlinked reviews. I only listed the final reviews yesterday and I've also been going back and adding the spec-fic titles not in the db, but you've caught up with where I'm currently at. Thanks for adding those few. Because this is such a review-heavy pub I've been adding them about 30 at a time and working on the unlinked titles as I go. I'll read the reviews and also search Amazon re. the Gothic fiction titles and make a decision on if they should be ESSAY or review, depending on content. Also re. John Baxter, via his link to Wikipedia I see it is the same guy, so I'll add that pub. Cheers. PeteYoung 17:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. And I can understand adding contents in several submissions, having entered more than a few that had more then 100 reviews. Mhhutchins 03:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Section from the Draft of Deus Irae Chapter 3

Hi. Your verified PKD Otaku, #18 contains Deleted Section from the Draft of Deus Irae Chapter 3, which has "0000" as first publication date. Since PKD Otaku #18 was published in February 2007, wouldn't it make sense to enter that as first publication date? If it turns out sometime that this text was published before, the date can still be adjusted, but I believe it's not unlikely that the publication in PKD Otaku #18 is indeed the first publication. What do you think? Thanks, Darkday 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll contact the editor re. if this is its first appearance, but I think this was an amendment I omitted to make after I established #18's publication date. There's one other title in #18, a film review, that's also dated 0000 and this gives me a clue as to what happened here. Thanks very much for pointing this out; if it turns out there was an earlier appearance for the deleted section I'll leave a message on your Talk page as I'm sure you'd be interested to know. PeteYoung 02:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd appreciate if you kept me updated. It's too bad that this text was published in PKD Otaku without any further information. When similar texts were published in the PKDS Newsletter, there usually was an explanatory introduction by Paul Williams. By the way, The Nixon Crowd also has no publication date. Its note however mentions SF-Commentary #39, which was published in November 1973, so I guess that should be the date. Darkday 21:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Time Machine

According to WorldCat, the transliterated title of your verified Thai edition of H. G. Wells' The Time Machine is "Yān wēlā talui lōk ʻanākhot". Would you say that it's enough data to update the pub? My Thai is non-existent, so I tried Google Translate, but no luck. Perhaps WorldCat (or rather the libraries that feed data to it) and Google use different transliteration rules? Ahasuerus 05:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not often you see Thai anglicised with comprehensive diacriticals like this, but yes, that works for me. I see it also appears on Google Books the same way, so let's go with that.
Translations into Thai don't usually carry an anglicised version of the Thai title on their copyright pages, just the author and title from which the book has been translated, in English or any other original language. This inhibits my entry of more Thai translations somewhat, however It is possible for me to enter the title in Thai from my keyboard. I've been wondering is it possible to add Thai as a recognisable language here, the way we have Russian and Japanese? PeteYoung 09:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Cover image for Wild Palms Reader

The Amazon image of this book is better than the one you recently uploaded. In cases like this, why not just link to the Amazon image? Mhhutchins 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that one is better. I've had the older image on my hard drive for years and I probably got it from Amazon UK. It's where I usually look around for images, not so often on PeteYoung 20:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Star-Crossed Woman", by Maribelle (M. B.) Cormack

In your verified Crown Publishers publication, you included a scan of a dust jacket, but noted that since you didn't have a dj on your copy, this might be the Harrap edition. I have the British Harrap edition and that is, in fact, the cover of the British edition. Since my dj has a bad spot, I moved the picture you had to the one I was verifying. I also removed the cover image from the US edition, and changed the notes about this. I suspect that if the US edition changed "Maribelle" to "M. B." that they likely made the same change elsewhere. In addition to the cover, my Harrap edition credits "Maribelle" on the cover spine and as the owner of the copyright. Does your US edition mention her name in either of those places? Chavey 07:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, all sounds logical. The cover boards of my edition has just "Cormack" on the spine, and "© Maribelle Cormack 1961" on the copyright page. One question: my edition has pasted in (on the page before the title page) a very good black-and-white print on a larger white background of the actual whaling ship "Bowditch" that's featured in the story. I used to think it must have been added by one of the book's previous owners, but looking closely, it's done well enough that I'm now debating whether it was actually added by the publisher, so I've amended my Note to reflect this possibility. Does your copy have anything similar? PeteYoung 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
My copy does not have that print, but does have a ring of browning that that looks like something might have been pasted there before, but has fallen out. Seems we'll have to find another copy of the book to find out if that was included by the publisher. Aside: I added a minor note to our verified Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell noting that, between us, we have both dj's. Chavey 03:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bringing the Science Fiction Foundation's Foundation listings up to present . . .

. . . is one of the projects you have in mind, as I just learned from your user page. Sorry for stepping in, but I have begun to enter the missing contents for the first 40 issues, taking the information from here. This task is more demanding than I imagined in the first place, so my question is: Do you have some more of these issues up your sleeve that you wanted to enter anyway (it proves somewhat easier to enter the contents with the issue at hand)? If not, I'll walk further on the road once taken (and there are a few more that I actually have at hand). I have begun with the missing contents for the four issues in question from #s 20-29. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 13:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Synchronicity: just half an hour ago I spotted you had recently added the Index from this Brian Aldiss title. I've already entered all my personal copies of Foundation, but I certainly have access to copies that belong to a couple of good friends, past-editors Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn. I was already planning on asking to borrow their back-issues, so your request has now bumped that a bit further up the 'to-do' list. I'll work on things ASAP and let you know what issues I manage to get hold of, so in the meantime take a well-earned break! ;) PeteYoung 14:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

All My Sins Remembered

Replaced the Amazon image and added some generic notes to [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


I changed this record to a CHAPTERBOOK and added SHORTFICTION content record so it can match other records of this title. Mhhutchins 04:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Same thing with Mr. Bliss. Mhhutchins 04:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Incompleat Bruce Gillespie

I wonder if this record might better be typed as NONFICTION rather than FANZINE. It might be a fan publication, but would that necessarily make it a fanzine? Also, I see no problem with adding the complete "incompleat" contents to the record, regardless of their genre. Especially the one which was created from editorials from SF Commentary. I can not recall any specific rules against creating content records for all essays which are published in a genre publication. If the publication is "in", wouldn't its contents? There are thousands of such non-spec-fic-related essays already in the database. Just look at any issue of Analog or Omni. Mhhutchins 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As it was a one-off pub and not strictly a magazine or part of a series, and with a cover price to boot, yes I agree this would better listed as NONFICTION. This was an early pub in my indexing of Bruce's many fanzines and I can see clearer now how that adaptation of editorials ought to be indexed and not relegated to the Note. I'm more inclined now to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion these days, but I'm still on the skeptical side about adding to the database non-genre records for articles which CLEARLY don't, in any way, serve the purpose of the database – y'know, articles about music or gardening or travel or cats – that some pesky fanwriters insist on forcing upon us sercon types. I can see why it's obviously necessary to exclude them in non-fiction collections, but while it's not written in stone I still wonder why that logical exclusion does not also apply to magazines and fanzines. PeteYoung 03:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
You and I are very much in agreement here. If the same piece appeared in Homes and Garden regardless of the author's "threshold" I wouldn't include it. (Who wants to add all of those non-genre essays Asimov published in dozens of different periodicals on dozens of topics?) But if it were published in an obviously genre publication, I can look past a piece on sock-darning or the such. Mhhutchins 03:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello. Shouldn't the artist in here be Beatman. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC).

Good catch. Fixed, and thanks. PeteYoung 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A Letter from Philip K. Dick

As was suggested above, would this publication be more closely typed as NONFICTION rather than FANZINE? I'm cleaning up the list of editor records that are not in a magazine series, and it doesn't seem to make sense to create a magazine series for a one-off publication like this one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to speak to Robert Lichtman first about this. He was the uncredited co-editor for the run of PKDS Newsletter, and while I don't think there were any more "PKDS Pamphlets" issued as part of a series (others in the same smaller format were given their own Newsletter issue number) he would know better than me. Will get back to you soon. PeteYoung 06:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the publication series ("PKDS Pamphlets"). (A publication series can have 1 or a million publications.) This concerns the editor record for a periodical (magazine/fanzine) which is not part of a magazine series. In this case, it doesn't appear that this was ever meant to be a periodical. If you want to keep it as a fanzine, you could enter the editor record into the PKDS magazine series. Or you could enter the editor record into a magazine series of one issue. I personally wouldn't do either. Making it into a NONFICTION publication would solve the matter. Mhhutchins 06:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I would also point out that this is a publication of a single essay an author who is not given credit as the author of the publication. By crediting Williams as the editor of the publication, it only appears on his summary page, and not on Dick's (except for the essay record.) Mhhutchins 06:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from now. It's now NONFICTION and I've removed Williams as Author as he has no actual presence in the pub; it's now PKD only. PeteYoung 13:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Steampowered Globe

Instead of uploading to the ISFDB server such a small image, perhaps it would have been better to just link the record to the Amazon image. Mhhutchins 01:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried what I thought was that URL first but it must have been a character out or something, so I went down the other route. Sorted now, and deleted the image. PeteYoung 03:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible or even probable typo... the publisher of this pub. record suspected. Stonecreek 14:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. Fixed. PeteYoung 15:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dark Spires

Hello. Could you please check in your verified 335848 the last name of the author on p.149. One too many "y" suspected. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC).

That's correct, it's "Haley". Fixed now, cheers. PeteYoung 12:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledgments for Children of God

Hello, Pete! I am shortly leaving for a two weeks vacation but would like to mention my addition of this title to this edition, so that you might add it to your verified one. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 21:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Saunders' CivilWarLand

Can you confirm the publication date given in this record? The Cape hardcover was published in February 1996, and gives the date of the Vintage reprint as February 6, 1997. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be able to do so in a few days. The year 1996 is quite probably a typo. PeteYoung 09:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Updated now. This must have been one of my earliest verifications, when I wasn't looking at all the details of the copyright page. Turns out it's a January 2007 printing. Thanks for picking this up. PeteYoung 03:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Review in Big Sky

Do you plan on creating a publication record for Philippine Speculative Fiction, Vol. 7, which is reviewed on page 49 of this publication? At the moment the names Kate Osias and Alex Osias are stray authors because they have no publication records in the database. If you don't create a record for the reviewed title, the review should be changed to an essay. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already added it, and I'm also 2 seconds away from uploading a cover... :) PeteYoung 02:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Didn't mean to rush you. It's just that the names came up on a clean-up script, and I didn't know you were in the process of creating the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, that's what I figured. PeteYoung 09:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


You've created three records for issues of this fanzine using a binding/format called "US Letter". What exactly is this? Is it any different from the standard format "quarto" which means approximately 8.5" x 11"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the pub format information has now been updated with some accurate paper sizes, and I remember there was a discussion about the vagaries of paper sizes a while ago. 'US Letter' is quarto, in fact I'd say that size may be more commonly known in the UK as 'US Letter'. I'll update, thanks. PeteYoung 03:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Letters in SF Commentary 79

Please check the titles of the letters in this issue. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, done. Auto-fill to blame, of course. ;) PeteYoung 06:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Banana Wings #52

The variant title records of the six "untitled" works in this record were entered into a title series. (They all came up on this clean-up script.) The series data should be removed from the variant title and entered into the parent title. If you look at the way they're credited in the series listing (at the bottom), it will explain why series data shouldn't be entered into variant records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I added the number line & Canadian price to your verified

I added the number line & Canadian price to your verified [1].Don Erikson 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


I'm not sure how this would qualify for inclusion in the database. It's neither science fiction, nor is it about science fiction. It appears to be a twelve page essay on anime, by an author with no credits within the science fiction field. Mhhutchins 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the series does qualify for inclusion. Most issues' essays focus on science fiction in Japan, obviously with reference to anime/manga but certainly not exclusively so. See the Contents for Asiascape Collection v.1: 'From Science Fictional Japan to Japanese Science Fiction', 'Alien Autopsy: the Science Fictional Frontier of Asian Studies', 'Beyond Utopia: New Politics, the Politics of Knowledge, and the Science Fictional Field of Japan'. PeteYoung 00:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
On the point of 'credits within the science fiction field', what are the criteria here? Goto-Jones might not be as well known in the US/UK but he's clearly knowledgeable about SF and edits this magazine with a wide take on science fiction as it he sees it relating culturally to Asia, not just focussing on anime. His reference sources for his essay in Issue #5 include Attebery, Broderick, Disch, Freedman, James & Mendlesohn, Larbelestier, Luckhurst, Parrinder, Suvin and many others. I am not considering indexing all issues; the essays in #2 and #4 I certainly see as being outside the ISFDB's remit, but I believe the rest certainly have a place here. PeteYoung 00:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
By "credits within the science fiction field", I was refering to the "above the threshold" criterion. If this non-genre essay had been written by such an author, it may have qualified. You still haven't explained why the issue I've pointed out should be eligible for the database, only that other issues may be. If this is a non-genre publication, then only the science fiction it published would be eligible, not essays about science fiction (and anime is not science fiction). So perhaps the inclusion of it is based on a belief that this is a science fiction magazine. Otherwise you would not have added it to the ISFDB list of sf magazines.
BTW, I also don't believe that the Asiascape collection that you linked to is eligible for the database. Mhhutchins 03:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
We have this rather elaborate distinction between (a) "non-fiction books about SF", which are generally "in", (b) articles about SF in science fiction magazines, which are also "in", and (c) articles about SF in other magazines -- including SF-related non-fiction magazines -- which are out.
At one point I suggested that we may want to add academic journals about SF to the "in" list, but there was no interest. For better or for worse, it helps keep the database more manageable :) Ahasuerus 03:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In Pursuit of VALIS

Added panoramic cover scan to In Pursuit of VALIS. SFJuggler 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm suitably impressed. My copy has a badly faded spine, unfortunately. PeteYoung 23:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ant God

I tend not to tinker with other verifiers entries, so here you will find a cover scan for James Lovegrove's "Ant God". I can post it, or, if you appove it, you can have it. MLB 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it matches the actual cover, not the image at Amazon. PeteYoung 23:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Flying to Valhalla - Charles Pellegrino

Can you check your copy of Flying to Valhalla? Mine has interior illustrations on a number of pages (by the author?), at least one photo and there's an afterword occupying pages 299 - 328. SFJuggler 04:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch on the Afterword. I've updated the pub record, and added mention of the various diagrams to the note – as they're uncredited I still struggle to call them 'interior art', no matter how badly drawn some of them are ;) And you're welcome to amend the Note if you don't think it covers things sufficiently. Thanks. PeteYoung 05:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Pied Piper

Hello, in order to determine if this text is the same as that one, can you please give me if possible the first lines of the one you verified ? Thanks. Hervé Hauck 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be able to get onto this in a few days... currently away from home until Sunday. Thanks for your patience! PeteYoung 17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll wait, no problem, thanks again. Hauck 18:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, this book is proving to be very elusive – just spent a whole hour searching for it with no result. I'll be able to have another go in a few days. Hang in there. PeteYoung 11:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Galactic Patrol

I added an interior art credit and updated the notes slightly on your verified pub Galactic Patrol - Fantasy Press 1950 to match my copy in hand. - Thanks - Kevin 04:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Steampunk: Extraordinary Tales of Victorian Futurism

I added the OCLC listing to your entry on this anthology just a few minutes ago. It has to be approved, but if so, I hope you don't mind. MLB 02:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Approved, and thanks. PeteYoung 08:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Lewis' Perelandra

I updated the notes for Lewis' Perelandra indicating some secondary sources. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Vampire Junction

Can you confirm the price in this record? It's the same as my trade edition, and I'd suspect that the signed limited edition would be substantially higher. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Locus1 gives the price as $35.00. Mhhutchins 22:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's go with Locus1. The slipcased book is identical to the regular hardcover, also priced $15.95 (I have copies of both the regular and slipcased editions). Thanks. PeteYoung 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Neptune's Brood

I added a cover scan to this verified pub to replace the Amazon link. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually my favourite book cover this year, so far. PeteYoung 22:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome template

The changes you made in this template erased all of the data. What was the intention behind the change? Mhhutchins 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Something seems to have gone wrong somewhere, and I'm honestly not sure what has happened. I was leaving a Welcome message for new editor MBroaddus, tildes didn't appear, and adding them seems to have affected the template itself, somehow. Also, the alert message I believed I was leaving on the Moderator noticeboard about this has somehow appeared on the Community Portal. PeteYoung 23:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That's some strange and inexplicable system behavior. According to the page's history, you made a direct edit of the page. This can be fixed by clicking on the "undo" link. Mhhutchins 23:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks. I'm not drunk or hungover, honestly, it's 6 in the morning here and I've had 2 coffees already. ;) PeteYoung 23:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Even if you were drunk, and I'm not saying you were :), it's usually pretty easy to fix any mistakes on a wiki page, by just "undo"ing the previous edit. And every once in a while there are hiccups in the system that can cause strange behavior. This may have been one of those. Mhhutchins 23:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The Age of the Conglomerates

This verified record still shows robot-sourced data, including an ISBN-10 (by 2008 publishers were required to use an ISBN-13.) Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 04:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the ISBN entry and the note, although I won't have this copy to hand for a couple more weeks to add more details. BTW, I'll trade you: spotted this 10 minutes ago. PeteYoung 08:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm uncertain of your meaning. Mhhutchins 18:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"The New York Review of Science". PeteYoung 08:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks. (In the future, please point out the error. Saves some time.) Mhhutchins 14:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Can you confirm that there is an ISBN-13 in this 2004 publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Same question for this 1991 publication, this one, and this one. Mhhutchins 17:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done now, however Cybernaut produces a bad checksum when entering the ISBN-10 (now in the Note, and we had an issue with this pub before, hence I entered the 978 number string at the bottom of the barcode which does not produce the bad checksum). Charlotte's Web does have the ISBN-13 so the 2003 date present on the copyright page must have referred to the first printing of this edition, not the 23rd as previously believed (also now indicated in the Note). PeteYoung 12:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Alien Nation: The Unofficial Companion

I added the OCLC and the LCCN links to Alien Nation: The Unofficial Companion. If they are accepted, I hope that this is okay. MLB 23:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. PeteYoung 04:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Flag, #8

Could you please take a peek at your verified Flag, #8? The binding code is "q", which appears to be a typo. TIA! Ahasuerus 06:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, should have been quarto. Seems auto-fill didn't pick it up that time. Thanks. PeteYoung 07:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 16:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Capella's Golden Eyes

Replaced the amazon image with a scan for [this] and since it's a full-cover scan, removed a portion of one note that said the back repeated the front. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"Hauntings: Bangla Ghost Stories", by Suchitra Samanta

I added a note to your verified publication linking to a partial copy of the book on Google Books. Chavey 03:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ginger Star

I added words to the notes for The Ginger Star. Bob 01:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Pseudonym submitted" warning

When accepting a submission (either your own or another editor's), and there's a warning on the author field of "Pseudonym submitted" make sure to check whether a variant title record is necessary. On "Add Pub to This Title" or "Clone" submissions, it's not, but if it's an "Add New Pub" submission (which creates a new title record like this pub), a variant is required. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Winter Song

Hello, I've replaced the amazon scan (which was without blurb) for your verified here. Hauck 18:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you saved me a job... I was planning on doing that scan myself sometime today! PeteYoung 22:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Rocket Girls: The Last Planet

You got me thinking, so I looked up and added the OCLC and LCCN to Rocket Girls: The Last Planet. Now stop making me think, it hurts ;-). MLB 11:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Crowley's Engine Summer

I added the Worldcat link to Engine Summer. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Same edit for his The Deep. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
And Heinlein's Double Star. Last one of these for today. Only half of the Masterworks I ordered arrived yesterday, so I may have more edits soon. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Patrick McGuire

Do you believe that Patrick McGuire, the author of several letters in your PVed records of issues of SF Commentary is the same person as Patrick L. McGuire who has reviewed and written about Russian SF, and published essays in the New York Review of Science Fiction? The name is common enough that I wanted to check with you first before making variants of the letters. Perhaps there's something about the letters, or the author of the letters, that could help determine if it's a valid assumption. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 03:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In his letters that I'm able to read online (in SF Commentary #83 and #85) he does reference Russian SF and NYRSF so I think it's a fairly safe assumption, although I've also passed on your query to Bruce Gillespie. When I hear back from him I'll let you know, and I won't be able to check out his letters in the fanzine's earlier paper issues until the weekend (14th/15th). Cheers. PeteYoung 14:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Bruce confirms it's the same Patrick McGuire. He spent some time in the 1970s in the USSR learning Russian and researching Russian SF. PeteYoung 22:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The War Book

Hi - I've replaced the Amazon linked image with a scan of a verified copy in Prof beard 14:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Next of Kin

Have replaced Amazon image with a scan in Next of Kin Prof beard 12:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wilson Tucker

Can you determine if the interview reprinted in SF Commentary 79 is the same as the one published in SF Commentary 43? Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same. They are now both variants to Paul Walker's original interview record. Thanks. PeteYoung 08:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Constance & Charlie: Dolce Veleno

This 2002 publication isn't likely to have an ISBN-13. Do you still have access to the book and can check what ISBN is stated in the book? Thanks. (BTW, why such a small cover scan?) Mhhutchins 04:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to the book any more – I found a few interesting foreign pubs on the bookshelves of a hotel I was staying in earlier this week. 2002 was certainly the most recent date visible in the pub, so I've changed it to 'date unknown' and added some more cover notes. Should have spotted that, so thanks for picking that up. Re. the cover scan: now replaced with a much better upload, found online. Thanks. PeteYoung 14:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't the date I was questioning. Most sources agree that this is a 2002 publication. Your note even says there's a stated publication date. Looking again at the "ISBN", I see it starts with "977" which means it was probably the EAN which is used as the barcode number. This is not an ISBN. This OCLC record is probably for the edition you entered. The publisher is given as "Mondadori", the publication series is "Giallo mondadori", and the series number is "2763", which I suppose can also be given as the catalog number (preceded by "#"). No ISBN is given, which is typical for Italian publications at that time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that all appears more as it should be. Thanks for helping to knock this pub into shape. PeteYoung 15:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Serpent's Blood - Stableford

Added better cover scan and some notes & links to Serpent's Blood.SFJuggler 05:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Mars Underground

Before I make a variant of the cover artist, can you confirm that they are credited without the "Inc." in this publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 23:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have access to it, the same question about this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mars Underground has the "Inc.", Dreamchild I should be able to find out by the weekend. PeteYoung 09:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Dreamchild also updated now. PeteYoung 10:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Misaligned ISBN

Can you check to see if the ISBN-13 is given in this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Same question for this book? Mhhutchins 07:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Communion Town has only an ISBN-13, now updated. Weetzie Bat I should be able to find out by the weekend. PeteYoung 09:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Weetzie Bat is also updated now. PeteYoung 11:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bill Patterson", letter writer in Broken Toys

Do you know if Bill Patterson, the letter writer in several issues of Broken Toys is the same as William_H._Patterson,_Jr.? "Bill Patterson" is now entered as one of his pseudonyms. If it's not the same person, he would have to be disambiguated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave it as is, it's the same guy. In his letter to Broken Toys #18 he discusses editorial revisions for volume 2 of the Heinlein biography. PeteYoung 22:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Good. Now that we know he's the same guy, the records should be varianted to the canonical author. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I've replaced the Amazon picture on your verified with a new scan. Thanks. Linguist 10:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Change of publisher for Foundation #37?

Hello, Pete! To my amazement I found the notion 'published (...) by North East London Polytechnic on behalf of the Science Fiction Foundation' on the copyright page of all issues of Foundation that I have from #4 onwards; it has to be determined which is the last issue that has this notion (#69 and the following issues have only 'Science Fiction Foundation' as publisher). After this question/answer I changed the publisher to 'North East London Polytechnic' for #s 4-36. Before proceeding, would it be okay to change this field accordingly for your verified #37? Sorry, that I overlooked that you verified this issue, I would have asked you also in advance. Stonecreek 04:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Christian... no problem about altering the publisher credit. This morning I passed on your query to Edward James, who was Foundation's editor from 1986-1999. Last time I was at his house I noticed he has what looks like the full series. Anyway, his reply is: "It was published by the North-East London Polytechnic on behalf of the SFF until issue 45 (Spring 1989), when it became published by the Polytechnic of East London on behalf of the SFF, and that stayed until issue 56 (Autumn 1992), when it was just published by the SFF."
I haven't forgotten your comment from a year ago about needing a more reliable source for data entry than the index you currently have for older editions of Foundation. I hope to see Edward (and his wife Farah Mendlesohn) sometime before Worldcon, so I'll keep you posted if I can get hold of the necessary back issues. I have it lined up as my next big ISFDB project after I've finished with the complete SF Commentary. PeteYoung 14:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Pete. I'll be able to close the gap between issues #4 and #9 in the near future (after the upcoming holidays, that is), but there are enough issues that'd needed to be checked or even added, though.
I'll add the statement of publisher to your #37: it should appear just as in the preceding and following issues. Christian Stonecreek 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Foundation #56

Can you confirm that only Edward James is credited as the sole editor of this issue? I mistakenly accepted a submission to merge the 1992 issues of Foundation before I realized that issue #54 was co-edited by Colin Greenland. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The credit is for "Editor: Edward James / Reviews Editor: Colin Greenland / Consultant Editor: Ian Watson", so I suspect the editor credit should be given to all three as with other issues (this is the only issue I have for this period). The editor credits we currently have seem to vary from issue to issue and I suspect there's some inconsistency, eg. sometimes Ian Watson is credited only in the note (such as #54), other times with a full editor credit (such as #48), while his editorial role may well have be the same. I'll ask him. We probably need to standardize who gets an editor credit. PeteYoung 04:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I recently added #54 and took my cue for the editors from issue #53, but that was a fairly arbitrary decision. I'm happy to standardize it with whatever we decide to do. Albinoflea 04:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

SF Commentary 87

Will you be creating a record for this issue any time soon? I have a comp copy but didn't want to create a record since SF Commentary is one of your projects. BTW, I'm not certain why it's necessary to create a separate record for each version of the PDF edition. They're essentially the same electronic format. In most cases we don't even create separate records for ebooks in Mobi or ePub formats (Nook and Kindle editions). I don't think the difference in pagination should be a factor either, just as we don't create records for each user's preference when they read a Kindle ebook, with different pagination depending upon the reader. Also, because both the landscape and portrait versions are available from the same source, I see no problem in noting their availability in one record. In any case, it's your project and your decision to make. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will be doing it soon, probably this week in fact. I received my copy in the post a couple of weeks ago. Puzzled but amused to see I have a LoC in there – all I did was say thanks to Bruce for letting me rescue from obscurity his letter to Philip K. Dick in Journey Planet #16. Re. the landscape/portrait formats with different pagination – yeah it is a pain, guess I'm just being too thorough. :) Thanks. PeteYoung 04:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Diary of a Spaceperson by Foss

Is there a chance that this isn't novel-length? If it's less than 40K words (as I suspect), it would more properly be classified as a CHAPTERBOOK with a SHORTFICTION content record. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 01:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael is right. A rough word count comes to about 9000 words, not even novella length. If you agree, I can change the pubs/titles. --Willem H. 07:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds right. Good catch. PeteYoung 05:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Changes made. I also added the publication month from Locus1, and informed Hauck. --Willem H. 13:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hard to Be a God

I see that you entered this pub as "forthcoming" a few months ago. The Note field reads "Projected publication date of 2015-11-12", so I wonder if it may be too far in the future for the data to be reliable. What do you think? Ahasuerus 23:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I try to be as comprehensive as possible with the SF Masterworks list when it comes to forthcoming pubs, and sometimes more recent titles also get dropped (eg. AFAIK, Banks's Feersum Endjinn has had two previous projected publication dates and it didn't appear on either occasion, plus I have strong doubts it will appear on 2014-06-01 either). But yes, maybe this is a bit over-zealous, also with Wilson Tucker's The Long Loud Silence, also scheduled for 2015. Thanks for picking this up. PeteYoung 05:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! :) Ahasuerus 14:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Starship and the Canoe

Can you confirm the publisher credit given in this record? Harper & Row ceased to exist in 1990, so maybe they used a different imprint when the title was reprinted in 1996. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally managed to locate this book. I've changed the publisher to "Perennial Library / Harper & Row" although I still wonder if this is correct. I wasn't previously aware Perennial Library was an imprint – I'd assumed it was a publication series of H&R as it only appears on the title page, and there's no mention of Perennial Library as the publisher on the copyright page, where one would expect to find it. We have another publication for "Perennial Library / Harper & Row" dated 1991, which *may* indicate that's the correct publisher credit, but does this assume Perennial continued independently after H&R ceased to exist? I've also added to the note regarding the prevalence of Harper & Row being credited as the publisher. Thoughts? PeteYoung 20:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
With the merger of Harper & Row and Collins in 1990, the imprint known as Perennial Library was renamed Harper Perennial (occasionally stylized as "HarperPerennial"). So the fact that they'd still be using the Harper & Row name in a 1996 printing is an anomaly. Maybe that just didn't realize that they'd not updated the colophon (the publisher credit) before reprinting it.
BTW, publication series don't always appear on the title page, which is usually reserved for the imprint and/or publisher. In most cases publication series are prominently given on the cover. (One of their main purposes is to lure readers based on their being part of a series of publications that for the most part don't have much in common.) Imprints are hardly ever given prominently on the cover, usually just a small logo, but are featured on the title page, and only sometimes on the copyright page. Or at least that's been my experience. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Cities in flight

Hi. I've replaced the cover scan of your verified with a slightly better one (better definition); the image record also takes the artist's name into account. Thanks. Linguist 13:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

"Uncharted Territory" by Willis

A word-count of this work has shown that it is more than 42,000 words, which would qualify it as a NOVEL. I think the error may have occurred when someone saw that Wikipedia labeled it a "novella" which is pretty much what they call anything that is a short novel. Would there be any objection to my changing your verified record from CHAPTERBOOK to NOVEL? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem here as my verified copy has it as part of a collection, not the chapterbook. Makes sense, and thanks for the notification. PeteYoung 00:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
You're right. The work was also published stand-alone as well as in a collection. In your case, I want to change the title record from SHORTFICTION to NOVEL. Now, I just need four other editors' consent to make the change. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All You Need Is Kill

Can you check to see if the ISBN-13 is present in this publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, cheers. PeteYoung 06:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Foundation #77

Hello, I've added the Gannon essay in your verified here. Hauck 10:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how that was missed when I entered it. And I've just corrected your spelling of "civilization" to the UK spelling "civilisation", as it appears in the pub. Thanks, Hervé. PeteYoung 10:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Foundation #87

Hello, I've added Dunn's essay to your verified here. Hauck 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also likely to make monor changes to your entered data (e.g. replacing Tao by Tau in the title of this essay. Hauck 17:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Added a minor note for your verified (localization of art credit). Thanks. Linguist 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

Also replaced the cover scan with a new one (larger, better definition; but mine has a UK sticker on the Beacon logo). Linguist 15:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

International Storyteller Omnibus No. 3

Re this publication: Can you confirm that the editor is stated as "Anonymous" or is the book's editor simply uncredited? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm certain it's just uncredited, not sure how Anonymous crept in there. However this one's currently a few thousand miles away, I'll be able to check on it in about 10 days. Thanks for your patience. PeteYoung 06:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There was confusion between "anonymous" and "uncredited" when the database was first developed and it's likely that the record was entered that way a decade ago. Its author credit was probably overlooked when you did a primary verification of the record. Mhhutchins 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Invention of Morel

Could you please double check whether your verified The Invention of Morel was published by "The New York Review of Books" or by "New York Review of Books"? TIA! Ahasuerus 23:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Will be able to check this in a week's time. Thanks for your patience! PeteYoung 22:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The only place it appears as "The New York Review of Books" is at the top of the copyright page where it states "This is a New York Review Book [over] Published by The New York Review of Books". On the title page and the front endpaper it also appears as "New York Review Books". I'm disinclined to change this one pub to include "The", as this would separate it from all other records for this publisher. PeteYoung 02:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi. You left a note on my talk page that you updated the cover scan of this pub. Since the note is 10 months old I thought you wouldn't notice any changes I made to it, so I'm taking the discussion here to your talk page. Anyway, I double-checked the cover image with my book, but the two do not match:

  • The cover image contains the vertically written word "MASTERWORKS" below the "SF" badge in the upper-left corner.
  • My copy of the book does not have "MASTERWORKS", it only has the "SF" badge.

Does the missing word have any special meaning for you? I thought I might ask before I remove the cover image, because I saw on your user page that you have a special interest in the Gollancz SF Masterworks series. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 08:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The missing word 'Masterworks' has no special 'meaning' to me; IIRC, this record did not have a cover image before I added one. I'd just like to see an accurate cover image, as we all do, so if your copy does not have the word 'Masterworks' on it, please go right ahead and add a scan of your copy's cover. I've recently bought my own copy, which may or may not be a different printing to yours. I don't have it to hand at the moment but will in a week's time, so I'll see if my printing has the same cover error. This wouldn't be the first time Gollancz have done this: the current Masterworks (II) edition of Delany's Babel-17 also has no 'Masterworks' on the cover. Thanks. PeteYoung 22:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Editors with a lot of knowledge about a publisher sometimes can make astonishing deductions from small details that I would not pay any attention to - that's why I wanted to ask you first. Since in this case it just seems to be sloppy work by Gollancz, I will replace your scan with my own as soon as I get around to it. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Blue World

I have added to the pub notes of this pub that you verified, and updated the formatting. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 14:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast

When you get a chance, please participate in this discussion because it affects your verified record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Rogue Moon

I would like to change to page count in this pub that you, Ron and myself have PV'ed. The current page count is "x+175", but I believe it should be "ix+175" because the last page that is actually numbered with a roman numeral is "ix". From the EditPub help: "Pages without numbers that fall between the two types of page numbering can be ignored.". Could you please check if your copy of the book also has "ix" as the last roman numeral?

If you don't mind, I would also like to add a few of my usual pub notes that document where in the book the information in the pub record can be found. Specifically, the pub record should document where the publication month is coming from (I found it on

Thanks for your help, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 15:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The change is fine with me. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Me too. Thanks. PeteYoung 16:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 10:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Child Garden

I have added some notes to this pub that you verified, clarifying where some of the information in the pub record can be found in the actual book.

I also wondered about this pub note: "This printing appeared in 2013, month is undetermined". Do you know the source for this information? Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick. I added that note because the SF Masterworks (II) edition did first appear in 2013. While there is no documented evidence for this on either the Gollancz or Amazon sites, I think it's still worth adding as a note if it helps anyone interested to date the publication even a little more accurately than just "date unknown", as per ISFDB rules. I've added similar notes to many SF Masterworks (II) pubs where the date is undetermined as to the year on their copyright pages, as those publications have appeared. PeteYoung 23:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
And since you have verified the pub record at the end of October 2013, the publication window must be in 2013. I see, good idea. Although I now understand the note, I am not so sure if that's also true for casual readers who do not have the background. Maybe it would be worth to be a bit more explicit? Just my 2 cents. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Osama by Lavie Tidhar

I added notes to this record. Can you confirm that the note about the omission of Part Four in the table of contents is also valid for your copy? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, and thanks for the comprehensive notes. PeteYoung 12:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Journeyman: The Art of Chris Moore

I'd like to change the page count of this pub to 128. According to the help text we only add a number in brackets if there are unnumbered pages before page 1. In this case the first numbered page is 6, and page 1 is the first page of the book. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The brackets around the first two contents should also be removed. It is standard practice to count backward (or forward) from the closest numbered page to get the page number of an unnumbered page. We only use brackets if the contents appear on unnumbered pages before page 1. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed to both, and done. PeteYoung 03:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Big Sky #4

Re this publication: Is the piece on page 152 correctly credited? If so, we'll have to disambiguate it. We have Paul as a pseudonym of Frank R. Paul. If you know the guy's real name, we can create a pseudonym and then variant it to the canonical author's name. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 01:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it is just "Paul" so I'll be disambiguating. All that stuff inc. adding the notes for reviews is my project for the rest of the day or maybe tomorrow. Took me a whole day to completely index Big Sky #3. PeteYoung 02:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wyndham's Outward Urge

You've got a primary verification on this copy of John Wyndham's The Outward Urge, which he wrote as a collaboration with his own pseudonym, Lucas Parks. I believe the other editor is inactive. We've correctly got the collection credited to Wyndham and Parkes. However, the individual stories are credited to Wyndham alone. Per our policies, I believe these stories should be credited to both Wyndham and Parkes and made variant to the titles by Wyndham alone. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've replaced the titles with the already-created Wyndham/Parkes variants, however I have a nagging feeling that perhaps new variants are needed based on the fact that there are no colons in the titles, whereas these variants do have them. There is one title in this publication which would certainly need a colon as a line separator The Emptiness of Space: The Asteroids A.D. 2194 to prevent the title being misread. But if a colon is needed as a line separator for that title then it ought to be good for all the others as its function is the same. Does your Penguin edition actually have those colons for the variants, or not? PeteYoung 02:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no. In all three editions that I have (the 1959 Ballantine and two Penguins), the title pages of the first 4 stories have the date portion of the title appearing on a line below the location portion of the title. There is no colon. The Penguins also have the date in a much smaller font. The Ballantine edition does not include the final story. The Penguin editions have "The Emptiness of Space:" over "The Asteroids A.D. 2194". The reason I added the colon to the other stories, effectively treating the dates as subtitles, is that is how the table of contents of the Penguin editions. The Ballantine doesn't have a table of contents. Treating the date portions as subtitles seems reasonable with the two parts of the title on separate line. Does your edition list the titles on one or two lines? Incidentally, in reviewing the notes from your edition, I've noticed an error with the Penguin editions as they do have the hyphen in Space-Station on the story's title page. I'll go ahead and fix that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement here. I'm happy leaving the colons in as indicators of subtitles; as I pointed out, it would appear odd to have a colon for one title yet omit it for the others. Yes, in my edition the dates are all on separate lines, with the exception of 'The Emptiness of Space', in which the subtitle line is "The Asteroids A.D. 2194"; also 'The Space Station' is only hyphenated on the Contents page, not the title page. Thanks. PeteYoung 09:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


My copy of this book credits the cover art on the back endpaper. If your copy does as well, the note should be amended. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Will be able to check on this next week. Thanks for the heads-up. PeteYoung 10:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

SFX Presents Classic Vampire Tales

You have a primary (transient) verification of this pub. The cover artist is as "Hieronymous Bosch". This is either a misspelling or a typo. The artist's name is "Hieronymus Bosch" (note the missing 'o'). Is it possible to check this? Thanks, --Willem H. 20:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the book to hand any more, but IIRC the cover art is uncredited (yet obviously by Bosch). I'll make the correction and amend the note to reflect the lack of credit. Thanks for spotting this. PeteYoung 12:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Maureen Speller = Maureen Kincaid Speller

When a name is made into a pseudonym, all of the titles under that name should be varianted as soon as possible to avoid showing up on the clean-up report that finds such titles. When you get a chance, the 38 titles under this name should be varianted to new parent records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well. I was interrupted by having to take my kid to hospital. PeteYoung 23:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Hope everything turned out well. Mhhutchins 01:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Downbelow Station

Replaced the Amazon image for this pub that you verified with an ISFDB cover scan. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The World Treasury of Science Fiction

Regarding your verified The World Treasury of Science Fiction:

  • Page 328: Does the title have the leading "The" or is it "Tale of the Computer that Fought a Dragon"?
  • Page 782: Is title page credit actually 'Brian Aldiss' instead of 'Brian W. Aldiss'?

The tp requires these changes and I want to double check the hc's. If you confirm these changes are needed in your version as well, I will change the pubs together. If not, I will make the proper variants. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's going to be early January before I can look at this one, as it's in the half of my collection that's currently 7,000 miles away. Thank you in advance for your patience! PeteYoung 13:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I have made the changes in the tp version. If you find your hc versions needs the same changes, then import records 874679 & 493181 and then remove the existing two records. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki pages for magazines

The need to create and update wiki pages for magazines and fanzines was deemed unnecessary by the creation of the magazine grid function. It was felt that the wiki should not be used for data, thus moving as much as possible to the database proper, once those functions had been added to the database. (This also included the creation of publication series, the magazine and award directories, and the addition of note fields to series summary pages and publisher pages.) The wiki remains only as an adjunct to the ISFDB for communication among editors and for the help documentation. There is nothing on this wiki page that isn't better handled on this database page. There is nothing preventing an editor from putting forth the effort of updating wiki magazine pages, as long as they're aware that the work only duplicates what is already part of the database itself. That decision is left up to the editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

How long ago did this discussion of it being deemed unnecessary take place? I recall a couple of years ago Darrah was looking to establish a template for information on the Wiki pages for magazines/fanzines (e.g.), and the magazine grid function has been around a lot longer than that (I don't know how that discussion was concluded). PeteYoung 09:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
There was no explicit discussion that the wiki magazine pages should be removed or even abandoned. There was plenty of discussions about the need to integrate valuable information that was only available on the wiki (like the magazine pages) into the database itself. That generated the feature requests and eventual changes in the software to allow such data to be entered into the database. I simply assumed that once these features were fully functional, there would be no need to continue to update the wiki pages. What purpose would there be in having duplicate data? Mhhutchins 17:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I know of several users who appreciate our Wiki listings for magazines/fanzines and actually prefer to approach the database from that side. Last month I was having a discussion with writer/editor René Beaulieu who finds the ISFDB Wiki pages for magazines and fanzines to be very useful for research – of course, he uses the proper database as well to get the information he wants, but he likes the access format provided by the Wiki. There must be many other database users who would like to see the Wiki pages filled out and not left in a state of partial neglect as they currently are. PeteYoung 09:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
There could be users who started using the wiki pages and remained with them. Any newcomer to the ISFDB would have no idea that magazine pages on the wiki even exist. For example, how would a new user wanting information about SF Commentary know about the wiki page, and why would they want to know when the data is readily available and more easily accessible on the database itself? The database magazine data is not linked to the wiki magazine data. Mhhutchins 17:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I can understand why it might make more sense to use the database only and I'm personally inclined to agree with that, but then the likes of us use the database every day. I'm OK with adding to the Wiki listings for those people who like them, as it takes comparatively little work. Besides, the current presentation of the database grid pages is often visually less clear or appealing and provides no sense of the time elapsed if there are intervening years between consecutive issues: compare the presentation of SF Commentary's database grid with its easier-to-understand Wiki grid. PeteYoung 09:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should work on fixing those problems that you perceive in the visual display of the database grid? I would personally say that there is essentially no difference in your examples comparing the wiki and database magazine pages for SF Commentary. I would also add, and emphasize again, that there is nothing to prevents an editor from updating the wiki pages. The purpose of my post was to bring something to your attention that you may not have been aware of. Since you are obviously aware of the duplication of data, then the point of the discussion is moot. Mhhutchins 17:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
What do other editors think? Do other editors and users find it a useful additional way to present the information, or is it a waste of time and/or Wiki space? And are there statistics available for the use of the Wiki pages for magazines/fanzines? PeteYoung 09:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm unable to answer those questions as there are no publicly available statistics to show such use. Perhaps a post on one of the community pages would get a better response. Mhhutchins 17:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I never use the wiki side for magazines, I even confess to have never entering anything into it although I've created whole runs of magazines (french and others). IMHO to have a dual place for the same information is not a good idea. Hauck 10:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule, trying to maintain the same data in two different places is likely to cause the two datasets to diverge at some point. That's why the current plan is to migrate all Wiki-based Bio and Biblio pages to the database once the software has been upgraded to support the functionality. Similarly, certain Wiki-based magazine pages may be using Wiki features that we could profitably replicate on the database side if we could isolate them. Ahasuerus 18:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
As Pete says, a couple of years ago I put in some effort to create a template suggestion for "header information" about fanzines (and magazines, although my emphasis was on fanzines), and I converted several dozen of the fanzine wiki pages to that format, e.g. Janus. I thought it was a useful idea, and I was disappointed that it was then made essentially irrelevant by the change to a total emphasis on the grid view / issue view. I agree that the grid view / issue view was the right way to go, but I wish more had been done with formatted header data for magazines. The comment was made then that "once we add a "Notes" field to Series records, we should be able to migrate many/most of these pages to the database proper." Unfortunately, that conversion was not a "copy and paste" thing, but involved a bunch of format conversions as well, and I was a bit depressed over what had been, apparently, a large waste of effort on my part, so I didn't take on the task of that migration. For comparison purposes, I did migrate the Janus data to the Janus series bibliography. I don't think it's reasonable to try to maintain data about magazines in two different places: It guarantees that one of them will be out-of-date. (Or non-existent.) I no longer do any work on the fanzine wiki pages, and I was possibly the last editor to spend a lot of editing time there.
I agree with Pete that the non-inclusion of "years of no publication" doesn't show the story of the journal as well as the format for the Wiki pages did, and this is especially a problem with fanzines. Since the Series display is using existing display code intended for books and stories, I guess I should just resign myself to the fact that it can't be expected to store "structured" data specific to magazines, and go back to migrating it by hand. Chavey 02:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Trilogy of Death

This record shows up on a cleanup report because it doesn't have content titles. But because James is not a spec-fic author above the threshold, we shouldn't include publication records for her non-genre titles. You should use the ESSAY type to enter any reviews of such works (as documented here under the "Reviews" subsection). Thanks. Mhhutchins 08:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)