User talk:Rob Crausaz

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Rob Crausaz, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MHHutchins 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Outer Reaches & Worlds of Tommorow

Two submissions adding sub-titles. Are these on the title page, cover...? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated, but a third submission adding another printing to '55 for Best SF. There are already two for that year (though one shows the binding as 'tp' which for '55 would be pretty rare). Is the copyright page of the '69 specific that the '55 reprint was a hardcover? Also, if you don't know the price, just leave the field blank. Don't put in 'unknown'. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill! Yes, these subtitles were on the title page (if they'd been on the cover I would be afraid that it might be the artist's interpretation and not the actual subtitle). Be glad to send you a scan if you'd like. As for the Best SF, as soon as I entered that (when, as far as I know, it's too late to retract) I realized that I actually didn't know anything about the reprints before 1969 because I haven't seen them. (They're probably the same but I don't really know--as you said the 1955 second printing could've been referring to that trade paperback edition.) If I could go back in time I would only enter the 1969 reprint (which is a hardback and has the same pagination as the 1955 hardback) and put the same note in the note box (that way the other reprints would be on record). From now on I'll only enter things I have in hand. As for leaving fields blank, I figured that out when I saw my edits had been incorporated and the year field was blank. Then I knew that that's what I should have done (and did on subsequent edits). Thanks for letting me know though! Also, the library edition of Best SF that I currently have still has its original cover (protected in plastic, of course) so I could scan that if you tell me the maximum size the file can be. Thanks so much for keeping a watchful eye :-) Rob --Rob Crausaz 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If you realize you have made an error on a submission, you can 'retract' it by clicking on your "My Pending Edits" and if it hasn't been accepted then you can reject it yourself. As for the reprints, there's nothing wrong with what we call "stub" records. With the note about the source, they are fine until someone actually has the book and can flesh out the record. Leaving fields blank is better than guessing! Scans should be no larger than 150kb, which isn't much. Largest dimension around 600. That one can float a little. If the software gives you a warning about the size [dimension-wise] you can ignore it. It's more important to try and keep the file size down. I do scans at higher resolution and then re-size them. Detail is much better that way. Give it a shot! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bill, I totally agree with your thoughts about stub records. You record what info. you have and let someone who has the book fill in the details later. What I used was the "clone this pub" function so it was more subtle than filling in blank fields (that would've raised red flags immediately). I only changed the year and wrote my own notes (both of which were correct per the book I had). It was a few minutes later that it dawned on me that the reprints I didn't have may not have been exact clones (though my 1969 reprint was a clone of the 1955 1st edition with respect to it being a hc, the stories were all the same and the page numbering was the same--that lulled me into extrapolating about the other reprints). It won't happen again with me. So, what exactly do you do to re-size the higher res. scan? Rob--Rob Crausaz 22:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I cheat!! Scan, then import the scan into my photo program, then I pretend to e-mail it, where I can choose a smaller size physically and which also reduces the file size, then just paste that into my documents [I have scans of all my books]. Upload from there. There is likely an easier way, I just haven't found it yet....~Bill, --Bluesman 23:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bill, Well, I did scan the cover of Best SF at the lowest res. my scanner has. The scan looks rather nice but comes out to 233KB. Would you like to perform your magic on it? If so, I'll email it to you. Rob--Rob Crausaz 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Does your scanner allow you to adjust the compression ratio? Mine can do from 1-100 so even a MB pic can be compressed to under that magic 150. If not send it along and I'll see what I can do. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Travellers of Space

I accepted the submission updating this pub, but have a few questions.

  1. Is the title on the title page Travelers of Space (one "l", like the cover) or Travellers of Space (two "l"s, as in this record)?
  2. Is the title of Greenberg's foreword "Foreward"?
  3. Does the section with illustrations by Cartier have a title? According to Tuck, it's titled "Life on Other Worlds".
  4. Is the story on page 93 "Christmas Tree" credited to "C. S. Youd" (according to Tuck) or "Christopher Youd" (according to this record)?

Also, we need to disambiguate the foreword and preface to distinguish them from other such common titles. We add the title of the publication in parentheses to the title, e. g. "Preface (Travellers of Space)". Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1.) I thought of that very issue myself (did I see 2 ls in the title?) just after I updated. The title page has only one "l" so I'm going in and changing that.
2.) Greenberg's foreword is "Foreword" not "Foreward" (my apologies---I'll go back in and change that too and do the disabiguation).
3.) Interesting question. On the "Contents" page it is titled "Life on Other Worlds" but inside the book there's no title which is why I left it out. What's the policy in a case like that? I'm going to leave that one until I hear back from you.
4.) Looking at page 93 I see the story credit is the same as it is in the contents, "Christopher Youd."
Interestingly, I have the 1st edition blue cover that's referred to in the notes.
Rob --Rob Crausaz 00:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses and the fixes. As for #3 question, 99.99% of the time, the title of the piece as it is given on its first page would be the one entered into the database. In this case, because the piece is not titled, it would be OK to use the title given on the contents page. Then record the circumstances in the note field of the piece's title record. If you wish you can also make a note in the pub record as well. Thanks for your contributions. Mhhutchins 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. I really appreciated your comments and did as you suggested. I also added a note about the preface in the note field. The illustrations found on pages 33-48 technically run 16 pages (just as illustrations found on pages 1-3 would be 3 pages long, not 2) so I added that to the note field as well. Rob--Rob Crausaz 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Link

I asked Ahasuerus about the link problem [here]. Did you do something in your 'preferences'? ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill! I answered on the page where the discussion occurred so just click your own link above. Looks like something isn't working correctly. Rob --Rob 01:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Travelers in Space

Accepted your edit to [this] but 'adjusted' the two changes in the contents. Everything that's put in those lines becomes the title of the story/essay/whatever. Appending notes IN the contents is not necessary or wanted. Your notes were fine and made the points. An aside, regarding notes: if you want there to be breaks between notes you have to type one in. A simple carriage return/return on the keyboard does nothing. The breaks will still show up on an edit page, but not in the record display. I added the breaks where you had intended them. Open the record and have a look. The simplest break is accomplished with the HTML code <br> but there are other ways to do it. I learned by opening up records and looking at how other editors got certain effects. Some are easy, some not. Links are difficult and shouldn't be attempted until you get better with HTML. You can practice on this kind of edit page because you can use "Show Preview" to see how things will look. Unfortunately that's not an option for editing pubs [yet]. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Bill. I didn't realize there should be no notes in the contents. I'll remember not to do that. Thanks for removing them. I wondered why those spaces in the notes didn't show up (it would be nice if it was as easy as a simply hitting enter--but I guess that's not to be, for now). Rob--Rob Crausaz 01:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Night in Funland And Other Stories from Literary Cavalcade

I approved the addition of the 5th printing of Night in Funland And Other Stories from Literary Cavalcade and made two changes. First, I added "#" to the catalog ID, which is needed to distinguish catalog IDs from ISBNs. Second, I used the "Import Content" option (under "Editing Tools") to import the contents of the 1968 edition of this anthology.

However, there is an easier way to accomplish the same thing when create a new Publication record for an existing Title. Instead of using "Add Publication to This Title", you can display a pre-existing publication record which already has Content level data and click on "Clone This Pub". You can then adjust publication level data, but the Content data will be grayed out and not editable (although you will be able to add new Titles, e.g. a new introduction.) Thanks for editing! Ahasuerus 18:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your help! The contents (and page numbers of those contents) are exactly the same as the first edition (I checked yesterday) so what you did was perfect. It seems that someone else mentioned "Clone this pub" before and I completely forgot about it. This extra reminder should do the trick. I'm also glad you told me about the # symbol being used to differentiate Catalog ID's from ISBNs. Thanks again. Rob--Rob 22:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Fawcett

[FYI] --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A Wilderness of Stars

Approved your update to my verified pub. I also fixed the odd page count.--swfritter 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A Glass of Stars

Hi. A approved your modifications to A Glass of Stars, but your note says "The Pyramid Project" is incorrectly listed in the TOC as starting on p. 203, yet then you used 203 for its page number in the contents. I'm thinking one of these two 203s should probably be something else? Also, the <i> tags in the notes had problems (tried to close using <i> instead of </i>, causing everything to be in italics from the first spot on). -- I fixed those. --MartyD 15:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I thought I'd answer your follow-up questions here to keep the discussion about this pub all in one place. (If someone posts a note on your talk page, you can answer in place -- protocol is for people to watch for responses on the pages where they've posted notes). Your questions/comments:
I didn't think they had ISBN numbers back in 1968 but on the copyright page I found something called "SBN" which matched the ISBN-10 that someone had listed (except they'd added a "0-" at the beginning which I think is the international code for USA). This, along with the page count, price, etc. all matching, led me to believe that I was holding the same book, not another printing. My concern now is where did the intro. by Avram Davidson come from? [[1]] It's not in this book.
Here are some answers:
  1. SBNs are sort of an ISBN precursor and are compatible with ISBNs by adding the leading zero. In cases like this, we add the leading zero to make an ISBN and add a note in the Notes section citing the exact SBN presented by the pub (and usually its physical location: spine / cover / copyright page). See Help:Screen:EditPub#ISBN. So what's in the database is ok and matches your publication, but you should adjust the notes.
  2. Since there is no primary verifier and all of the other fields match, you get the final say on the contents if you have the physical book. It looks to me like the Davidson "Introduction" comes from Contento, which (a) certainly could be wrong and (b) looks suspicious since those are usually listed in the order of appearance, and it would be very odd for an introduction to be the last work in the book. Contento is a "secondary" source, while the real book is the "primary" source and takes precedence.
I suggest you remove the Davidson "Introduction" from the publication (if you're sure it's not in the book, perhaps at the back) and change the notes to say "Contento lists an 'Introduction' by Avram Davidson that is not in the primary verification copy" (assuming you're going to make yourself primary verifier). That will cover the bases. Once the removal is complete, that title can be deleted, too, as it will be orphan. (A moderator handling the submission might realize to do it for you, but you can check). How does that sound? If you need any help, just ask. --MartyD 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply Marty. So when you suggest adjusting the notes regarding the ISBN, should I just delete my comment about the ISBN? Regarding the introduction by Davidson, it definitely does not exist anywhere in the book (neither in the front nor in the back). How does one delete a title from the contents (perhaps this is obvious when you're on the editing page but I thought I'd ask just in case it wasn't)? Also, is there a way to designate myself the primary verifier (beyond stating so in the notes)? I'm currently reading the book (I'd originally paged through it to make sure that the pages the stories began on actually matched the pages listed in the TOC) and during my reading have discovered more stories that have subtitles which I'll also list in the notes. Thanks for everything! Rob --Rob 16:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I think you should do:
  1. Add a note stating essentially what you said on my talk page: The ISBN is derived from SBN 911676-02-3 (or whatever it is) listed on the copyright page.
  2. When you go to view the pub (i.e., click on the link above), you'll see two things in Editing Tools at the left:
    • Remove Titles From This Pub -- click on this and check the box for the Davidson introduction and submit. You can't do any harm with this, as a moderator will review it before it takes effect.
    • Verify This Pub -- click on this and you can make yourself Primary verifier (this happens right away -- no moderator involvment). If there's already a Primary verifier, you can take the next available "Primary2", etc., slot that is open. By marking yourself a verifier, you are saying you have the book and are willing to answer (bibliographic) questions about it. The "Primary Transient" is used for someone who has come across the book but won't have it available in the future and so can't really answer questions about it; it is still useful for the community to know that someone reviewed the database record against a physical copy of the book. You are under no obligation to make yourself any kind of verifier if you don't want to.
If you give these things a try and find you need help, let me know. --MartyD 17:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Marty, I'm checking one more doubtful lead about the Davidson intro. before I update. Appearing on an unnumbered page after the Leiber intro. & just before the first story in the book is an introductory paragraph that can be read on this website [2] immediately following the TOC. The story it precedes [[3]] in the original book first appeared in Amazing in Oct. 1962 so I wrote the primary verifier of that issue to see if that same paragraph appeared as a preface to the original story. It's obviously not an essay, but I'm just making absolutely sure it isn't by Davidson. Then again, it may have been written by Young himself for this book. Rob--Rob 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for putting in the investigative effort. --MartyD 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Shadow Castle

I accepted the submission adding the month of publication of this pub record. Do you have a copy in hand? If so, please consider doing a primary verification of the record. If not, you should give the source for the date in the record's note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a copy that I just purchased so I will put myself as the primary verifier. --Rob 11:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Artist credits

Hey, Rob! Long time! The artist field in a pub record is for the cover artist[s] only. If there is interior art it goes in the contents. In the case of [Invasion Earth] the first printing already had the content for the interior art so I imported [we have that handy little Import/Export Contents as an editing tool] that to your 4th printing. That way there is no merging involved. Up to you if you still want to add a note. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey back at you, Bill! Good to hear from you. I didn't realize that about the illustrations (which is why I put that in the notes so whoever checked this would know). I keep learning all the time thanks to people like you. Appreciate your help! Rob --Rob 18:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Last Book in the Universe

Entered the interview, using the data in the note. Not sure why it wouldn't enter for you. Did you enter an Interviewer? The notes were ambiguous as to that person. If none was entered the submission won't 'take'. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill, No I don't know for certain who the interviewer was as it's not really specified in the book. Thanks so much for getting the data entered! Rob--Rob 00:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Best Science-Fiction Stories: 1951

What is the source for the month of publication of this pub? Is it stated in the book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it reads: "FIRST PRINTING AUGUST 1951" at the bottom of the copyright page. I found a copy of this book at a library which is about an hour's drive from where we live. (We can order books from this library to be delivered to our local one, but, because this book was cataloged incorrectly, I didn't know they owned a copy until I actually browsed the shelves). It's a rebound copy so, while I have it on loan, I have everything but the original binding (and, of course, in those days they didn't preserve the dust jackets). Rob --Rob 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


To verify a pub, whether as Primary 1-5 or Transient, just click on "Verify This Pub" from the publication's page and click the appropriate spot on the line you want. The default is "Not Verified" then "Verified" and lastly "N/A". Pick "Verified" for the line you want [Transient] and submit. Verifications do not require Moderator approval. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill. I'd only done this a couple of times (both times it was primary only) and when I tried to recall, I couldn't remember if you could choose whichever verification you wanted. Asking can be easier than experimenting. :-) So thanks! Rob--Rob 02:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Omitting/Deleting dates

Hi. I accepted your new Downsiders and removed the date per your note. You can't omit/delete a date, but we use the date 0000-00-00 to mean no date. Most of the summaries will render this as "unknown". --MartyD 02:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that helps much for next time. Thanks! Rob--Rob 03:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


"Jacket—M. Shelton." Without seeing the jacket, I can't comment on which it might be. If the jacket is graphics only, then likely design. I'd place the name in the field anyway, and put "Jacket—M. Shelton." in the notes just like that, maybe add "not specified if art or design". --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill! Oh, 2 questions... I've scanned the cover of the book and downsized the file size to 43 KB (so it's small enough to be uploaded). Unfortunately, it appears my pixels may be over 600 in one direction (maybe that's why I'm getting an "error creating thumbnail" message) and I'm not sure how to reduce the file size down any further. Also, what's the command for creating a space in the notes (I'd like to create a space before each new story title I added (along with its subtitles) in the notes. Thanks again for your help!--Rob 16:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
You can still use the image if you want, the 600 limit is just a warning and I think you can choose to view larger via User preferences if you want. We basically just want to keep images down to fair-use size and not overload our bandwidth too much. BLongley 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
As for spaces in notes - just add a space. But did you mean a new line or new paragraph for each title? If so a <br> after each section will break things up fairly nicely. BLongley 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I found where to change my preference (under the file tab) and it seemed to work this time. However, I don't see the scan appearing in the entry yet. Does that have to be approved by a moderator too? (It's no problem if it does--that just means I'll have to check back). I tried putting spaces in the notes section when "editing this pub." Hopefully, it's that easy (so many things need commands). Thanks for your prompt assistance! Oh, I almost forgot--Alan Grant (born 1949) could not have written a poem for the Feb. 1941 issue of "Unknown" (see the very bottom of his entry)[[4]], unless he's actually 25+ years older. If the year of birth is correct (and I'm assuming it is), there needs to be another entry for the other Alan Grant who was alive in 1941, but I'm not sure how to do this diambiguation. --Rob 19:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Rob, I don't see a submission adding the cover image to the pub. Uploads are not moderated, but now you need to add a link to that uploaded image to the publication record (the interface sort of presents this as if it were one integrated operation, but it is not -- the Wiki, where the this talk page and image you uploaded live, and the database (all those screens of title/publication/author data) are two cooperating but separate things. If you now view the page for your upload, right-click on the image itself or on the link that appears below it, copy the shortcut, then go to the pub, edit it, and paste the link you copied. That will then need to be moderated, as would any other edit. I hope that helps. Just ask if you're having trouble with it. --MartyD 23:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Marty! Your suggestion worked and the cover is now hosted on ISFDB under the title. Any ideas about Alan Grant (see my previous message), or, do you know anyone who would know how to do this? Also, what's the command for putting a space between lines in the "notes" section of editing a pub.? Thanks for your help! (I didn't realize I also had to put the actual address in the "image" box.)--Rob 12:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The way to get line breaks is to insert HTML: <BR> (a "break"). Another thing one can do to format the notes is to use HTML unnumbered lists:
  <li>This is the first note</li>
  <li>This is the second note</li>
  <li>This is the third note, and it is very
long and wraps around several lines in the
window while it is being entered</li>
  <li>This is the fourth note</li>
which will give you something that looks like:
  • This is the first note
  • This is the second note
  • This is the third note, and it is very long and wraps around several lines in the window while it is being entered
  • This is the fourth note
You just have to be a little careful when entering HTML tags because the fixed parts of the display likewise use HTML tags, and mistakes in yours can mess up the display. But use of breaks, lists, and anchors in the notes are pretty common practices.
For the Alan Grant situation, I suggest changing the 1941 credit to be "Alan Grant (poet)", unless you can find some better information about him. --MartyD 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, Marty! I am familiar with the "li" command, but I'd like to add a physical space. How does one insert HTML (I assume it involves more than just typing the characters)? I tried looking through notes on other book entries on ISFDB, but didn't know which note entry would have a space in it. (My search was not fruitful :-) --Rob 01:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It really is as simple as "just typing the characters". Give it a try - I'd suggest starting with use of <BR> first and when you see how that looks consider moving on to lists. You'd really have to stretch yourself to do anything dangerous. BLongley 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about "which note entry would have a space in it" - almost all do. What kind of "space" are you referring to if it's not the one between words? BLongley 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Glad you asked, because once I'm clear, the answer will probably be obvious to most of you. I mean a "space" between lines. So you have a line of text, a full blank line with no text, then a line of text. This is most commonly seen when instead of indenting the first word of a paragraph in a personal letter, the author leaves a full blank line ("space") between paragraphs. In fact, I'm just noticing that you left a blank line between your message here and the previous one (and I did the same thing between yours and mine--unfortunately putting a blank line when editing notes does nothing).--Rob 13:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's simple then. Just use two breaks - i.e. <BR><BR>. Each will start a new line and as there's nothing between the breaks that will be a blank line. BLongley 15:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! I thank you so much!! (And, I learned something else by seeing how you prevented that from happening in your posting.) Thanks again!!--Rob 19:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Complete Books of Charles Fort

There's a few problems with the submission to add a pub of this title, but I'm going to accept it, and make the necessary changes. First, Charles Fort would be credited as the author. Even if Damon Knight were the editor of the collection (I don't think he was), he would not be credited as the author. (Only editors of magazines and anthologies are given author credit for ISFDB records.) I'll also have to remove the info in the note field as it's repetitive and too subjective. (There's a content record for Knight's introduction so there's no need to record that data in the note field.) One question: if I decide to keep the content record for the index (which is typically not included in ISFDB records) why is it credited to Henry Schlanger? Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to keep the record for the index as it appears to be a reprint of the index to the 1941 omnibus, and was specially commissioned by the Fortean Society for that edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course Charles Fort would be credited as the author. My humble apologies, as I'm not sure what I was thinking that moment. Agreed on the removal of the notes. Thanks for keeping the record of the index, normally I'd never submit it, but this did seem "special." The reason I credited it to Schlanger was that it actually says on the first page of the index "Prepared by Henry Schlanger." And thanks for checking over my submission carefully. I really appreciate it! Rob--Rob 16:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
One more thing, if that index appeared in the original 1941 edition, shouldn't we change the index year to 1941? --Rob 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Your record was the first entry into the database, which automatically dated it the same as the book (1974). When I cloned it for the 1941 edition, I should have re-dated it, which I'll do now. Thanks for discovering this error. Mhhutchins 16:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Rob 20:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes for The Gnomobile

I rewrote the note you added to this record to make it less personal. (From "the copy I own" to "the primary-verified copy".) When you get a chance you should add a content record for the interior art work. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That your change was a good idea was so blatantly obvious (once you pointed it out), I can't believe I didn't think of it myself. But, since I didn't, THANKS! Your careful attention to my submissions is ALWAYS appreciated. Mmmm, I rarely add brand new books to ISFDB (though, actually, I have another that I need to enter by the prolific anthologizer Martin Harry Greenberg), so I didn't know about adding the interior illustrator to the contents. Thanks for the suggestion. I already went ahead and did it (though it may not be accepted yet). Rob --Rob 19:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Submission to add the interiorart record was accepted, but I changed the date to 1962. According to OCLC records, the Bobb-Merrill edition was the first appearance of these illustrations. About the Greenberg anthology: first be sure that the title isn't already in the database under "Martin H. Greenberg" or "Martin Greenberg". Do an advanced search just for the title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I suspected the illustrations were also from 1962 (like the book) but had no proof. Glad you could verify. As for Greenberg...will do, thanks much!--Rob 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Title series vs. Publication series

I've accepted the submission adding this new publication to the db, but removed the data that you entered into the publication series field. "Allan Quatermain" is a title series, not a publication series, and the title was already in the series. Please read this help page that explains the difference. Mhhutchins 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, understood now. My sincere thanks, as always, for keeping a close eye on things. Your services are invaluable! Rob--Rob 23:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tales of Unease

I accepted the submission updating this record, but have made the following changes based on ISFDB standards.

  • Changed the page count field "229 + X" to "[x]+229", based on the note you gave that the pages aren't actually numbered (roman or otherwise.
  • Changed the price from "#4.95" to "$4.95" (assuming it was a typo).

A question: you entered the name of the introduction as "Introduction (Tales of Unease-1969)". This is not the standard way of disambiguating titles. We don't add a second date to the title, because the record is already dated. Do you know if this introduction is different from the one printed in the other editions of this anthology? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure what to do since the pages didn't have Roman numerals printed on them. Yes, the "#" was clearly a typo--good catch. I don't know if the introduction is different (as this is the only version I have--I would tend to think it's the same one, but one never knows). I won't put the year next time when disambiguating.(I'm always learning--and your help is appreciated! I want these records to be as accurate as possible and 2 sets of eyes are better than one.) Thanks. Rob--Rob 23:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response. I'm going to merge the introduction in this record with the 1966 one. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 00:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You're quite welcome! (I just happened to still be here.) The merge sounds good. Rob --Rob 00:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bradbury Chronicles

A few problems with the update to this record. The page count field should not have anything other than the number of pages (it's a fixed length and will cut off all characters after a certain number.) So "384 +18 ( P. S. section)" should be "384+18" (note that there are no spaces around the plus). You can explain the extra pages in the note field. About the change in price: are you certain your copy is a first printing? Please check on the copyright page to see if it doesn't have a number line indicating a later printing. About the added records for the P.S. section: you should only disambiguate generic titles by adding the book's title parenthetically. If a title is distinctive enough, you should not disambiguate it, as it's unnecessary. All of them seem to be pretty unique to me. Also, in the page number field for the P.S. pieces, you should only give numbers in this field. Bracketed numbers are also allowed to indicate a work is from an unnumbered section of the book. Because these pages are actually numbered, we'll have to come up with a way of noting that, and the only way I can think of is to record that fact in the note field. If you can come up with something else, I'm open to suggestions. It's a fixed-length field and will cut off after a certain number. If you wish, I can accept the submission and then you can make changes based on the issues I've brought up here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been about a week and not getting a response, so I've accepted the submission, but first cloned the record to create a copy of the original record. I made the corrections to the record as I suggested above. If your copy turns out to be a first printing with a price of $16.99, you can delete the other record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My humble apologies for the long wait. I checked early on and saw no messages and just haven't been to the site the past 10 days (that's very rare--as I'm almost always looking something up on the site every day or two). I should have intentionally checked the site as I'd made many additions which increases the likelihood of a message being there. Looking down at the bottom on the copyright page of my copy of "The Bradbury Chronicles" I see that this must be the second printing done in 2009 (09 on the far left and 2 on the far right). I guess since my copy's ISBN # matched I assumed it was the same edition. If the P.S. addition was added in my printing wouldn't that change the ISBN #? Probably the original price for the 1st printing was correct and should be changed back to whatever it was. I REALLY appreciate your watchful eyes as I greatly value accuracy (as do you) so I can not thank you enough. Keep up the great work! And, thanks for explaining that the disambiguation is not always necessary as I was under the impression that it was a hard and fast rule regardless of the uniqueness of the title. There are so many little nuances that one needs to learn. Again, so sorry for the long wait--I know you watch over many new entries. Rob --Rob 21:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission for Hubbard's Greed

Sorry, Rob, that it took quite a while to approve of your sub. But there was quite a load of submissions. Plus there was a quite low moderator activity. Plus I personally had to think about accepting or rejecting it (either way it would have some explaining connected). Your sub wasn't in overall bad shape but there's some cleaning-up necessary.

1) You gave the title Greed (Stories from the Golden Age). But if you take a look at this pub you'll see that here 'Stories from the Golden Age' is made into the title of the pub. series. In general, if 'Stories from the Golden Age' isn't mentioned as undertitle on the title page of the book, the title should be only 'Greed' (and if so than it should be 'Greed: Stories from the Golden Age').

2) In the notes you mention three illustrations by Edd Cartier. It'd be fine to include this three works of art, if possible.

3) I'd assume 'Foreward: Stories From Pulp Fiction's Golden Age' is an essay, not a shortfiction? (Note that there's a similarly titled essay in the above mentioned pub.)

4) The standard for ISFDB is to list unknown authors as 'uncredited' (probably the author in this case is the editor but he/she is in fact uncredited and we acknowledge this fact).

5) The right way to pose questions to moderators would be on the Moderator Noticeboard or on the Help Desk and better it'd be to bring those questions up before submitting. Please use this places in the future. This said: yes, Final Enemy is definitely a variant title; and for Beyond all Weapons I don't know. It is possible that it is the 1950 story or the 2012 novel. Doesn't the introduction mention something about it?

Nevertheless, thanks for your informating submissions, which only could be slightly better organized (but that's something we all have gone through, I think). Stonecreek 14:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the content stories are improperly credited to L.Ron Hubbard instead of L. Ron Hubbard. And the title of the story "The Final Enemy (as "Final Enemy)" should be entered as "Final Enemy" and that record should be made into a variant of the record for "The Final Enemy". Mhhutchins 16:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks to both of you for writing. No problem on the wait--it's quite understandable given the circumstances. (I did remember to keep checking my messages.)
1.) Actually, that title was already assigned by someone else (and accepted by another moderator). I thought the title a bit odd, considering that the actual title really is "Greed" but, as I recall, the book title field can't be changed (at least by me).
Not true. Anyone can change the title field of a publication record in any submission to update the record. Choose the "Edit This Pub" function. It's the first field in the form. Mhhutchins 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
2.) These works of art are from different sources (not the original pulp). The copyright page lists all the sources, but doesn't always credit which particular magazine an individual illustration is from. And, how do I submit those? This is something that's not totally clear to me.
Choose the "Edit This Pub" function. Go down under the Content section and click on the "Add Title" button for each of the three works. In the first field enter the page number on which the art is printed. In the title field enter the name of the work which the art illustrates. In the field that defaults to SHORTFICTION, use the drop-down menu and change the type to INTERIORART. The artist's name goes in the Author1 field. Leave the other fields blank. If a record for the original publication exists in the database, it can be merged with the new one, and then dated the same as date as the original publication. Don't worry about that in the submission to update this record. Mhhutchins 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
3.) Definitely! Please accept my apologies and I won't give up trying to catch these things beforehand.
4.) So often I'm not sure what the standard is, but I do wish that I did! It would be most helpful to know.
Here you go: the most important page in the help section. 75% of all you'll ever need to know to update or create an ISFDB record is explained on this one page. Mhhutchins 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
5.) Going to the moderator board first when in doubt would make this an easier process. "Beyond All Weapons" is the short story. I do like making contributions to ISFDB to make this the ultimate SF database of printed material, but feel inadequate at times when there are things I simply do not know (someone suggested hunting in other already accepted submissions for similar types of data--such as an uncredited author--but those are sometimes hard to find and/or unreliable because they're not always consistent).
Oops, sorry about the space not being there in Hubbard's name. (Mhhutchins, --if you don't mind my asking--is your name Ron?)
It's Michael. Mhhutchins 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's much harder for me to catch things like that on the submission screen than it is when it's already submitted. It's weird, but I just don't seem to see them on that submission screen (and I do try!). When my submission is accepted, though, errors are relatively easy to spot I will sometimes find small errors, for example, in my notes, that were missed by the moderator and I'll correct them. Too bad there's not a preview of what my submission would look like but that's probably impossible at this point--I do catch many things when I preview these messages. Thanks for catching it and I assure you that I never intend to create all that extra work for any of you! Thanks again for your patience!! Rob --Rob 01:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It would be nice to have a preview page before finalizing the submission. You can bring that up on the community portal. If you'll go ahead and make the changes to the Hubbard pub record, I'll accept the submission. Mhhutchins 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"M" for "Michael" makes sense. (Ron must be another moderator I see a lot of.) So, Michael, I've made the easiest changes and will go back and finish the others (along with this response) later. Rob --Rob 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Submission accepted. Everything looked good. I disambiguated the "Glossary" and changed the name of the story to "Final Enemy". Thanks. (BTW, there are two "Ron" moderators: Rtrace and Rkihara.) Mhhutchins 15:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Michael, I submitted the interior artwork for "The Automagic Horse" (BTW, your instructions were crystal clear--Thanks!!). I was concerned at first that it was not the original artwork for this story, but I went to the issue of Astounding SF the story first appeared in and Cartier did draw 3 illustrations for that story. (ASF is one of the magazines the book culled illustrations from). I do see an issue in the database, however. Now, when one searches for "Greed" it is listed as shortfiction by L. Ron Hubbard in 2 separate entries. One in the book "Greed" and the other in ASF. "Greed," as a shortfiction story by L. Ron Hubbard, should only appear once in the search results (it's the same story) and under it should be 2 publications ASF and this book. Do you know how to correct that? BTW, the Ron I was thinking of was "Ron Trace." Thanks! Rob--Rob 16:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

[unindent] The reason there are two records for Hubbard's "Greed" is because the record you created when you updated this publication has not been merged with the title record that was already in the database. This is not an automatic process. The records must be merged manually. Here are the instructions to merge title records. A quick tutorial:

  1. Go to the author's summary page here.
  2. Under the Editing Tools menu on the left side there is a link to "Check for Duplicate Titles". Click on it.
  3. On the next page for the matching of the two records for "Greed". Check the two boxes and then click on "Merge Selected Records".
  4. On the next page you may have to reconcile any differences between the two records. In this case there are no differences, so just click "Complete Merge".

When a moderator accepts the submission, there will only be one record for the story. You're going to have to do the same thing with "The Automagic Horse". One more thing, I accepted the submission adding the three Cartier stories to the record, but had to disambiguate them because there were identical. We do this by adding a number in squared brackets to each one after the first one. Look at the record to see what I've done. Mhhutchins 21:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Another question: why does the note say the three illustrations are of "Final Enemy", but they were illustrations of "The Automagic Horse"? Mhhutchins 21:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No idea! That's been corrected (thanks). Why is there no bracketed number for the first interior art? How did you gray out the interior art boxes? Have to rush off so I'll do the merging later. --Rob 01:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Michael,
Here's the rest of my answer (I want to address all unaddressed items): In response to your answer to point 1.)--I was thinking of being unable to change the title in the "yellow container" which "can't be edited on this page." However, someone else (thankfully) updated that once I submitted the title change at the top.
In response to your answer to point 4.) I'll begin going to that help page first to see if my particular question is answered there.
In point 5.) you suggested that I submit my idea of a preview of submissions to the moderator board. I just did a few minutes ago. Thanks for the suggestion. You also wrote that you diambiguated the "Glossary" and changed the name of the story to "Final Enemy." I thank you for both.
In response to your [unindent] answer: I did merge the 2 records (which were exactly the same) and I see that it's already been accepted. I also found your short version of instructions (thanks for those too!) completely sufficient (which led me to ponder why there aren't short and longer detailed versions of "help").
My best,
--Rob 18:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
About the "yellowed" record: that is the title record (aka "title reference"} which ties this publication record with all other publications of the same title. It's been blocked ("yellowed") to prevent users from making changes to it during a publication update. Changes in that title record will affect every publication record tied to it, so it's best to make such changes on a title record level. That's how I was able to correct it. To get to a title record, click on the "Title Reference" link on any publication record (other than a magazine record). You can edit it by clicking on the "Edit Title Data" link. But be careful: remember you're changing how this title looks in every publication it appears.
About the "grayed" content records: these are content records which are not unique to this one publication. In other words, they are also included in other publication records. So they've been "grayed" to prevent a user from changing them during a publication update. These reason why those particular contents were grayed are because I had merged them with the records that were already in the database for other publications of the titles. An editable content record means that this is the only publication in which the title appears.
About the numbering of multiple illustrations for one work of fiction: frankly, I don't know why we don't number the first work. It's probably because at one point in the ISFDB's history, editors were asked to only create one record for all the illustrations (still makes sense to me). Someone felt we should create records for all illustrations, and because there were so many publications in which there was only one illustration record per story record, they added the disambiguating bracketed numbers to the subsequent illustrations, without having to correct the first one which was already in the db. Now that's my assumption. There may be other reasons, but the persons who came up with the scheme aren't around much. Mhhutchins 20:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Metal Monster

Re: The Metal Monster
Adding cover image scanned from personal collection.--Astromath 19:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks great! Rob--Rob 03:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Marion Zimmer Bradley's Thendara House

Replaced the Amazon image of Marion Zimmer Bradley's Thendara House with one I scanned. You are listed as Primary4 reference. Doug 03:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug!--Rob 11:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Review in Realms of Fantasy, December 2000

Can you check this issue and provide further information about the review of Damned If You Do by Steve Aylett, Jeff Noon and Will Self? I want to add a record of the publication to the database and can find nothing about it on the internet. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 05:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's on page 20 of this issue and it's rather bizarre because it reads: "Damned If You Do, by Steve Aylett, Jeff Noon, and Will Self, Picador, 302 pages, trade, $13.00." So far so good. Then it continues: "A trio of British writers--Steve Aylett, Jeff Noon, and Will Self--have over the past few years been burning up the pages of fantastic literature, producing postmodern remixes of many old tropes and themes. Now you can add a fourth name to that radical posse: Gordon Houghton, whose Damned if You Do, his American debut,..." From this I surmise that the first line which lists Aylett, Noon and Self as the authors is a typo and this is actually the book written by Gordon Houghton which is already in the database. Hope that helps. If you need any more info. about this just let me know!--Rob 02:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding new editions of titles

When you're adding a record for a publication of a title which is already in the database, do not use the "Add New..." functions found under the Add New Data menu. You must go to the existing title record and use the "Add Publication to This Title" function under the Editing Tools menu. Using the first function creates an entirely new title to the database which has to be merged with the existing one, otherwise there will be two titles for the same work, each having separate publications under it. I've merged the duplicate title record you created for Revolt on Alpha C. Mhhutchins 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Do not use the Amazon ID number in the ISBN / Catalog # field. It is neither. You can add it to the Note field of Kindle-formatted ebooks, but otherwise it shouldn't be part of the record for print books. I've removed it from your submission to add Sleator's The Angry Moon to the database. Mhhutchins 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Angry Moon

This is not a NOVEL. At only 45 pages, it is considered a CHAPTERBOOK, and requires a SHORTFICTION content record. When adding a publication to the database from secondary sources, please first use those that are listed here. The reliability of other sources is questionable. The most accessible source is OCLC/WorldCat, which I have used to complete the data for this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Noted, and thanks!--Rob 00:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"L. Ron Hubbard in the Golden Age of Science Fiction" and "The Stories From the Golden Age"

You had included these essays in your verified publication of "The Professor Was a Thief", using the title "L. Ron Hubbard in the Golden Age of Science Fiction (The Professor Was a Thief)" (and similarly for "Stories"). We use that kind of parenthetical descriptor to distinguish different essays that all have the same title (such as "Introduction"s and repeated columns), but these two essays are repeated exactly as is for all of these Galaxy Press publications, i.e. they are the same essay, so we just merge them all into a single title. That's probably also true for the glossary, but no one's taken the time to verify that, and not everyone enters glossaries as content items. Anyway, I renamed your two essays and merged them into the "collected" titles. (Also, the word "From" in the title is supposed to be "from", uncapitalized.) Chavey 15:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm so glad someone's keeping an eye out for me because accuracy is so important in this database! What you described is a good "rule of thumb" which I didn't fully understand before. Of course, it wasn't until the second book that I strongly suspected (but wasn't positive, due to the length of time between readings) that the two essays were identical. However, the glossaries are different. There are words unique to each glossary that only appear in the stories reprinted in that book (a few words overlapped in the glossaries, but not as many as you'd think) so each glossary should continue to be designated as specific to that book. Best, Rob --Rob 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on the glossary; I think everything is listed now as it should be. One thing that's nice about this database, as compared to (say) WorldCat, is that there are continuing efforts to locate and correct errors that creep in. With enough eyes looking at things, most inconsistencies / errors are eventually corrected (we hope!). Chavey 06:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Yes, I agree that everything seems to be in order regarding these entries. I saw a mention of ISFDB in Locus Magazine a year or two ago and the writer was commenting what a marvelous resource it is. I heartily concur :-) Thanks again for your help! My best, Rob --Rob 02:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the Canadian price to your verified

I added the Canadian price to your verified[5].Don Erikson 18:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Don! Sorry I didn't see this earlier! I hadn't logged in recently (I did today to add a book).

Tonight on the Titanic

Hello, I've approved your submission but had to make some changes to conform to our standards: 1) changed publisher to simply "Random House" and so "A Stepping Stone" is the publication series so I've changed it, 2) what you put in the "PubSeries" and "PubSeriesNum" fields should go at title level of the text contained in the CHAPBOOK (here where you can see that this data is already entered), 3) every CHAPBOOK should contain one and only one SHORTFICTION record, as there were none, I've entered the novella for you (you could have done this via the "Import Content"), 4) I also have to merge the now existing two CHAPBOOKs record (in such case, it would have been quicker for you to use the "Clone This Pub" function at this publication level). The result is here and you can now upload a scan. Please also consider that a ninth printing as stated in the notes is unlikely to have been published in 1999 as the seemingly first printing. Unless you have more precise data (e.g. a date in the book itself), the publication date should perhaps be set to "0000-00-00". Hauck 09:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra work you performed on this submission! Although the year of publication is often on the same line as the number of the printing, that is not the case here. So, the year of publication (which, as you pointed out, is most likely post 1999) needs to be changed to zero. I've already submitted that change. --Rob 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Approved. Hauck 14:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I did make a scan of the cover, but even scanning at the lowest resolution, I still get a file which seems to be too large. This one is 196kb and it's recommended that uploaded files should be no larger than 150kb. Suggestions? --Rob 19:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You can use one of the programs that allows to resize an image (e.g. Irfanview). Hauck 20:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I did upload the cover image for Knight at Dawn which gave me an image page with appropriate fair use statements [[6]]. However, I don't see the cover on the page I uploaded it to [[7]], nor do I see it as a pending edit. --Rob 22:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
It's because it's not an automatic process, after uploading the scan, you've got to enter its URL in the "Image URL" field of the publication, then submit the lot. I've done this for you. Hauck 06:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thank you!--Rob 11:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

SF: Author's Choice 4

Change to the notes of SF: Authors' Choice 4 -- the introductions are up to 4 pages long rather than up to 3. --Vasha 19:43, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

Thanks, Vasha! Corrections are always welcome! --Rob 15:04, 18 July 2017 (EDT)

The Best of Poul Anderson

Hello, I've rejected your submission. IMHO the information that you gave should go at the short story's title level, the more so as these modifications are also present in the first Pocket printing (I've just verified). I've transferred your data at title level. Hauck 12:52, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Hi, I totally agree. For some reason, it didn't seem like I could enter the data at the short story tile level (though I wanted to), so I'm glad you transferred it. And, thanks for checking the first printing! I didn't have access to it. --Rob 21:03, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Worlds Apart: An Anthology of Russian Science Fiction and Fantasy

When you have a moment, could you please check if the title page of your verified An Anthology of Russian Science Fiction and Fantasy says "Science Fiction and Fantasy" or "Fantasy and Science Fiction" as this cover shows? TIA! Ahasuerus 15:58, 20 August 2018 (EDT)

Dark Matter

Added notes and external references to your verified Dark Matter.SFJuggler 12:53, 7 October 2018 (EDT)

Thanks so much! Additional info. ALWAYS appreciated! --Rob 19:36, 11 October 2018 (EDT)


I've amended the notes of this in regards to the three ISBNs by adding those details. --Mavmaramis 10:24, 15 January 2021 (EST)