User talk:Rtrace/Archive14

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cover art for Dr. Futurity / Slavers of Space

Hi Ron, it looks as of the cover credits have somehow been mixed up for this publication. I don't own this pub so I can't validate it personally - but shouldn't the credits be vice-versa, i.e. 'Dr. Futurity' is by Valigursky the the 'Slavers of Space' by Emsh? Cheers, John JLochhas 16:30, 2 January 2021 (EST)

I wasn't the one who added those credits and it took me forever to find the Emsh signature, but you do appear to be correct. I'll swap the credits. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:40, 2 January 2021 (EST)

Midnight Pearls Blue

Please see this submission that would change a title in one of your verified pubs. Should this be accepted or a variant created instead? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (EST)

It's a good edit. You can go ahead and approve. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:59, 10 January 2021 (EST)

Hornbook & Movie

Hello. My "presentation copy" of this with this arrived from the USA today. I've changed the notes field and added additional text taken verbatim from my copy thus: Not separately priced. Available only as a set with The Harlan Ellison Hornbook in a slipcased, limited edition of 776 numbered copies.
Stated first edition "Mirage Press limited edition / October 1990" Gives ISBNs of Letherbound Deluxe and Limited Clothbound editions on copyright page. Notes on publication history on copyright page. Limitation stated on page preceeding title page thus: 776 copies pof this Mirage special set of Harlan Ellison's Movie along with it's companion volume The Harlan Ellison Hornbook have been produced. 26 sets have been signed, bound in full leather, slipcased and lettered A-Z. 750 sets have been signed, bound in cloth and numbered 1-750" below this "Of this numbered edition, this is copy ....". PV2's copy is marked PC [Presentation Copy]. Note I changed the original limitation from 750 to 776 as that's the number the printed text in the book says. Hope all that is satisfactory. --Mavmaramis 08:29, 13 January 2021 (EST)

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, April 1980 Adding a couple of letters from authors in our database, if you have no objection. gzuckier 23:44, 15 January 2021 (EST)

Jack Vance

Added missing series to this as well as normalisinf the series titles to "Writers of the 21st Century Series" as a whole. --Mavmaramis 01:50, 16 January 2021 (EST)

The Fifth Season

Hello, Rtrace.

I inserted the translation to the Portuguese (#819033) but in the summary of the author (#111330) appear like a new novel, not a translation. How to fix it?

How is the right way to put translations? Its a New Novel or Add Publication to This Title or Variant? --Paulotecario 10:02, 22 January 2021 (EST)

It looks correct to me now and I believe that Stonecreek got the records where they needed to be. It is at least a two step process and there are two main ways of doing it. Probably the easiest way to to use the "Add New Novel" tool and and the translation with the translated title and language. It is also a good idea to add the translator in both the title notes and the publication notes using the translator template: "{{Tr|Aline Storto Pereira}}". After that edit has been approved, you'd need to make the title record of the new publication (e.g. this) into a variant of the canonical title (this). This is done by clicking on the "Make This Title a Variant" while on the translated title. You would use Option 1 on the next page and provide the record number of the canonical title (1878015) in the parent # field. That should be all that's needed. You can also do it backwards by using "Add a Variant to This Title" from the parent title, and after that is approved, use "Add Publication to This Title" from the new translated title record. Hope this helps and don't worry. Variants take a bit of getting used to. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:44, 22 January 2021 (EST)
One small advice here: If someone uses "Add a Variant to This Title" and does not submit and have approved a publication to it on the same day the variant creation is approved, the empty variant has a high chance to be deleted overnight - a report flags it and there is no real way (short of looking through the daily approvals) to find out if it is a new one waiting a publication or an old uncleaned one (left over after a deletion or a rename/unmerge) - so these get deleted fairly quickly. So "Add New" -> variant is better than "Add Variant" -> "Add Publication". Annie 18:55, 22 January 2021 (EST)

F. Shroye(r)?

Hi, Ron! I wonder if this author could be the same as this one: both were writers of letters to Weird Tales, around the same time. Thanks for spending a thought (or a second look), Christian Stonecreek 08:13, 4 February 2021 (EST)

Thanks for finding this. I was going to say they were different as the letter by F. Shorye was from Decatur, IL and the 2nd letter by Frederick B. Shroyer was from Ann Arbor, MI. However, the 1st letter by Frederick B. Shroyer was also from Decatur. I'll make the variant for the abbreviated name. Thanks again. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:45, 4 February 2021 (EST)

The Best Science Fiction of the Year: Volume 5

You blessed my addition of the contents to this book. Thanks. The contents only went to one of the editions, the trade paperback that I edited. How does one add them to the HC and ebook? Do I go through the same process for the other two? The Help page "How to clone a publication" is suggestive, but I'm not sure how to apply it. (New editor)

And I see ...

... I haven't yet remembered to sign my name. I think I have it now: Sfmvnterry 17:17, 17 February 2021 (EST)Sfmvnterry

Hi Sfmvnterry and welcome. Getting the contents from the trade paperback edition to the other formats is not particularly difficult, but cloning is not the way to go. The fist step in the process is to get the Publication Record # from the record with the contents. This can either be found in the top right corner, or as part of the URL for the page. In this case, the number is 794324. Then navigate to one of the other printings and look for the Import Content tool. Clicking this will give you two options. Option 1 is what you want which is to import all the contents from one publication to another. Option 2 is for when you want to specify individual title records for import. For option 1 you have checkboxes for including coverart, interior art and page numbers as part of the import. You'll want all three of these to be checked (as they are by default). Enter the record number from the source and click "Import Content". This will take you to an edit screen with all of the contents from the source publication added. You have a chance here to make any adjustments. When you import to the hardcover, you shouldn't need to adjust anything. When you import to the eBook, we don't want page numbers, but we do want things in the proper order. This can be accomplished by prepending a pipe (|) before each page number (e.g. "|1"). For you Roman numbered item, you'll need to change it to Arabic numbers i.e. make "ix" into "|0.9". This will cause the items to sort base on what is on the right side of the pipe, but only displays what is on the left side of the pipe, which in this case is nothing. After you submit these edits and they are approved, everything should be fine. I'll mention one other thing that doesn't apply here. Any title can appear in a publication only once. If your source publication has a title that is already in the destination, it won't import. Please go ahead and give it a try and let me know if you have any questions. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:10, 17 February 2021 (EST)
That works - thanks! Good explanation, just what I needed. (This is the issue, lack of a TOC in this book, that inspired me to get off my butt and get an account. I hope to do a lot more.) Sfmvnterry 22:27, 17 February 2021 (EST)

The Haunted Woman / David Lindsey -- cover check

Could you check your copy of [1] and see if it has the "Slightly higher in Canada" markup next to the price on the top/right front page? Mine doesn't, but the verified record cover does. Thanks. --GlennMcG 01:59, 18 February 2021 (EST)

It does not. I've replaced the Amazon scan, with one of my copy. It does look like my copy was trimmed a little off from the design. Note the solid purple bar at the bottom. If you can do a better scan, please feel free to replace it. Thanks for finding this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:40, 18 February 2021 (EST)
My copy it trimmed the same way. --GlennMcG 15:31, 18 February 2021 (EST)

Bradbury's "Dandelion Wine" a variant of Portuguese?

Hi! Why did you approve of this? This is the second strange variant submitted by the editor that I came across (the other one I already corrected). Could you please revert to the correct varianting? Stonecreek 15:18, 18 February 2021 (EST)

Clearly that was a mistake and easily fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:32, 18 February 2021 (EST)

Rest of the Robots

Hi, just logged in for the first time in a while and I saw your note about Rest of the Robots. I do still have that issue of New Worlds, but it's in a box. If I can dig it out I'll let you know. Sorry about the delay! Mike Christie (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2021 (EST)

Mrs. C. Coleman McGhee or Mrs. C. Coleman McGehee?

Hi, is there a chance that the following two, Mrs. C. Coleman McGhee and Mrs. C. Coleman McGehee, are at least the same person and one likely a typo for the other?--Dirk P Broer 18:44, 3 March 2021 (EST)

Yup. I missed an "e" on one of them. Thanks for finding it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:57, 3 March 2021 (EST)

Black Magic

Please see this submission that impacts your verified pub and let me know how to proceed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2021 (EST)

I don't have a dust jacket for that one, so I can't offer any verification. I probably wouldn't have added a price, myself. It's probably correct, but perhaps we should add a note "Prices assumed from publication series". Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 08:42, 6 March 2021 (EST)
Okay, thanks. I accepted and added a note for explanation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2021 (EST)

Larry Correia's birthday

Hi, you approved a change in the birthday of Correia a few months ago (probably because of Wiki having the wrong date). Another editor discovered more information about the case so the old date was restored and the author note was updated to explain the source. Just heads up :) Annie 21:27, 7 March 2021 (EST)

Larry has stated to me (I know him) that he would prefer to not have his birthday displayed. That's why it's not on his Wikipedia pages. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:42, 8 March 2021 (EST)
You have the permissions - edit the author to remove all the notes we added, clean up the birthday field and add "Birthday withheld by request by the author; please note that the Wikipedia one is not correct as of March 2021" or words to that effect (or just the first part) and add a moderator note that it was in a request to you. See Data Deletion Policy - the last paragraph is about biographical data - and birthdays is one of those. Edit History for authors is Moderators only so that should keep it away as per the author's wishes. If he is comfortable with having just the year, we can do that. Or leave it blank :) Annie 15:03, 8 March 2021 (EST)
Yeah, I wasn't sure if I should just do it since you were talking to Rtrace. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:26, 8 March 2021 (EST)
I caught the update that reversed something he approved so I just posted a FYI to him an the editor that did the original update - we used to have the correct date, then we replaced it - so I was just making sure we do not end up cross editing. :) Annie 16:33, 8 March 2021 (EST)
(after edit conflict)
Our Data Deletion Policy says:
  • If a living author (or their authorized representative) requests that the ISFDB remove the author's detailed biographical information, the ISFDB will comply after confirming the requester's identity. The ISFDB will remove as much biographical data as needed in order to accommodate legitimate privacy concerns while preserving, to the extent possible, the work of the editors who have compiled the data. A note will be added to the author's record explaining what type of information has been removed and why.
Based on the above, we could change the currently displayed birthday to "1975-00-00" and add a note explaining the author's request. However, we would still need to have an official source for the year of his birth being 1975 as opposed to 1977. The only such source that I am currently aware of is this 2012 post, which also lists his birthday.
I can think of two ways to resolve this Catch-22. One way would be to find an official source giving his year (but not the date) of birth. If one is not available, then we could ask the author to add it to his Web page. Alternatively, if he doesn't want even his year of birth to be publicly known, we could remove everything from the "Birtdate" field and add a note about it. Ahasuerus 15:12, 8 March 2021 (EST)
He would prefer no DOB be given. I've updated it now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:26, 8 March 2021 (EST)
The reason for the date not being there should be in the notes as explained above both by me and Ahasuerus (and the rules: "A note will be added to the author's record explaining what type of information has been removed and why."). I added the note: "Birth date withheld per request by the author." Feel free to rewrite it but a note to that effect should always be added when we remove the birth date/other biographical info by request. Annie 16:37, 8 March 2021 (EST)
That's right. It helps avoid circular editing with people adding and removing biographical data over and over in an infinite loop. I think everything looks good now. Ahasuerus 16:38, 8 March 2021 (EST)
Yup, forgot to do that part. Thanks, Annie. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:54, 8 March 2021 (EST)

James Blish's The Quincunx of Time was identified as a novella

Hi, Ron! It happened here. I'm going to change the pub.s and titles accordingly. Christian Stonecreek 01:59, 10 March 2021 (EST)


Should this be McGrath?; [2]. --Username 12:03, 10 March 2021 (EST)

Yes. Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:28, 10 March 2021 (EST)

Stephen Baxter intro(s) to Clarke Golden Age Masterworks

Hi, I've just taken one of these off my TBR pile, and I see it's the same situation as the M. R. Carey/Lensman intros - i.e. the same intro is used in all three books The Sands of Mars, Earthlight, Against the Fall of Night. (I've got all three of them, and have verified it's the same 4 page intro in each.)

You've PVed all three of these pubs, but I trust you've got no objection to me merging the intro records into one, as was done with the Carey/Lensman ones? Given the lack of a common series, a generic title isn't as obvious, but do you think "Introduction (Clarke Golden Age Masterworks)" would be OK?

Thanks ErsatzCulture 14:48, 13 March 2021 (EST)

No objections at all. Please proceed. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:00, 13 March 2021 (EST)
Thanks - I'll pick it up in a day or two when the current backlog in the edit queue has been processed. ErsatzCulture 18:48, 13 March 2021 (EST)

New Editors, formats and external IDs

Hi Ron,

Just a gentle reminder to be a bit more careful when approving the submissions of editors, especially new ones - the pb/tp is not always clear to them and the external IDs need to match the book they are adding (and when they have discrepancies and are listed as sources, comments need to be added). A few examples:

  • As crônicas Marcianas - Amazon BR shows 20.6 cm (which will be tp); the publisher site concurs with 14cm x 21cm and GR has a different date. The editor was on the site for less than 3 weeks at this point :)
  • this one had the wrong language and again the wrong format (I will drop a note to the editor to offer them to switch their default)
  • this one - the format again plus the note read "Data from publisher's website. Data, price and synopsis from publisher's website." :) That should have been cleaned up - no synopsis that second one needs to be Date or the first needs to be dropped.

All above and a few more from the same cluster are now fixed. :) The earlier we catch bad practices and misunderstanding from new editors, the easier it will be to coach them. Thanks! Annie 14:43, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

The Body Shop

You entered The Body Shop using Reginald1, apparently. The date for that pub has come under question (see my discussion page); apparently a scan of the cover was found and shows that the original date of publication was 1973. Could you please check your source to be sure the date is as currently given? Bob 16:13, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

Dark Summer

Hi Ron,

I am trying to untangle the title of this book. It was entered as "A Dark Summer". OCLC and BL have it as "Dark Summer". Locus1 has it as "The Dark Summer". The cover has no articles. The title page cannot be found anywhere. Can you check what Reginald3 thinks about it so we can finish this note (Bill verified there). Thanks! :) Annie 03:05, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Reginald does not have the article and I've updated the note accordingly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:30, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
Thanks! Annie 10:15, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Username's submissions

A quick note re: Username's submissions. He tends to enter his sources in the "Note to Moderator" field as opposed to the regular "Note" field -- see this submission for a recent example. Please remember to move them to the Note field when approving them and don't hesitate to ask him if he forgets to specify the source. He is adding useful information to the database, but many of his submissions would result in Note inconsistencies if approved "as is". Hopefully he will learn over time, but for now his submissions require additional TLC. Ahasuerus 14:32, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

Following up on my earlier message, I have further concerns about some of his recently approved submissions:
I think Username's contributions are valuable in that they flesh out and/or correct our data. Moreover, it looks like the quality of his submissions has been slowly improving as he has become more used to our data entry standards. However, they still need careful review and occasional follow-up, at least for the foreseeable future. Ahasuerus 15:41, 22 March 2021 (EDT)
Well I did think I was being more careful with their submissions, but apparently not careful enough. I've tried to limit myself mostly to approving additions of cover scans with this user, but occasionally I seem to have missed an alteration to the cover artist. I generally don't click through on links when added to records, generally trusting that the submitter was adding the link with good reason. I'll try to do better going forward. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:20, 22 March 2021 (EDT)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 09:24, 23 March 2021 (EDT)

1) Added important note about jacket designer to Makoto. 2) There's a copy of Pocket Books' edition of The Gatherer on Google Books and if you enter 1983 into the search box it says "First Pocket Books printing, September, 1983". I wouldn't enter month if it was just on Amazon. 3) The Dragon's Brood's spine doesn't need enlarging, it clearly says 7/6, and the few other books that pre-date this book by publisher John Long which have a price entered on ISFDB all have the same: 7/6. 4) If you enlarge to 200% then they are perfectly legible. Dalby's site is a mess, including the fact that photos don't actually enlarge properly until you get to a certain %. All page #'s were entered accurately by me. 5) The behind-the-scenes turmoil on The Formula is legendary and documented on many sites. I linked to Wikipedia article mainly because of its complete list of Razzies and Stinkers nominations, not for that "poorly written" part. I've added several articles to my edits about behind-the-scenes troubles on films (see A Name for Evil, for example) so it's nothing new. The info about the film does belong here because the author was also the writer and producer of the film, Steve Shagan, and he was the main source of the behind-the-scenes problems. 6) My submissions have not been "slowly improving", they were good from the beginning. --Username 10:58, 23 March 2021 (EDT)

We need to state the sources of our information in Notes. Without them, it's anyone's guess where the information originally came from or how reliable it is. For example, if the information in "2)" above came from Google Books, then the Note field should say something like:
  • "First Pocket Books printing September, 1983" and full number line on the copyright page as displayed by Google Books' "Search Inside" feature
It gives our users a degree of assurance that our data is accurate, something that they wouldn't have if the data were unsourced.
And that's exactly what I meant when I wrote that the quality of your submissions has been slowly improving -- based on my spot checking, your recent submissions are more likely to state their sources than your earlier submissions. Ahasuerus 12:15, 23 March 2021 (EDT)


Hi Ron,

A quick question about this one? Does it have an excerpt at the end and does it have an excerpt credited on its copyright page? I have the BOTM version (which seems to be a further repackaging of the SFBC one) and it has an excerpt credited but not printed - so trying to figure out how to write the notes for that. Thanks! Annie 02:33, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

No excerpt. Nor do I see it credited anywhere. Hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:28, 25 March 2021 (EDT)
Yep, thanks! Weird credit in my book then... Annie 10:56, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

Dragon issues

Ron, You modified two of my submissions to remove the issue number from the title. The rest of the series and other magazines include the issue number. I'm trying to be consistent with the rules, and I've got dozens more issues of Dragon and few other non-genre gaming magazines to work through. Do I need to go back and remove the issues number for the old issues? Tom TAWeiss 19:33, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Hi Tom. I saw Annie's note on your page and was just responding there. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:35, 31 March 2021 (EDT)


I found a cover for an "adult" novel, GAY VAMPIRE, and saw you entered info for it recently. I added cover, but name on ISFDB was backwards, price was missing, and ID # was incomplete, so I fixed those. If you entered info from a copy of the book you may want to check and see if things are correct now. --Username 20:08, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

The Wonderland of Oz

Hi Ron,

Can you look at the serials here and add notes on when they were initially published - we have dates but no notes on where they were published. Adding the original publications is even better of course but we should at least have notes so they do not get redated by mistake. Thanks! Annie 13:51, 6 April 2021 (EDT)

It was syndicated, to those dates are only from a known appearance in the Decatur Herald. I've added the appropriate issues and expanded the notes a bit. Unfortunately that is only a handful of the serials. If it was running daily except Sundays, there are a lot more that could be added. The article mentions some other papers that carried the earlier installments, but not with enough specificity to add them. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:28, 6 April 2021 (EDT)
That's the problem with early syndication, isn't it? :) Thanks for adding them! Annie 19:36, 6 April 2021 (EDT)

Resurrection, Inc.

Hi Ron. When adding this pub Resurrection, Inc. In the note to moderator I asked for some help re: linking. I really wanted to put the link at the end of the note "PV copy is without slip case. Publisher's webpage for this item does not mention a slip case " After reading the help page, I tried <a href="the link" /a>. Wouldn't accept it. Then I ended up just putting it in the webpages: can. If you have a minute, will you show me what I did wrong? John Scifibones 17:50, 8 April 2021 (EDT)

Sorry I missed that in the note. I can see the problem with your html. What you want is <a href="the link">publisher's website</a>. Of course, you can replace "publisher's website" with whatever you'd like to call the link in your note. Give that a try and let me know if if doesn't work. There are instructions here, but they kind of assume a familiarity with HTML. The warning in that section actually has a good example. Let me know if it doesn't work correctly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:02, 8 April 2021 (EDT)
Thank you Ron. I like how submission 4959244 now looks. Would you mind approving it? Not sure how many people will ever look at this pub record, only 100 copies exist. For what its worth, mine is #15. John Scifibones 19:49, 8 April 2021 (EDT)
Done. I made a small tweak to remove a leading space in the link. Looks good. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:01, 8 April 2021 (EDT)

Unicorn omnibuses

I based my Asimov edit off the fact that this, [3], has the 2 genre authors listed, so if the omnibus with Asimov's novel should be uncredited should the one I linked also be changed to uncredited? --Username 13:17, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Sorry, I re-read the help page and we surprisingly allow all the authors to be listed in a multi author omnibus provided there is no credited editor, and there are less than 5 authors. I've un-rejected your edit. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:30, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Satan's Stud

Saw you added this recently, noticed it said "distributed by Zorro" on Worldcat page, found a site showing all Trojan books, which have Trojan helmet top left and Zorro mask top right, realized your cover image had mask covered up with something, so I found this, [4], which not only has sharper color but shows part of the mask. So if you want the old cover can be replaced with this new one. --Username 12:19, 13 April 2021 (EDT)

An Earth Gone Mad

Since you have verified An Earth Gone Mad / The Rebellious Stars and Startling Stories, November 1952, can you please check out this conversation. Either the novella was expanded into the novel or one of our types is wrong in the database. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

I added a response on Gweeks' talk page. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:26, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

Publisher mistake; word in publisher should be "Washington", shouldn't it? --Username 13:38, 18 April 2021 (EDT)

Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:41, 18 April 2021 (EDT)

Xanth edits

Ron, you're too quick for me, I was resubmitting a couple of Xanth book edits. The imports showed up as I was redoing the pub edits, lol. They are ready now. 497154 & 457159. Thankyou John Scifibones 14:00, 21 April 2021 (EDT)

Voyager series question

When I was editing my copies of Voyagers II: The Alien Within and Voyagers III: Star Brothers I submitted edits to remove the series title from the publication title. Since they are sitting in my queue, I'm wondering if there is a question as to whether I'm correct. Let me know if I am wrong and I will cancel them. John, Scifibones 08:06, 23 April 2021 (EDT)

P.S. I submitted edits for all the pubs in those two titles
Those edits should be fine. I think it's just nobody has gotten to that point in the queue yet. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:17, 23 April 2021 (EDT)
Cool, Thanks Scifibones 18:52, 23 April 2021 (EDT)

Publisher name

This,, is the only book with "Productions" in the publisher's name; the other 11 books on ISFDB just say New Infinities / Ace. It would be good to have them all under the same name in case people are searching for them, so can you check your copy and see if it really says the full name on the title page or the shorter version? --Username 11:19, 23 April 2021 (EDT)

"New Infinities Productions, Inc." on the title page, copyright page, cover and spine. I'll check with the other active verifiers and see if we can settle on the longer name and merge the publishers. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:16, 23 April 2021 (EDT)

Elric map

While PVing Stormbring [[5]] I noticed that the map is entered as uncredited, even though there's a block of text with 'This map based upon the writing Michael Moorcock | Compiled and drawn by John Collier and Walter Romanski | Lettered by Art Ravison". Is this the same map as in [[6]]? If so, any idea why lettering doesn't count in the artist list? --GlennMcG 17:25, 25 April 2021 (EDT)

They do appear to be the same map. As for the credit in Swords and Roses, that's from the caption in the book below the map which only mentions Collier and Romanski. Apparently the editor of S&R did not consider the letterer to be one of the artists. I probably agree with that, though I don't know that we have a policy as we usually don't see a letterer credit. As far as the map in Stormbringer, I suspect that I didn't inspect the map closely enough when I verified the record. Since the credit is in the map itself, I have no problem if you want to merge the two title records keeping artist credits. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:39, 25 April 2021 (EDT)
Is a merge a specific operation? (I haven't done one yet, if so). --GlennMcG 20:02, 25 April 2021 (EDT)
Sure. For this you'll need to do an advanced search for titles. Since the names are different, you can find it with Title Starts With and "The World of Elric". When you click "Get Results" you will find 3 title records. You can ignore the 2006 record as it is not the same map. Mark the check boxes next to the other two and click "Merge Selected Records". You'll be brought to a screen that shows all the differences between the two records. Select the appropriate radio button for each difference. I see that one of the titles has "(map)" appended. I reread the help section (under INTERIORART) is slightly confusing, but it appears that the version with "(map)" is the correct one. Other than that, select the authors names and the earlier date and submit. You may have encountered the merge process if you ever checked for duplicate titles, this is just another way at it. Let me know if you have any questions, or run into any problems. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:03, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
Merge submitted. The feature is fairly will hidden. I was expecting something under edit tools, like a merge. --GlennMcG 21:24, 26 April 2021 (EDT)
Approved. Looks good. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:25, 26 April 2021 (EDT)

The Martian Chronicles / The Illustrated Man / The Golden Apples of the Sun

Ron, thank you for approving these edits. Two questions. Are you holding submission 4972423? Second, I thought I would have to go back and delete the 4 duplicates, did they just merge into the existing titles? Scifibones 10:07, 27 April 2021 (EDT)

I tend to approve edits while I'm multitasking with a work meeting. For that reason, I tend to skip anything that requires a response. Your edit seems fine, but I would have to think more about the question you posed in the notes to moderator. If it were me, I wouldn't worry too much about the unsourced date. It's probably from a retail site, perhaps Anyway, that's why I skipped the edit. For your other question, when you import from another collection, the software won't try to import titles already in the target collection. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:14, 27 April 2021 (EDT)
Glad to learn that about the software, saves a step. I'll be interested to see what you decide about the date. John, Scifibones 10:19, 27 April 2021 (EDT)

A small favor

Ron, asking a small favor. I'm doing another map merge Details here. I have submitted the first two merges 4974794 and 4974804. Any chance You could approve them so I can submit the last ones. All the materials are on my desk. The queue might take a few days to reach me. If not, I understand. Thank you John Scifibones 10:16, 28 April 2021 (EDT)

Done. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:33, 28 April 2021 (EDT)

"Farewell Performance" in 1946 ed. of Clock Strikes Twelve

Hi Ron. Username discovered in photographs of the 1940 edition of Clock Strikes Twelve that one of the pieces is titled "Nimbo and Nobby's Farewell Performance", while our records all use(d) "Farewell Performance". Would you check your verified 1946 edition and confirm that it's the shorter version? If so, we should probably change the date on that to 1946, even though it's the canonical record (maybe we ought to swap the relationship around, but "Farewell Performance" seems to be the more common from what searching finds me). --MartyD 10:36, 1 May 2021 (EDT)

The Arkham edition has the title as "Farewell Performance". If we are going to maintain it as the canonical title, it should keep the 1940 date. We always reflect the earliest date published under any title or alternate name (excluding serializations) for the canonical title. Since it was only published with the longer title once, I thing we should keep the canonical title as the shorter one. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:38, 1 May 2021 (EDT)

The Well at the World's End: Volume II / William Morris

I'm PVing [[7]] and noticed a discrepancy in the printing statement. The record says "First Ballantine Books Edition: September 1970", mine has "First Ballantine Printing: September 1970". Yours? --GlennMcG 02:40, 2 May 2021 (EDT)

My copy agrees with yours. Please feel free to update it. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:37, 2 May 2021 (EDT)

A quick lesson on variants.

I just finished verifying Starship (Resnick) series. One of the titles I imported into books 3 though 5 [8] is incorrectly marked as a variant. It is actually identical to the "parent". After finishing all the imports, I went to the make variant tool and entered 0 for parent. Then I did a merge of the two. Will this work? John Scifibones 12:43, 2 May 2021 (EDT)

That should work, but it's unnecessary to make the child record a variant of nothing first. You can simply try to merge the variant with its current parent. When doing so, the parent title will be one of the fields that shows as a conflict (as title_parent). Simply choose the the radio button next to the empty line for that field and they will merge correctly. It will save you a step. Let me know if you have any questions. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:20, 2 May 2021 (EDT)
Thank you. I'll just cancel the submission breaking the link. John Scifibones 14:18, 2 May 2021 (EDT)

Knight's Shadow

Ron, I started to verify Knight's Shadow and noticed that you have credited "Manuela Hackl" as cover artist (from edit history). Where did you find this? The HC first credits "" on the jacket. This looks like a graphics design house. Publisher's website is no help. John Scifibones 11:06, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

I don't really recall, but I almost certainly imported it from one of the other publication records with the same cover. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:10, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

Another variant question

Look at Chanur's Venture SFJuggler named the map "Chanur's Venture" and it is by David Cherry (only in this pub, corrected by the DAW edition). This results in two title records. In all the other pubs of this title and all the succeeding titles this is used Map of Compact Space I left a note for Jim, assuming he agrees, what is the most efficient way to accomplish the following.

  1. Change name to "Map of Compact Space" . the two interior art titles are Chanur's Venture and Chanur's Venture
  2. Parent it to Map of Compact Space
  3. Get rid of the extra title record
  4. Change date of Map of Compact Space to 1984-10-00

Appreciate the help John Scifibones 12:17, 12 May 2021 (EDT) P.S. If it wasn't for the name difference I would just do a simple merge.

Hi John
You can skip a couple of steps by merging Map of Compact Space with the parent record under the other name. You can keep the earlier of the two dates and the preferred title. Then you only need to edit the child record to change the title field. Hope that helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:51, 12 May 2021 (EDT)
Thanks, I'll submit the edits as soon as I hear from SFJuggler. John Scifibones 06:42, 13 May 2021 (EDT)

A quick approval

Ron, I was about to submit another map merge and realized I misspelled the name. Any change you could approve #4986799 this morning? I hope this is not a frowned on request. Thanks John Scifibones 07:24, 19 May 2021 (EDT)

Done --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:28, 19 May 2021 (EDT)

Pukey Dates; The Pukey is originally from a British mag, Encounters, in 1960. Any mention of that in Weird Fiction Review you PV'd so date can be changed? At first I thought it was an unpublished story unearthed and published for the first time, which would explain the new date, but it's a reprint. --Username 00:06, 20 May 2021 (EDT)

What's your source for the UK appearance? There's nothing in the magazine. FictionMags has the first appearance in an anthology, Anti-Story, edited by Philip Stevick, published by The Free Press, 1971, so I've set the date to that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:22, 20 May 2021 (EDT); --Username 09:56, 20 May 2021 (EDT)
OK, I've added that issue of Encounter and merged the story. You could have done that yourself. The instructions for adding a non-genre magazine are here. Please give it a try if you encounter this situation in the future, and let us know if you have questions. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:43, 20 May 2021 (EDT)
Since you were PV of the mag where the story appeared, nothing would be done by me until I'd asked you to check the mag first to see if they mentioned anywhere that it was actually a reprint; I've been chastised many times by ISFDB moderators about changing info without checking with PV first, although in almost every case my info turned out to be correct. Since Encounters was a general fiction mag if it were up to me I would have just changed the date and added a note saying where the story was first published; I wouldn't have entered a new record. There's countless records on ISFDB where some issues of a non-genre mag were added while a lot of other stories just have a note mentioning which non-genre mag they first appeared in. There's no consistency to any of this, just thousands of editors over the years entering things as they please. --Username 19:36, 20 May 2021 (EDT)

Changing Covers

Just curious about why you changed cover here,, back to old image. A lot of covers on ISFDB are not the best, so when I find better ones I replace them. The cover I added from Fantlab (not the 1 on the page but 1 of the photos) is the only 1 that shows the full artwork including the spine, and it's framed better. No big deal, it's just 1 out of hundreds, but I'm just wondering if you've replaced any others I added. --Username 14:27, 1 June 2021 (EDT)

Well, new image I replaced the one you linked to is in color whereas the one from fantlab is in black and white. I actually have a preference for image of the front cover only as opposed to images including the spine or the back cover as well. My reasoning for this is that the artwork in these instances is under copyright. While it is considered fair use to include a low resolution scan of the cover for purposes of identification. I'm less certain that including images beyond the front cover still falls within fair use. Clearly other users in the database disagree. However, there is no requirement to show complete artwork in in these cases it is generally left up to the primary verifier to decide what to use. You probably should have notified me prior to making this change. I don't recall replacing other covers that you had linked. However, I generally don't check who had added a prior cover when entering a better one, so I couldn't say for certain. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:03, 1 June 2021 (EDT)

Hellstrom's Hive

Hi Ron, could you check your copy of Hellstrom's Hive for number of pages? Mine has 332 as last numbered page. You have for your PV'd 1st printing 352. Typo perhaps? Thanks! MagicUnk 08:20, 5 June 2021 (EDT)

Corrected. I must have misread the 3 as a 5. Thanks for finding it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:47, 5 June 2021 (EDT)
You're welcome :) MagicUnk 03:32, 7 June 2021 (EDT)


Re: the recent Willimas thing, surprisingly only 1 other Willimas is on ISFDB,, but PV of the mag hasn't responded on his board since the end of 2017. This,, says "Williams", so I don't know if it should be changed. What do you think? --Username 14:02, 10 June 2021 (EDT)

I would go ahead and update it, but not from source you cite. FictionMags also has it as "Williams". --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:08, 10 June 2021 (EDT)
Done. Title was wrong, too, so I also fixed that. PV had a massive list of edits so now I'm wondering how many other errors he made that were approved. --Username 19:13, 10 June 2021 (EDT)

Read Aloud

Rudam just approved my edit changing the title of the book reviewed here,, to its correct title without the "Be". Your PV'd review still has the "Be" so I don't know if you want to change it, or if that's how the title appears in Baum Bugle. --Username 14:31, 10 June 2021 (EDT)

Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:09, 10 June 2021 (EDT)

Aztec Century

Hi Ron, Should I edit the other publications in this title to reflect the change in cover art attribution in the HC? The verifiers for the other pubs appear inactive. John Scifibones 10:23, 11 June 2021 (EDT)

I would say so. Probably easiest to merge the three coverart titles. That way you won't have to deal with deleting. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:27, 11 June 2021 (EDT)
Submitted, John Scifibones 10:44, 11 June 2021 (EDT)

Black Spirits and White

Please see this edit and this edit. Let me know how to proceed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2021 (EDT)

The edits are OK. Although, I'm not certain about using Roman numerals for pub series number. I see the others in the series were entered in this way, one by this user and one by another. I'm not certain that sorting by series number will work properly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:30, 12 June 2021 (EDT)
Approved them. Not sure what happens if there were L or M, but for I and V, sorting works fine since alpha sorting of those two is the same as if they were treated as numbers. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2021 (EDT)


Ron, Do you have any projects that need a volunteer, or should I pick something off the cleanup report? I know what to do with some, need guidance on others. You can move this section to my talk page, no need to clutter up yours. John Scifibones 10:43, 15 June 2021 (EDT)

I'm not sure what to suggest. I tend to work on things that interest me and right now I'm doing a bunch of work with secondary verification sources. I can let you know about things I have worked on in the past, but lost interest in. This is usually because I found the work to be a bit tedious. I try to keep up with awards and when entering them, I also will try to add the publications that contain the awarded work when missing. Adding the publications is the tedious bit. There are a few awards where our coverage of what is awarded is usually lacking, so many of the pubs need to be added. I was going to mention NOMMOs, which are for works by Africans. Finding enough data for things published in Africa can be challenging. Happily, it looks like someone has kept up with that award. The awards issued by the Science Fiction Poetry Association (Rhysling, Elgin and Dwarf Star) are all missing the last few years. File770 usually announces these awards Rhysling, Elgin and Dwarf Star) including the source. Another area where our records are lacking is with fanzines. Many of the classic fanzines are scanned at Again, it's something that I've found tedious to work with. I don't know if either of those areas interest you. If they don't, please don't feel like you have to work on them. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:34, 15 June 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll take a look at the poetry awards. John Scifibones 07:07, 16 June 2021 (EDT)
If we have a title record for a winner, but the original publication it appeared in hasn't been entered, should I add that pub? John Scifibones 11:48, 16 June 2021 (EDT)
It's up to you. Assuming it's a genre publication, we'd eventually want it to be entered anyway. Even if it isn't it's permissible to enter publications and list only the genre contents. Either way, if you want to enter it, please do. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:54, 16 June 2021 (EDT)
I am using SFPA ARCHIVE 2019 as my source. Are all these finalists or am I reading the page wrong? 14:24, 16 June 2021 (EDT)
That's exactly right. 2019 looks good. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:51, 17 June 2021 (EDT)

I've expanded the project to include updating the relevant poetry webzines. I have a few questions

Eye to the Telescope

  • Every issue is a different editor, no way to group. Can I change the title records to "Eye to the Telescope, Issue xx"? (The pub titles will be "Eye to the Telescope, Issue xx: Subject")
  • I followed the last few issues and used "Science Fiction & Fantasy Poetry Association" instead of "SFPA". Can I change all of these to SFPA?

My only frustration is waiting for submission approvals. Many are a three step process. Entry, Imports and variating, merging. Most of the other magazines are straight forward, but I'm sure I will have more questions, hope you don't mind me asking you vs moderator notice board. John Scifibones 09:06, 19 June 2021 (EDT)

That naming would not be standard for magazines. There were already several issues that were not named by our standards and I've corrected them. The standard indicates that magazines should be named with <Magazine Title>, <Date>. There are exceptions when a date isn't present for for magazines published in certain countries to use issue number instead of date, but that wouldn't apply here. We did have a discussion a few months back about changing this, but failed to reach a consensus to do so. I would recommend keeping with the magazine naming standards.
For the publisher name, I'm less concerned about that. The standard states that when there are multiple forms of the publisher name, we need not match exactly what is in the book (website). By those rules, you would be fine to change it to "SFPA". However, there have been a number of edits over the last several months to change publishers to exactly how it is reflected e.g. Ace Books vs Ace Science Fiction Books, so others may insist on the longer name at some point.
Please feel free to ask questions. I will warn you that I may be slow to respond beginning tomorrow through the 24th. I'll be away from home and will only have access through my phone and tablet. I can respond with short answers, but I'll probably leave anything that requires much typing until I get back. Happily, approving edits is one of the things that is easily accomplished on a phone (provided that there are no questions). Thanks for taking on this work. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:19, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
Then I need to change "The Pedestal Magazine" as well. My submission followed the previous three and used issue number. John Scifibones 10:55, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for editing some of the pub titles for me. Now I see why it is better to create the initial records using the desired publication titles, then only one title record needs to be edited to prepare for the merge. John Scifibones 16:15, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
If you happen to peek in, would you mind clearing my queue? Thanks, John Scifibones 15:55, 21 June 2021 (EDT)

(unindent) Making good progress. Take a look at Kyla Ward. Looks like we have the wrong name as the alternate. Is this a moderator only change or can I do it? If so, what is the most efficient method? John Scifibones 08:48, 25 June 2021 (EDT)

I'm not sure I agree that the canonical name should be changed. It looks like there are 21 titles as only "Kyla Lee Ward" with about 24 as only "Kyla Ward", the current canonical name. If you're encountering a bunch of new titles published with the longer name, we could consider it. Changing the canonical name involves many multi-stage edits. While I think any editor can submit these, it's probably easier for a moderator just due to the number of edits required. Basically, you would need to change the relationship between the two names, by removing the variant and then making a new alternate name in the opposite direction. You would also move much of the author metadata (biographical) to the new canonical name. Then for titles with publications under both names, you would break the old variant relationship by adding a parent of "0" to the old child title. Then make the former parent a variant of the former child. If all publications of title are with the former child name, then they each need to be merged with their parent choosing the new canonical name and discarding the parent id. For titles only published under the former canonical name, there shouldn't be two title records, so these just need to be made into variants under the new canonical name. The title under the third pseudonym, Edwina Grey is a simple change to the name on the current parent title, as is the interview. The artwork could be tricky, since we credit artwork with the canonical name when there is no explicit credit. Thus, some of these can just be changed to the new name. If they are explicitly credited, we'd need to make a variant. As you can see it's a lot of work, which is why I would recommend waiting until we have a clear majority of titles under the longer name. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:16, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
I knew it was an involved process, was hoping there was a secret moderator menu! Finished, 2019 & 2020 Elgin, almost done with Rhysling, working on Dwarf Stars. This has been an interesting project, I had no idea there was SF poetry. Thanks again for pointing me in this direction. John Scifibones 17:10, 26 June 2021 (EDT)
Since poetry anthologies don't include a table of contents entry for each poem, how do I show the source of original publication? Take Triangulation: Dark Skies. The table of contents, taken from, agrees with the publisher's. However How to Notice a Dark Nebula is not included. Mary Soon Lee's website shows that it was indeed published in this anthology along with another which is not listed. If I insert it, and someone checks it, they will think it is an error either rejecting the submission or editing it in the future. John Scifibones 09:36, 28 June 2021 (EDT)
You could certainly add a note. Even noting that not all poems are in the table of contents is probably sufficient. You might also want to add the {{Incomplete}} tag. If you weren't aware, you can search in the Amazon look inside feature and I believe that "How to Notice a Dark Nebula" appears on page 19. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:51, 28 June 2021 (EDT)

2021 Awards

Do I need to make any changes for this year's awards vs how I handled the last two years? I have been slowly adding the original source publications in anticipation of the announcements. John Scifibones 08:09, 6 July 2021 (EDT)

Nothing special. You may need to mark all the awards as nominees, or finalists if you're entering in the nomination phase. Then you just need to go back and update the awards one the winners are announced. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:14, 6 July 2021 (EDT)

2013 - 2016 Elgin Awards

Some of the winners from these years are missing. While I am adding these, is there value in adding all the finalists as well? John Scifibones 09:44, 3 August 2021 (EDT)

There is certainly value to adding finalists that we don't currently have listed. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:47, 3 August 2021 (EDT)

Amazing Stories, August 1927

Would like to double check the cover artist credit for Amazing Stories, August 1927. Did that come from Bleiler (Gernsback) also? Or did that source only indicate the interior art credits? I'm not seeing Paul recredited within the magazine. The Forrest J. Ackerman Collection credits it to Blade Gallentine. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2021 (EDT)

I’m away from home until Friday. But if you check the variants of the cover, it has been reprinted in several collections of Paul’s art. Sometimes as the cover. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:28, 20 June 2021 (EDT)
Yay, I saw the variant credits after posting the above. I was unable to find any information on Blade Gallentine. That name only appears in the Ackerman collection. I ended up just adding a note on the title record for the one interior art record with the Gallentine credit. I decided not to variant to the original. Sorry, I should have removed the above since I was satisfied at this point. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2021 (EDT)

The Tsathoggua Cycle

I'm very curious to know where the cover art credit for this came from. When I got a copy of 2nd edition I checked the copyright page. I'm assuming "someone" decided it was Fassl due to the similarity with many others he did for the CoCF series books. But his name is definitely not on the copyright page. Would you mind checking your copy just so I'm not going totally mad. --Mavmaramis 04:26, 25 June 2021 (EDT)

The credit appears on the title page, "Cover Art by Harry Fassl". That being said, the copyright page gives the copyright for the cover art to Mark Achilles White. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:53, 25 June 2021 (EDT)
I accepted MLB's edit to your joint verified pub and added this to the notes. I based this on Mavmaramis' second printing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2021 (EDT)

Sampler 2015

The publication [Sampler 2015] you PV'd lists the content titles as starting with "From ...". I ran across it while looking at something quite different (use of periods in acronyms like HARLIE). I wondered about whether the titles should have excluded the "From " and had "(excerpt)" added. And I've no idea about varianting. So I figured I'd ask and learn something. ../Doug H 10:54, 1 July 2021 (EDT)

I can't seem to put my hands on that book. However, I am certain that I would not have entered the titles that way unless that's how the appeared on their title pages. We only use "(excerpt)" when the title matches that of the work excerpted from. In the case, the title of the excerpt is different, so there is no need to add the disambiguation. If I run across the book, I'll double check. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:58, 1 July 2021 (EDT)

Arsenika Epubs

Ron, I have a number of Arsenika magazine issues in my queue. I mistakenly called them webzines rather than ebooks. Do I need to cancel and resubmit or just edit them after approval? Thanks, John Scifibones 17:41, 3 July 2021 (EDT)

I've approved them so you don't lose your work. You can go ahead and update the format. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:45, 3 July 2021 (EDT)

Frank U.; the cover artist should be Frank Utpatel, yes? --Username 17:53, 6 July 2021 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:11, 6 July 2021 (EDT)

City of Secrets


Am I missing something with this one? It is a graphic novel, submitted as such and definitely not from an author above the threshold - which makes it ineligible for addition. Unless I am missing something of course :) Thanks! Annie 14:17, 8 July 2021 (EDT)

I really don't recall something from 7 months ago, but I likely missed the graphic flag when I approved. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:21, 8 July 2021 (EDT)
I was making sure that I am not misreading the record. I will zap it. Thanks! :) Annie 19:28, 8 July 2021 (EDT)

Strange Horizons

Ron, While checking all the Strange Horizons issues, I noticed 3 duplicates. Looks like you entered them while my submissions were sitting in the queue. It looks like you entered them as needed for the awards you were posting. The three issues are 3 February 2020, 2 March 2020 and 10 August 2020. I started to submit merges but thought I would ask what's the best way to handle? John Scifibones 15:16, 8 July 2021 (EDT) Apologies for the poor grammar .

Yes, I was approving several of those submissions and I recalled that I had added some November issues, but had forgotten about the earlier ones in 2020. We should go ahead and merge the content titles and then delete whichever publication is least complete. I was entering those from FictionMags which doesn't list reviews, so yours are probably the ones to keep. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:24, 8 July 2021 (EDT)
I'll take care of it.John Scifibones 19:30, 8 July 2021 (EDT)

quick help

If you are still online, will you process this submission. Then I can merge it with an erroneous title record that can't be edited another way. thanks John Scifibones 16:29, 10 July 2021 (EDT)

apparently no merge necessary. I appreciate it. John Scifibones 16:39, 10 July 2021 (EDT)
You're above link to the edit didn't work, so I started approving your submissions in general. I'll assume that I approved the right one. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:41, 10 July 2021 (EDT)
It was the very first one you processed.

Author Merge

I think you should merge Alex De Pompa with Alexander De Pompa. Looks like he uses "Alex De Pompa" in all the issues. John Scifibones 09:42, 11 July 2021 (EDT)

I don't think they should be merged. FictionMags always has the editor as Alex as does the about page on the magazine's website. However, both these sites have most of the editorials signed as by Alexander. I've linked the two author records making Alex the canonical name. Thanks for finding this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:05, 11 July 2021 (EDT)
Saw something else when I was working with Augur, December 2020. FictionMags had all the titles coded ss except the editorial. I only included the content titles that I could verify the type. Publishers website had a couple linked that I could look at, and the two poetry I included are Rhysling finalists. John Scifibones 12:36, 11 July 2021 (EDT)

Fire in the Heavens by George O. Smith

Hi, Ron. You've verified two publications of this novel ( as a "serial" in one issue of Startling Stories ( and as a "novel" in an Ace Double ( If they're really different, would be great if you could add pub notes explaining the difference. Thanks! Markwood 12:47, 11 July 2021 (EDT)

They appear to be the same from a spot check, but that's what our publication records indicate. The way you are asking the question makes me think that you may be confused about how we reflect a novel published in a magazine. For novel, whether published in multiple parts or as a whole, we always add them with the SERIAL type. See this template under SERIAL and this one for how they are titled. If I'm misunderstanding why you asking the question, please let me know. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:32, 11 July 2021 (EDT)

Was this a test?

Hi Ron, You approved three Rhysling edits for a "first time editor" for titles not yet in the database. Was this a test for me? I sent him a message explaining in case it was real. Should I have used the welcome template even though I am not a moderator? John Scifibones 14:07, 12 July 2021 (EDT)

No test. I had assumed that the titles weren't in the database yet. Since you're pointing out the duplicates to the other user, I'll refrain from deleting the unlinked records. Once you've finished the discussion, let me know if you need me to delete those, although, I believe that anyone can submit deletes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:47, 12 July 2021 (EDT)
Yeah, I started to delete them and then cancelled the Rhysling deletes for that reason. I did leave the delete for the Dwarf Stars item. I will be entering the source pubs for them shortly. John Scifibones 18:02, 12 July 2021 (EDT)

The Bright Red ? shows title page of Harrap edition which says "Business Men", but Google has a copy of the John Day edition and searching for "Business Men" brings up 1 mention of that phrase within the novel itself, but "Businessmen" has 90 hits, including title page. So technically ISFDB is correct since only Harrap edition is here, but later editions altered the title. Picclick also has a Severn House edition, but doesn't show title page. If I enter John Day edition, do I just "add publication" or does some kind of varianting have to be done? --Username 11:40, 14 July 2021 (EDT)

Don't use add publication, since the existing title is "Business Men". Add it as a new novel, and then variant the new title record to the existing record and you should be good. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:54, 14 July 2021 (EDT)

Publication Series Doubt


I saw that you approved my change in the publication series Mundo Fantástico.
I am tracking this series and they change the name after edition 13 to Mundos da Ficção científica.
How do I put this whole series toguether? I am thinking in change the name to Mundo Fantástico / Mundos da Ficção científica...
What do you think about it? --Paulotecario 12:23, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
You could do it that way, if you'd like. Unfortunately, publication series don't have parent/child relationships like title series do. I will point out that if we kept the series separate, they would both appear on the publisher's page. If you decide on a single series name, I would recommend going to the publication series and using the "Edit This Publication Series" tool to change the name of the series rather than edit each individual publication record. I don't believe that's a moderator only tool, but I could be wrong. Let me know if you don't see that tool, and I can change the name for you. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:41, 14 July 2021 (EDT)

Scifaikuest: Online

I'm setting up the online magazine for Scifaikuest. Here is the submission [9]. Teri Santitoro is the editor but he is using the (xeno-unit) alias. Now I'm working on the next issue and he uses the sakyu alias. Should I continue to use the alias' as the editor or use his real name? Worried about merging. John Scifibones 14:31, 14 July 2021 (EDT)

Each issue needs to have the pseudonym that was used for that issue which would all be varianted to the title record with the canonical name. I don't know if I've ever seen this scenario. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:35, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
Got it. Thanks for the quick response. John Scifibones 14:42, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
Further info. Third issue (August 2020) he doesn't sign the editorial at all. After further investigation, just above the bios of all contributors, he selects his favorite poem from the issue. He signs those "Teri Santitoro, editor". Sorry I didn't find this sooner. It is present in all three issues. I don't want to cancel and reenter 30+ content entries per issue, just change it after processing. I will leave the editorials credited to the alias'. John Scifibones 16:05, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
The editorials should definitely be credited as they are signed. However, I wouldn't necessarily use that credit for the editor of the issue. I see that they are listed as "T. Santitoro" on the cover of many of the issues as viewed on Amazon. If you have access to a scan or the actual magazines, I'd go with whatever is on the masthead or table of contents has. If that's not available the cover credit is probably good. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:38, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
The series you are looking at on Amazon is this one.. That's why I named the online series "Scifikuest: Online" to differentiate. They are published the same months, but are totally different. Per my usual procedure, there is a link to the actual publication in each issue. I have all three in my queue, here is Scifaikuest: Online, May 2020. John Scifibones 20:34, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
Got it. I had been rooting around on that site, but it's a bit confusing. I can't really find a link to the webzine aside from the current issue. Regardless, I would recommend that the equivalent of the masthead would be the About Us link which does give the credit of the editor as Teri “Sakyu” Santitoro. It's not clear whether they are editing the print our online versions, but I'd assume both, especially as they are also signing the editorial. Thanks again for doing all the work for these publications and awards. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:08, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
You're welcome. Thanks for tolerating all my questions! If you would approve [10] and [11] I'll correct the editor and put them to bed. [12] is correct as is. John Scifibones 21:16, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
It seems the site appears to have had a hiccup, but they're approved now. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:22, 14 July 2021 (EDT)
Thank you John Scifibones 12:18, 15 July 2021 (EDT)

Galaxy 1963-10

Cover art of this issue is credited to Dember, but the same but differently cut cover art of Galaxie #1, Mai 1964 is clearly signed R McK, that is, Richard McKenna (not the writer). Horzel 11:06, 20 July 2021 (EDT)

Hyperlink in Publication Series. Its possible?


I would like to add a hyperlink to explain more about a Publication Series in this and this case? I try to use an exemple but didn't work. Do you know how to fix it?

Another thing, how do I know when I receive a reply to a message? I receive a warning about a message, not a reply. What do you do? --Paulotecario 11:22, 22 July 2021 (EDT)

We have two different types of linking templates. The one you used {{PubSeries|9804|name=Mundo Fantástico}}, from this list, is for use within the wiki, but not the notes field. For the notes field in the main site, you need to use the templates from this list and the format for the publication series link is a bit different, e.g. {{PubS|Ace Double}}. I've corrected the first record. I'll leave the second one to you to try, unless you'd like me to fix it for you.
I don't know of any way to get notification when someone responds on a talk page other than your own. However, you can add pages to your watchlist by clicking the watch link at the top of the page. If it says "unwatch", then you've already added it. Then you can check the "my watchlist" link and it will give you a list of the most recent changes to the pages you're watching. This is how I keep track of questions that I've asked others. I'll go ahead and leave a note on your talk page to let you know I've responded. Hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:24, 22 July 2021 (EDT)

Reject; I added (play) because other editor added it to the other 2 plays in the book. If my edit is not needed the other 2 shouldn't be, either.

I would have rejected those other edits as well had I been the reviewer. Disambiguation should be used sparingly and there is no need to indicate the title type in this instance.; Fantlab has a book not on ISFDB,, which reprinted Calling of the Sea, and has "Coasts". So that checklist other editor used was probably faulty. However, the only way to say for sure is looking at a copy of the original book's contents page, if anyone can find it. --Username 11:55, 22 July 2021 (EDT)

Titles can vary in different publications which is how we get variant records. The issue was that you changed the title, but left as the only cited secondary source as one which disagreed with your change. Discrepancies between sources can certainly exist, and in those cases we should document the discrepancy. I'm not sure why you noted your source only in the moderator notes instead of adding it to the publication notes. I'm also not sure of your reasons for finding the threeleggedfox bibliography to supersede the one from the Hodgson blog. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:43, 22 July 2021 (EDT)

Toxicon and Arachne

Ron, would you mind processing this one submission. [13]. Not only did I forget the equals sign, but , I want to change where it is pointed. Want to fix this so it doesn't slip my mind. John Scifibones 18:51, 23 July 2021 (EDT)

A quick glance at the Recent approvals looks like Ron is not around so I approved for you. If you know the order of the poems, I strongly recommend to use piped pages (|1, |2 and so on) so they stay in the order you want them to be. Even if they look ok now, merges and imports can cause them to go every which way (and we can always change the default). So use pipes :) PS: If you need a quick moderator action, the Moderator noticeboard is usually monitored by everyone active so you have better chances there) :) Annie 18:57, 23 July 2021 (EDT)

Lady Churchill’s Rosebud Wristlet September 2014

Dear Rtrace,

You added a cover to my verified copy of the above. My copy has a black and white cover, not a color one, although I believe it is that image. Do you have a print copy with a color cover?

My physical copy is currently in storage. It may take me some time to find it and check your edit for the table of contents.

Amoeba of Horror Amoeba of horror 04:04, 27 July 2021 (EDT)

The source for that cover is the FictionMags Index which uses Galactic Central for their images as does Miller/Contento. It does look like the previous and subsequent issues (September 2013 and December 2014) had black and white covers, but their scan of that one is in color. Perhaps there were variants? Feel free to swap it out with your own scan. If you do so, you may want to add a note that FictionMags shows a different cover, as someone coming after might think your scan was in black and white rather than the cover being that way. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:36, 27 July 2021 (EDT)

I canceled a submission by mistake

I canceled a submission for mistake. Please, do you can would bring back? The title is "Além da imaginação e do tempo" and ID is "5041529". Thank you --Paulotecario 14:20, 28 July 2021 (EDT)

It is back live :) Annie 14:22, 28 July 2021 (EDT)
Thank you! --Paulotecario 23:19, 28 July 2021 (EDT)

Breathing Black Angels

Please see this edit which would impact your verified pub. Let me know whether to approve or not. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2021 (EDT)

It's a good edit. Please go ahead and approve. Thanks --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:09, 31 July 2021 (EDT)

My Pending Edits

Why the moderators don't approve or reject my lasts edits?

I saw "Bad checksum" in ISBN entry. But the number that I added was on the website that I found the data... Do you know some site where I search data about ISBN?

In Brazil we have this site, but seems like doesn't work... --Paulotecario 14:34, 3 August 2021 (EDT)

When I'm moderating, I'm usually multi-tasking and can't really spare the time to start conversations about edits. For that reason, if I encounter an edit that requires a discussion, I will skip over it. Bad ISBN are such edits. I think the way these are generally handled is to move the bad ISBN to the notes stating that it is listed that way in the book. If a correct ISBN can be determined, it's fine to enter it in the ISBN field, provided that the source of the correct ISBN is noted. I hope this helps. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:03, 4 August 2021 (EDT)
Yes, make sense. I understand. Thank you! --Paulotecario 09:57, 6 August 2021 (EDT)

Chariots of the Gods Fixes

I suppose your note meant I had it right in the first place? Great, but note about SBN still needed fixing, so I made another edit and hopefully that one won't be rejected. --Username 18:49, 17 August 2021 (EDT)

No, your first edit listed the decimal price in the field and the pre-decimal in the note, so I fixed it after I approved it. If you check the edit history, you'll see what happened. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:03, 17 August 2021 (EDT)

Bowen; first name's supposed to be Marjorie, right? --Username 18:21, 19 August 2021 (EDT)

Yes. Corrected. Thanks for finding it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:25, 19 August 2021 (EDT)

Hustler Books

Your recent addition,, should probably be here,, in order to keep all these "adult" books from Hustler together. --Username 12:02, 22 August 2021 (EDT)

I've merged the publishers. However, Hustler feels more like a publication series rather than an imprint. Both Reginald3 and Worldcat list the publisher as simply World-Publishing. Worldcat Hustler either as a series or in the notes only. I know you frequently find sites with scans that may include title pages. Have you encountered any for this publisher? I'm curious as to whether Hustler is mentioned on the title page, and if so, in what manner. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:22, 22 August 2021 (EDT)
No title pages found, but there's a back cover photo of Rape of the Red Witch on Worthpoint that says HUSTLER PAPERBACKS. Also, 4 of the Hustler books on ISFDB have catalog ID, 3 starting with 10- and yours starting with 101-; has it starting with 10-, so it might be a mistake entered here; I also wonder why the Possessed ID doesn't match the number in the ISBN (and the ISBN shows another Hustler book, Sin & Sorcery, on Google Images), and why some ID's were entered in notes but not added to the ID field. These "adult" books were entered by so many different people here over the years trying to standardize their records is tough, especially since the books themselves were so shoddy they often changed names and numbers from one part of the book to another. While trying to find a few ISBN's just now, I came across another Hustler book on Amazon, Barbarian Blonde, that looks like it might be ISFDB-worthy. --Username 17:36, 22 August 2021 (EDT)

Splitting some Burroughs publications you have verified

Some existing Burroughs publications you have PV'd have two variants that need to be split. You have verified Monster Men, The Moon Maid, Pirates of Venus, Tarzan and the Lost Empire and Thuvia Maid of Mars

Please check this poll to help determine which variant is the existing entry, and which is created. Your participation is appreciated. ../Doug H 23:35, 26 August 2021 (EDT)

John / Jack McDermott

Hello Ron. You happen to have a copy of Weird Fiction Review, Fall 2016 within which is the cover art for The Body Snatchers. However if you take a look at this wikipedia page it gives the cover art credit as [14] John McDermott not Jack. Don't shoot me I'm only the messanger. And don't ask me why the guy from Twitter won't join and do all this himself. Anyway somewhere there is an error so sorry for seemingly dumping this all in your lap --Mavmaramis 01:02, 30 August 2021 (EDT)

I'll go ahead and merge the artists. The reprint in WFR doesn't have an artist credit, so I was just following the credit from the paperback. I am going to assume that the credit in the book is for John or not there at all. Unfortunately, the sole verifier has been inactive for over a year so we're unlikely to be able to check. The Worldcat record does state that it's John. Thanks for finding this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:39, 30 August 2021 (EDT)
You are welcome but don't thank me thank the guy from Twitter (Joachim Boaz) who DMs me from time to time with such things as he knows I'm able to do edits here. Thanks for sorting it. It was the reason I contacted you as I noticed the sole verifier was inactive. I had to wrap my brain around his slightly convoluted message at 6am this morning when I barely functional. --Mavmaramis 11:47, 30 August 2021 (EDT)

SFPA-Sponsored Poetry Contests

Thank you for approving these. Are you okay with me updating 2016 to match all the others (your original submission)? I didn't want to touch it until you had a chance to see what I did with the other years. I have submitted all the necessary round 2 edits for the all the other issues.

I have noted two authors which should have the canonical and alternate name switched. Melanie Rawls & Mark C. Childs. Having done it before, I feel confident I can handle it, if you approve. John Scifibones 12:33, 2 September 2021 (EDT)

By all means, proceed with both sets of edits. I didn't have any evidence of a month, so I just entered the year. If you want to remove the note about the webzine being added because of award nominations, that would be fine. We've changed the rules for webzines since that was added and we no longer need to justify why it's there. In any case, I don't have any special claim to that record. I only entered it to get the award nominated poems into the database. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:12, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
Edits for both authors are in the queue. Melanie Rawls should need no further action. M. C. Childs will need two more submissions after a variant break and a merge are processed. John Scifibones 09:14, 3 September 2021 (EDT)

Strait Gate's Cover Artist

I didn't misspell her name, I fixed it because it was entered incorrectly on ISFDB years ago, then I made another edit changing cover art's date to match book's date, but since edit with name change hadn't been approved yet that edit with date change still contained incorrect name. When there's a huge backlog and it takes days for edits to be approved things like that happen. --Username 21:41, 2 September 2021 (EDT)

Had I approved your edit, the name would have been misspelled. I own this book, and easily checked the credit as printed. This is definitely another example where you should have contacted me before submitting any of these edits. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:50, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
This is all a bit confusing since once edits are fixed and approved the wrong old info doesn't appear anymore, so I'm trying to sort it out, but as far as I can remember a few days ago I fixed a lot of incorrect or missing info for Russell Kirk's books and when I got to Watchers... saw that the cover artist was misspelled. Many others including you worked on it over the years but didn't notice the artist's name was wrong, even though she's on Wikipedia with her correct name (I have a pending edit where I added Wiki link and other info to her record). After fixing it, I fixed other info including making cover art's date same as book's date, but as has happened several times recently, because it takes so long for edits to be approved when I changed the date the name hadn't been corrected yet, so I assume that's why that 2nd edit still had wrong name and you thought I had misspelled it, even though my edit correcting cover artist's name was approved by another moderator shortly before. All you had to do was ask why name was different in that 2nd edit and I would have explained all this and edit wouldn't have been rejected. It's really hard to make an edit and then hold on to other edits for the same book until someone finally gets around to approving the first one, so sometimes they overlap. It also would have made no sense for me to contact you about this book, since Fantlab's photo clearly showed the artist's name was misspelled on ISFDB, and the info about the 1984 essay being different than the 1962 essay even though they share the same title came from online info where authorities on Kirk mentioned the content of the essay was different, so unless you also were the PV of the book where the 1962 essay appeared (and I see you weren't) you wouldn't have that book to compare the 2 essays, anyway. --Username 22:18, 2 September 2021 (EDT)
The protocol here is to ask existing active verifiers before editing their books. There is not an exception if you have seen a scan of the book. There is not an exception if you've read something that states that a title needs to be unmerged. As it happens, I was able to compare the essays as there is a scan of the other book. However, the point is moot as The Surly Sullen Bell was not being changed, nor are there any primary verifiers. If you're having problems my making additional edits to the same record while prior edits are pending approval, you could always cancel the pending edit and then make all the changes in the new edit. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:29, 3 September 2021 (EDT)

Nada the Lily interior art

Hi, Ron! Since the one entry of interior art for this publication was made the parent of a distinct piece of cover art I renamed it (because I had added the other pieces to the first book publication. Now, it does look a bit strange, I suppose. You may want to add the other pieces of art also. Christian Stonecreek 04:25, 3 September 2021 (EDT)

That art record was for all of the illustrations in the book, which is an acceptable way of noting the contents. If there had been a single illustration in the Newcastle edition, I would have preferred that it be made a variant of the correct illustration. I've always felt that the numeric disambiguation refers to a specific publication. I've examined a scan of the first edition, and there actually appear to be 22 illustrations in addition to a frontispiece and title page illustration. I've updated that record accordingly. The Newcastle edition has the frontispiece and title page, but only has 18 of the plates. I'm going to have to go through them and see which ones are there and make the appropriate variations to the original. Also, I should bring MLB into this conversation. We should also reach out to RedDragonBooks and see if they still have access to the US edition. I'd be surprised if it is missing 4 illustrations from the UK edition. I don't know what to do about the 1927 reprint, which I see you verified from Worldcat. It mentions that the illustrations are from a German edition which we don't have in the database. I would guess that we should assume that the 1927 printing has all 24 illustrations unless we have evidence to the contrary. I'm happy to look into these things, but it will have to wait until later today or tomorrow as I've got to run. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:29, 3 September 2021 (EDT)
Oh, sorry, I'd have thought that I had got all of the illustrations. The German one - which I'm gonna add quite soon - has only 20 illustrations, 19 of them full page ones, which I assume were published initially as plates. I had already contacted RedDragonBooks, having added the 20 illustrations to his verified. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 07:34, 3 September 2021 (EDT)
I also found a dedicational essay preceding the preface within the German edition, which I have varianted (cautionary) to Dedication (Nada, die Lilie). I'm now tending towards the assumption that the German edition was based upon the Newcastle one, and that this dedication should also be printed in the latter. (I included this dedication because it sheds a light upon Haggard as well as on the novel.) Christian Stonecreek 10:09, 3 September 2021 (EDT)

quick approvals

Thank you Ron. When I edited the title of this poem, the 2021 Dwarf Stars didn't re-sort. Is there a way to force it? I asked for the quick action because I am working to complete the list of finalists this weekend. John Scifibones 22:22, 4 September 2021 (EDT)

I do know what's going on the the sort. The award record has its own copy of the title field. This created when you enter a new award, either from scratch or by adding an award to an existing title. When you change the title of the linked title record, it does not affect the title of the award record. However, what is displayed, is the title of the linked record, so to see the title field on the award record, you'll need to attempt to edit the award. Unfortunately, for a linked award, the title field is locked. I was able to change it, but it was a bit of a hack. In the edit award screen, I used my browser's web developer's tools to change the value in the underlying HTML and was able to submit the update. An easier method is to simply delete the existing award record and create a new one, which will pick up the new title. This is probably too much of an edge case, but you could reach out to Ahasuerus and see if either a change to the title record with awards could cascade the changes to the award record, or if the title field on the award edit screen could be unlocked. I expect the latter would be easy to do, and the former much harder. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:16, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
I like the second suggestion, unlocking the award title record. I'll ask Ahasuerus about it. John Scifibones 10:05, 5 September 2021 (EDT)
Early on, the "Title" field and the "Author" multi-field were editable. It caused all kinds of problems because title records and title-based award records could (and often did) get out of sync.
I can think of two ways to address the sorting issue. The first one is to modify the Edit Title code to update all associated award records whenever the "title" field of a title record is changed as per Ron's idea above. The other way would be to use the title field of the associated title record for sorting (and all other) purposes.
Let me examine the code and see which approach is less impactful. Ahasuerus 20:02, 6 September 2021 (EDT)
The title field probably should always be consistent between award record and linked title record. However there are occasional cases where the author of the linked title record is not who is being awarded. A good example is the 2019 Locus award for Best Art Book. The award is for Charles Vess. We have it linked to Le Guin's book, but have the award record with Vess as "author". His name isn't viewable unless you edit the award, nor is listed in Vess' awards. We at least have to correct person reflected somewhere. I recall that I specifically entered the new award with Vess' name and linked afterword so as to get the records as close as I could to what is really going on. It's not usual, but sometimes awards refuse to conform to how we've modeled them. Since you're considering award vs title records, we may want to consider using the award record's author for display and also for who's award list to place the award in. Something more to thinks about. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:34, 6 September 2021 (EDT)
Was the award given to the art only? If so, then wouldn't we want to associate it with the COVERART and the INTERIORART titles, which is how Vess's 2019 Chesley nominations are currently handled? Ahasuerus 22:06, 6 September 2021 (EDT)
Since the category is for "Best Art Book", I would say that it belongs with the book rather than the artwork records. The Chesleys have separate categories specifically for covers and interior illustrations. I wouldn't want to consider linking to the INTERIOR art titles if someone goes to the trouble of indexing each individual piece. Also, I think one would expect to see the award on the book's title page. I see that the Hugos had the same category that year as a special category. The award on their site lists both Vess and Le Guin as recipients, and apparently I didn't go through the same process to get Vess' name on the award record. I remember that I've run into this problem occasionally. This was just an example that came to mind. Mainly, my point is that there are use cases where it makes sense to have the author credit of the award differ from that of the title record it is linked to. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:08, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
Yesterday night I was too tired to follow all the connections. After examining the database data which underlies this award, I now see what's going on. The award appears on Charles Vess's awards page, but when you follow the link to the award record, the only listed author is Ursula K. Le Guin. The reason it happens that way is that the author stored in the award record has been changed from "Ursula K. Le Guin" to "Charles Vess", which can only be seen when editing the award. The underlying reason it works the way it does is that there is a flaw in SQLloadAwardsXBA, the query which builds the Author Award Bibliography page: the authors stored in the "awards" table are only supposed to be used for non-title based awards, but instead they are used for title-based awards as well. It was a bug in the software changes which I made back in 2014 when I reworked awards.
Also, from our users' perspective, this is really odd behavior because it's not clear why an award given to a book credited to Le Guin appears on Vess's awards page.
As per Help:Screen:EditAward, the title and the author(s) of a title-based award are not editable because they should always come from the title record. The only reason they are currently captured by the software is that they are stored in the "awards" table, which is shared with "untitled awards". Back in 2014, I wanted to split this table in two -- one for "title-based" awards and another one for "untitled" awards -- but it would have meant a lot of additional work, so I compromised and made the fields uneditable and unusable for title-based awards. Clearly I didn't do a very good job of it since this discussion has brought up two bugs in the current logic: the original sorting bug and the Author Award Bibliography bug.
To go back to the larger issue here, a title record is defined by its title as well as by its author(s). If an award is given to a title record but not to the author(s) of the title record, then I don't believe it should be entered as a title-based award. For example, a "Best Translated Novel" award should be linked to the translated title, but a "Best Translation" award shouldn't be linked because it's given to the work's translator(s) as opposed to the work's author(s).
Normally, we wouldn't want to link an art award to a work of fiction because other editions of the same work may not have the same art included. However, in this particular case, the title of this omnibus includes the words "The Complete Illustrated Edition". It suggests that the editors of the book considered Vess's illustrations to be an integral part of the omnibus and that any other edition that didn't include them should be considered a different title record. If we accept this logic, then we can variant the current "Le Guin" OMNIBUS title to an OMNIBUS title by "Le Guin and Vess" and link the award to the new parent title.
Now to fix the identified bugs :-) Ahasuerus 14:27, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
P.S. Let me add one more thing. There are hundreds of lines of ISFDB code which operate based on the assumption that the title/author values stored in award records are never used, which means that the two places where these values are used are clearly bugs. That being said, fixing the Author Award Bibliography bug may result in unexpected behavior for any other awards that have been tweaked the same way that this award was tweaked. To help deal with this potential problem, I am going to create a report to find all mismatches between title records and award records. Ahasuerus 16:46, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
Ignoring limitations of how the software is written for a moment, I'm afraid that I really disagree here. I don't think a user would be surprised by seeing Le Guin's book in Vess' award list, given the category. I think a user would be far more surprised if they didn't find the award listed in the book's title record. For me, the award is clearly for the book which we reflect with a title record. Locus presented the award to Vess (whereas the Hugos presented it to Le Guin and Vess). It would make sense for the award to appear both in the title, and on the recipients page. This is almost always the same as the "author" of the title record. It's just these edge cases that are problematic. I really don't like the idea of making variants to accommodate award recipients. It's completely external to the book. Your translator vs translation award analogy is apt and the Earthsea book is a good example as it won awards both as art book and for artwork. Back to the problem of variance from the design. I understand that it's a bug, but it is one that I assumed was a feature, at least as far as getting the awards to appear where I believe they belong. I'm sure you will find other mismatches between award author and title author with your report. However, what problems have they caused? I was going to suggest adding a recipient field to the award records/tables, but that's really just adding a new field/column that behaves like the current bugs allow it to. Your point is well taken about awards for a specific edition that does not vary from a title record. I know I've encountered that, and I've handled it in the notes on the award record specifying which edition was honored. Also, the place you'll need to prevent the varying authors is when an untitled award is linked to a title. That's how I've created all of these. I only attempted fiddling the value of the locked field to fix the sort issue that started this thread. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:17, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
Re: "what problems have they caused?", the main issue is that title/author data changes all the time. If we decide to change "Charles Vess" to "Charles Vess (I)" tomorrow, there will be no way of telling that we need to go back and change the author name in his title-based award records at the same time. Moreover, there will be no supported way of making the requisite changes.
In the meantime, I have changed the SQL query and created a new cleanup report. Once the software changes are deployed, the new cleanup report will run overnight and find a bit under 1,000 suspect award records. Most of them are due to the title/author changes mentioned in the previous paragraph. A few will require re-pointing awards to the right VT (mostly translations) and a few are like this Vess situation. I also improved the sorting of award records while I was a it. Ahasuerus 19:40, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
The software changes have been deployed and announced on the Community Portal. Now to fix the originally reported sorting bug... Ahasuerus 20:20, 7 September 2021 (EDT)
The sorting bug has been fixed. Ahasuerus 13:33, 8 September 2021 (EDT)

Tuck verification

You identified a Tuck verification for Tarzan and the Lost Empire. That publication record says it is a US printing. Would Tuck be that specific? Could the verification belong to the Canadian printing? Some red flags: the same image is used for both (provided by Bluesman), they have the same OCLC entry and the third printing (01754) says it is the second printing (1969-10) and the first was 1963-10 (F-777) and the first Canadian printing was 1964-01. My Burroughs reference had no record. I'd like to delete it, but figure noting it has no mention in the reference is safer. ../Doug H 16:42, 13 September 2021 (EDT)

Tuck states that Canadian editions are sometimes included, but he doesn't cover them comprehensively. That publication is listed in Volume 1 under Burroughs: "Ballantine, 1963, pa, (2 ed)". It is further listed in Volume 3 in the paperbacks section under both Burroughs: "Ballantine U2012 1963 159 50¢ R" (Last column is for reprint), and in the publisher section in the list for 1963. So Tuck definitely thought it exists and did not mark it as a Canadian edition. I see that a inactive editor added the notes about the edition being printed in the US. I've actually encountered a couple of publications recently where I am suspicious that they were ever published. In those cases, I went ahead and added them to the database with a note stating which sources asserted their existence. I'd follow the same thing here and add a note stating that it can be found in Tuck, but may not in fact, exist. That Worldcat record is definitely wrong though and should be removed. It looks like maybe 761384352 could fit, but that record could refer to any 1963 Ballantine printing. If you don't think the Worldcat verification is appropriate, please go ahead and remove the number and I can remove the verification for you. Hope that helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:44, 13 September 2021 (EDT)
Submitted. ../Doug H 22:02, 13 September 2021 (EDT)

Tarzan and the Lion Man

You uploaded a cover image for this pub in 2012, but did not verify. I have reason to believe this was a Canadian printing. Do you have access to this publication to check? Thanks ../Doug H 09:55, 15 September 2021 (EDT)

Sorry, but I don't. I probably never did as I would have marked it transient if I had seen a copy. There are no secondary verification, so you should go ahead and adjust the record per your sources. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:20, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
Ditto this pub of Tarzan's Quest. Just a few more to go, so I'll stop bothering you with this particular problem. Thanks. ../Doug H 11:47, 15 September 2021 (EDT)
Again, I'm sure I didn't have a copy. Please feel free to update as needed. In general, you don't need to check with me for publications I haven't verified. Unless there's a secondary source you need me to look up. I've got two different Zeuscher bibliographies, but I'm under the impression that you do too. I also have Heins, and you may see notes from me referencing these. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:13, 15 September 2021 (EDT)


I added some data from my copy to this pub, and I would like to change the publication date to 1990-00-00 and the Locus note to "Locus #362 (March 1991) has this in the books received - January 1991 column. The title page states Underwood Miller 1990." Any objections? Thanks, --Willem 10:50, 17 September 2021 (EDT)

I agree completely. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:28, 17 September 2021 (EDT)
Thanks! and done. --Willem 07:02, 18 September 2021 (EDT)

The First Men in the Moon artist credit

I updated the cover art credit for The First Men in the Moon based on Possible Futures: Science Fiction Art from the Frank Collection. As the Franks purchased the original artwork, their attribution would seem more reliable than the Vintage Paperback Archives which doesn't provide a source. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (EDT)

Black|Gold|Red Unicorn / Tanith Lee -- publisher

Please see here [15]. Thanks. --GlennMcG 15:39, 23 September 2021 (EDT)

African Writer, February 2016

Hi Ron,

Under which rule is this eligible for addition? The current rules for web-only publication are:

      • Speculative fiction webzines, which are defined as online periodicals with distinct issues (note: online periodicals without distinct issues are not considered webzines)
      • Special speculative fiction issues of non-genre webzines
      • One time speculative fiction anthologies published on the Web
      • Online publications available exclusively as a Web page, but only if:
        • published by a market which makes the author eligible for SFWA membership (listed here), OR
        • shortlisted for a major award

This looks like a non-genre webzine - which will be in only if it has a complete genre fiction issue (And if we bend that to mean "a story", we are literally allowing ANY story out there... I generally am in favor of allowing these types of stories from non-genre webzines BUT we need a rule change for that. Or do you see it as eligible under one of the available categories above? Thanks! Annie 14:47, 27 September 2021 (EDT)

I didn't question that new publication because I am completely surprised by the rule. It's counterintuitive and I certainly don't agree that a distinction should be made. We know how to handle non-genre periodicals, why wouldn't we treat non-genre webzines identically? In any case, I can begin rejecting these if you'd like. I'll leave it up to you if you want to delete this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:39, 27 September 2021 (EDT)
(after a conflict) We can always change the rules - but under the current ones, these are not eligible. Back when the rules were changed to add the first 3 categories, they were supposed to be the pilot ones to see how it goes and we were supposed to revisit and it never happened. Before that only the awards and SFWA rules were there for web-only periodicals. We never extended the rules... Slate was treated as "Special speculative fiction issues of non-genre webzines" case (thus the dates on the "issues") - which had always been a stretch for them but went in under that rule - we had a discussion about it somewhere even. I'd be happy to kick off the discussion again if someone will bother to comment - usually noone cares enough and we get nowhere... I want these stories in but we need to work based on our own rules... Annie 18:45, 27 September 2021 (EDT)

A very old on hold

Hi Ron, you have an on hold sitting at the top of the list since May :) Can you ping the editor or make a decision? Thanks. Annie 04:26, 29 September 2021 (EDT)

I don't know how to proceed with this. I started a discussion on the community portal, but it petered out as these things do, and in my opinion did not reach a consensus. I held the edit to restore the non-genre flag, because it was undoing the edit I had made to remove that flag earlier. I still feel strongly that this should be considered a speculative work on the evidence that it is listed in three of our standard secondary sources as well as SFE3 and in a contemporary review in Astounding. It's set in the near future from the time it was published, 1959. From the description in the review, the future described is easily distinguishable from 1959. So clearly, I fee the edit should be rejected, but have been hesitant to do so because we can't come to an agreement. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:37, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
Ah, that happened around the time I was awayt with health issues (or just after that when I was still not really paying attention) so I missed the thread. I just posted my 2 cents. I think we should keep it genre but add the notes on attribution as genre into the notes (major genre secondary sources and all that)... Astounding's review usually won't convince me as much (they had reviewed some borderline books occasionally) but SFE and the secondaries listing it do. Hope that helps. Annie 18:52, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
Thanks. I'll give it another day or two to see if anyone else responds to your comment. If nobody does, I'll reject the submission. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:57, 29 September 2021 (EDT)
I'd add the notes from the thread into the Notes of the record regardless of what we decide about the flag if I were you :) Annie 18:59, 29 September 2021 (EDT)

The Blue Book Magazine, March 1947

I think your patterns went a bit weird: "Non-speculative content only." is the opposite to what we want or you wanted to say here. I fixed the note to read "Speculative content only." instead. Letting you know in case you have a template you are using the needs fixing :) Annie 18:25, 5 October 2021 (EDT)

That wasn't me. The comment was added with this edit. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:32, 5 October 2021 (EDT)
Oops. My bad. Sorry :) Annie 18:36, 5 October 2021 (EDT)

Mysteries of the Worm

Missed that note; careless of me, and I apologize for that. Oddly, I can't find a photo of that edition's title page anywhere online, so I wonder if they ever released a corrected edition with "Early". However, every cloud has a silver lining; while searching, I found that Dalby's site has the original Chaosium edition,, which supplied the previously unknown cover artist, to be entered by me in an edit. Also, while the same subtitle is on this edition's cover, the title page doesn't have it; instead, title page and copyright page have "Second Edition Revised and Expanded", unlike the cover which has "New Second Edition, Revised & Expanded", so I will enter it as it appears on the title page. --Username 16:41, 6 October 2021 (EDT)

You can go ahead and add the cover artist. The edition statement appears below the author's name and should not be added as a subtitle. Thanks for checking before submitting your edit. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:46, 6 October 2021 (EDT)

The (Even More) Compleat Feghoot

This has two cover records that are variants of each other. Seems like it should only have the "(Even More)" version? -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2021 (EDT)

Thanks for catching that. Clearly it got snapped up when I imported titles from the earlier collection. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:09, 10 October 2021 (EDT)

Bill's Phantasm

Hi Ron,

Is there anything in the review for this one to indicate where it was published first so we can add a note about it? Thanks! Annie 01:38, 13 October 2021 (EDT)

There is. Bleiler had it in this collection as did Tuck. Contento has it only in the US edition, which we didn't have. It looks like Username recently removed it. In the same series of edits, he indicated that he was adding page numbers from a Google Books copy. Google's copy is search only and does not appear to have that story. In any case, I've added the US edition and the original appearance in The Saturday Evening Post. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:29, 13 October 2021 (EDT)
Awesome. Thanks! :) Annie 03:44, 13 October 2021 (EDT); Stokes published Beyond the Desert as a separate novella, but didn't include it in the Stokes edition of Hidden Player and replaced it with Bill's Phantasm. --Username 08:45, 13 October 2021 (EDT)

The Grendel Affair -- clonepub

I was planning to delete [16], but noticed that you approved its creation from [17] with edit [18]. It seems to be a duplicate, with the publication date not normalized to honor the copyright page. Other books in the series seem to have the same issues. Thoughts? --GlennMcG 01:36, 19 October 2021 (EDT)

I've no objection if you delete these. I've no memory why I approved these back in January. If there has been a discussion about date in the book vs Amazon date, I've missed it. For my own verifications where a book is already here from Amazon, I will alter the note to state that day and or month are from Amazon. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:17, 19 October 2021 (EDT)

Tales of the Uneasy

You PV'd original 1911 edition of this book,, so I'm letting you know I moved the link from title page to the 1911 edition and fixed the page numbers. --Username 14:39, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Wrong Date; I was adding some stuff to G.K. Chesterton's books and wondered why 1 short story was much later than the others; seems all the stories in the collection linked above, except for Dunsany's, were given the date of the book because their titles were slightly different, but Chesterton's is from 1911, I believe (1 of his Father Brown stories); you might want to verify exact date and change it. --Username 17:52, 24 October 2021 (EDT)

Gaslight; I assume the 1998 was an editing error so I fixed it, but on the slim chance your copy actually says 1998 I'm letting you know first. --Username 10:24, 28 October 2021 (EDT)

Tightbeam - 2018

Hi Ron, thanks for updating the Tightbeam series title entries. One thing, though. Is there any chance you could combine the two Tightbeam - 2018 entries where Bob Jennings was editor (i.e. and There was a change of editorship of Tightbeam from Bob Jennings to George Phillies and then to George Phillies and Jon Swartz between August and October 2018. In the process, the last edition of Tightbeam edited by Jennings (#288) bore the same date as the single issue edited solely by George Phillies (#289), i.e. September 2018. Currently, the entry for the Tightbeam series appears to show Bob Jennings re-appearing as editor after a brief stint by George Phillies in 2018 ( 10:49, 28 October 2021 (EDT)

Also, it was my typographical error to name George Phillies as "Goerge Phillies" regarding the sub-series Tightbeam - 2018 (as edited by Phillies and Jon Swartz). Is it possible to un-variant this name or at least to correct the typo? That said, it's likely that the variant will still show because of Swartz's name (his main entry is as Jon D. Swartz). Sorry for the confusion on this matter. Greg--Explorer1000 10:49, 28 October 2021 (EDT)

I can combine the two EDITOR records for Jennings for 2018, but that is an edit you could do yourself. In this case since the title records are identical, you can simply go to Jennings' bibliography page and find the "Check for Duplicate Titles" link on the left menu under "Editing Tools". This will produce a list of suspected duplicates. Check the boxes next to the two titles and click the merge selected titles button. Ordinarily this produces an intermediate page that allows to to resolve difference, but since these two records are identical, there's nothing to decide. Click the complete merge button to submit the edit.
To fix the typo you don't want to break the variant relationship. It still needs to be there because of the difference between "Jon Swartz" and his canonical name "Jon D. Swartz". What you want to do is go to the title record with the typo and simply edit it and correct the name. The author record for "Goerge Phillies" will automatically be deleted by doing this.
If you run into any problems, or have any questions let me know. If you really get stuck, just ask and I'll do these edits for you, but I wanted to give you the chance to do them yourself first. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:44, 28 October 2021 (EDT)
All done! Thanks for your advice on that. :) Greg--Explorer1000 22:40, 28 October 2021 (EDT)

The Bells of Shoredan

For this publication I think ph (pamphlet) would be bettar as format than pb (paperback). Any objections to me changing this? Thanks, --Willem 16:31, 30 October 2021 (EDT)

I agree. Please proceed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:02, 30 October 2021 (EDT)
Thanks and done! --Willem 11:24, 2 November 2021 (EDT)

Undoing a pub note change that you moderated

Hi, I'm proposing to (mostly) undo a pub note change you moderated a couple of months ago - this is just a FYI in case you have anything to add there. Thanks ErsatzCulture 09:04, 1 November 2021 (EDT)

I've added a note about OCLC's "vaporware" records to the discussion on Zapp's Talk page.
On the moderation side of things, I find that Edit History is a very useful tool when dealing with submissions that would make significant changes to unverified-but-thoroughly-researched publications. At this time it's the only way for us, moderators, to determine who wrote the original notes and let him or her know about the changes. I am still getting used to its availability, but it's a great tool when I remember to use it.
At some point I hope to implement FR 1136, "Create user-specific watch lists of publications", which should help editors keep track of their "unverified-but-thoroughly-researched" pubs, but we aren't there yet. Ahasuerus 12:17, 1 November 2021 (EDT)


Thanks for processing all those. I must have clicked the wrong radio button when I merged The Pretty Place I submitted and edit [19] to fix John Scifibones 12:00, 1 November 2021 (EDT)

"unknown" COVERART artists

When you have a moment, could you please take a look at this announcement of a new cleanup report? It mentions two of your verified records. Ahasuerus 22:25, 2 November 2021 (EDT)

Avatars Inc.

Hi Ron,

Just a note that this now has full contents plus a link to an archive where the stories can be seen actually thanks to an editor and a bit of cleanup. As you had been slowly chipping at it and trying to complete it, I thought you will want to know. I also cleaned up the pub note. Annie 22:42, 2 November 2021 (EDT)

Thanks. But I hadn't been attempting to complete this one. I added the publication and two stories because those stories had received award nominations. I probably wasn't able to find the complete contents at the time. Good that someone else was able to do so. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:11, 3 November 2021 (EDT)

The Judging of Jurgen

A quick question about this edition and this edition of "The Judging of Jurgen". Is the Bleiler Supernatural External ID really "322a"? Normally, all Bleiler IDs are numeric and that's what our cleanup reports expect. If this one has a trailing letter, I will have to adjust the report logic. TIA! Ahasuerus 09:08, 4 November 2021 (EDT)

This one is a bit unusual. 322 is the entry for Jurgen. Ordinarily, lettered entries within numbered entries to give descriptions of stories within a collection or anthology. However, in this case Bleiler uses [a] to describe the story giving its original standalone publication (Bookfellows, Chicago, 1920). He also notes that it is not included with the original novel (1919) but is included in most publications after 1920. I don't know that I added any others with a alphabetic suffix. However, I would have done so if the sub entry referenced a separate publication. If this is creating an issue with the cleanup report, we could move this to the notes. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:41, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
Oh no, I just needed to confirm that Bleiler Supernatural IDs could contain trailing alpha characters. Now that it has been established that they are valid, I'll change the report to treat them like it treats Reginald-1 and Reginald-3, which also allow trailing alpha characters. Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 11:37, 4 November 2021 (EDT)

Fixing data after approval

Hi Ron,

After approving things like this, can you please fix the data after that (add the country after the state)? Also, and more importantly, can you point me to the source that says that this author was born in Ohio? Her author page and says "she grew up in rural southeast Ohio" which is not the same as being born there but as you approved that as a birth place, can you update the list of links to add the source of that (or add a note if it is not linkable). This specific editor has the habit to add as birth places any place an author is known to have grown up in or lived in - so as most of their submissions, these need to be carefully checked (as with any other submission of course). Thanks! Annie 14:21, 4 November 2021 (EDT)

Updated. SFE4 gives Ohio as her birthplace. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:21, 4 November 2021 (EDT)
Ah, yes. Forgot that they put that under the bio. Thanks! Annie 15:27, 4 November 2021 (EDT)

Under the Moons of Mars

On verifying this pub I noticed two things. First, the front flap of the dustjacket has code "0670", so I would like to change the publication date to 1970-06-00. Second, the cover is signed as Roger Hane in the lower right corner. Hane is only credited for jacket design, but I think it;'s safe to add him as cover artist. His wikipedia article also mentions Under the Moons of Mars. Can you agree? Thanks, --Willem 09:36, 10 November 2021 (EST)

Both those changes sound fine. Please proceed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:39, 10 November 2021 (EST)
Thanks and done. --Willem 09:48, 10 November 2021 (EST)

Necromancy in Nilztiria


See this. This is a new editor - can you please be more careful when moderating new editors? Without being told what is wrong with their first submissions and being guided towards how to improve their edits, they will never learn the site's rules and conventions. Thanks! Annie 07:03, 12 November 2021 (EST)


There is no Harper edition. Crowell was acquired by Harper and Row in 1979; this book came out in 1980. All publisher credits in the book (bottom of spine in photo, copyright page) say Crowell. Open Library record shows title page with Crowell. --Username 11:55, 17 November 2021 (EST)

This presents a problem since the preponderance of secondary sources list the publisher as Harper. I've started a discussion on the community portal with a suggestion. Please feel free to chime in there on how to reflect the publisher. Once we decide what to do, I'll unreject your edit. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:48, 18 November 2021 (EST)

You Sexy Thing

Hi Ron,

The link being added here is to a specific edition of the book (the edition already has it in its record). Why do we also need it on the title level? I removed it for now but wanted to make sure I am not missing something on why you approved it? Annie 14:51, 17 November 2021 (EST)

And here? Adding a link to the publisher site for the ebook record into the hardcover? I swapped it for the record to the correct edition. Thanks! Annie 14:52, 17 November 2021 (EST)
Unfortunately, although this editor, User:Tocchan, clearly means well and has been contributing for a number of years, he doesn't communicate with moderators. I suspect that his ability to parse the messages that moderators leave on his Talk page is very limited, which means that he makes the same mistakes over and over. It's frustrating, but at this point all I can do is encourage those who work on his submissions to be extra vigilant and double check all of the values that he adds/changes. Ahasuerus 16:44, 17 November 2021 (EST)
I guess that I don't really consider either of Tochhan's original edits to be much of a problem here. In both cases, the page linked has a pull down list that allows the user to navigate between the various formats published by Macmillan. Including the publisher site for the first edition in the title record seems fine, even if it is also linked in a specific edition. For the second edit, yes, the hardcover link is better, but the ebook link has the hardcover available in the pulldown. In any case, if I notice similar edits in the future, I won't approve them. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:35, 20 November 2021 (EST)

The Great Victorian Collection

Hi Ron,

I have this change to your verified publication on hold. Can you check your book to make sure that the price is there for the stated first edition (or if it is price-clipped, we can add a note that the PV copy is price-clipped). Thanks! Annie 01:28, 22 November 2021 (EST)

Alas, it is price clipped, which is probably why I hadn't added a price. I can add the note after you approve the edit, or, feel free to add it yourself, if you'd like. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:39, 22 November 2021 (EST)
Approved, note added but feel free to reword it if you want :). While you are around, would you like to handle this one (you are the only PV :) ). Thanks! Annie 06:48, 22 November 2021 (EST)
Already rejected it. The publisher as listed pre-dates my verification. If we were to go with a single publisher it should by Smythe. However, there is a note explaining what is going on, so I think the status quo is fine. I mentioned the necessity to check with PVs in advance in the rejection note, which I know they read. I've lost count of how many times I've brought this up with them. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:55, 22 November 2021 (EST)
This whole Dufour situation needs clearing up one of these days - at least a few of the ones under it are in the same situation as this one. Oh well. A problem for another day. Thanks for handling it! Annie 07:08, 22 November 2021 (EST)

Dufour; If you think Dufour Editions is not the publisher, then why are there all those books under the publisher Dufour Editions on ISFDB? The record is not for the original Smythe edition, it's for the Dufour-distributed edition; most books by them have a note on ISFDB saying the book has their sticker on it. If the book was by Colin Smythe the original editor who entered it would have just written Colin Smythe as the publisher and not bothered to write a note about Dufour. If you or someone else wants to enter the original British edition then they can enter the publisher as Colin Smythe, but this one is the edition distributed in America by Dufour Editions (EDIT: I see someone already entered the original British Colin Smythe edition, so that's taken care of). The way the publisher is written, as Dufour / Colin Smythe, implies they were an imprint of Smythe when they just distributed foreign editions in America and were not an imprint of any publisher, which is why there is no other book on ISFDB that has Dufour entered with any other publisher. Also, the editor who entered that incorrect publisher info is long gone from here, and I've had to correct countless mistakes by them before; it wouldn't make any sense for me to ask you first because you didn't enter any of that info. It's just another case of 1 of my edits being rejected unnecessarily, as has happened several times recently with certain moderators. I've lost count of how many times I've brought this up with them. --Username 07:52, 22 November 2021 (EST)

  • I can't speak to the other Dufour Editions in the project. I can speak to the publication that I have verified and Dufour is not the publisher. This is clearly explained by the note and there should be no confusion about why Dufour is listed. The sticker is in addition to the publisher. It is not a cancellation sticker as is sometimes done.
  • I believe that person who originally entered the data entered the publisher as Colin Smythe. However, since the oldest history is after the original data entry, that can't be determined for certain. It appears that Dufour was added to the listed publisher in 2010 by Bluesman along with a note from Locus1 explaining why the publisher was entered that way.
  • There is no loophole to the necessity to notify verifiers only when changing data that they personally added. If another editor told you that such a loophole exists, please let me know who that was so that we discuss our varying interpretations of the standard. If this is an idea that you came up with, please stop trying to invent excuses for not contacting editors who have verified publications that you want to edit. It wastes everybody's time. It delays to approval of your edits as moderators either have to ask you to contact the verifier, or do so on your behalf (as Annie did just above), or they simply ignore your edits where verifiers have not been contacted.
  • I'm unaware of your edits ever being rejected unnecessarily. In this case it was certainly necessary for the reasons explained above.
--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:34, 22 November 2021 (EST)

Author Correction


I noticed a title " Films: Love Death + Some Regression", which is an essay noted as by "Karen Lowachee" at I believe the author name is a typo, and the author should be "Karin Lowachee". The Amazon kindle preview notes "Karin Lowachee". "Karen Lowachee" has no other titles in ISFDB, but "Karin Lowachee" does, and they appear in F&SF also, of a similar type.

I checked with the PV SFJuggler, who concurs that a correction to "Karin Lowachee" should be made. AnnieMod reminded me I needed to check with both PV. I understand from AnnieMod that I can just update the author on the record here Thanks.Dave888 14:15, 22 November 2021 (EST)

That edit is fine. Please proceed. And, thanks for asking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:09, 22 November 2021 (EST)
I'll take care of that. Thanks.Dave888 11:12, 23 November 2021 (EST)

Startling Stories, Fall 1944 Edit in queue. Dolly Donnell is credited as the artist for "Shadow over Mars" in the reply to a letter on page 104 of the [Winter 1945 issue of Startling Stories] . Had to change at title level because of merged titles.--swfritter 19:59, 23 November 2021 (EST)

I'm completely fine with these edits and have approved them. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:47, 24 November 2021 (EST)

Jacobi Book; I made edit with a few add/fix. --Username 12:51, 3 December 2021 (EST)

Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:03, 3 December 2021 (EST)

Thieves' World: Turning Points

I was getting ready to add notes and then PV Thieves' World: Turning Points hardback. However, looking at the title page, I think the pub title should just be "Turning Points" which actually matches the title record here. Do you agree and would you mind if I change it when adding notes? You are the sole PV right now. Phil 09:22, 6 December 2021 (EST)

That should be fine. Please proceed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:25, 6 December 2021 (EST)

In the Stone House

Hello, Ron. Could you check your copy of this book by Barry N. Malzberg and confirm that the title of a story in it is "The Intransigents", not "The Intrasigents"? Thanks.--Rosab618 00:20, 7 December 2021 (EST)

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:00, 7 December 2021 (EST)

The Door into Shadow

When preparing to PV The Door into Shadow, I noticed missing regular titles as follows: Poem on ix; Map on x; "On Time, Calendars, and Related Subjects" on 293; "On Dracon Anatomy and Physiology" on 297. Any problem with my adding those and some notes? Phil 07:56, 15 December 2021 (EST)

No objections. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:59, 15 December 2021 (EST)

Wolf Anthology; Made a lot of changes for this, don't know if any of them require me to contact PV so figured I'd do it anyway. --Username 18:02, 19 December 2021 (EST)

Cool; new cover is less blurry than old one. About the ISBN, usually when it's an error typing it into Google Images brings up nothing, but in this case it does bring up this,, while there are 2,,, with no ISBN and no cover image. So I wonder if there's an edition with the ISBN out there somewhere. --Username 22:08, 19 December 2021 (EST)

Galaxy Magazine, October 1959

A quick Fixer-derived question about your verified Galaxy Magazine, October 1959. Floyd C. Gale's review of Not in Solitude (p. 146) lists "Kenneth F. Glantz" as the author. It turns out that the author was Kenneth F. Gantz (no "l"). Could you please check your copy to see how the name is spelled in the review and adjust the records? TIA! Ahasuerus 09:54, 21 December 2021 (EST)

It's "Glantz" in the review. My understanding of reviews is that they should reflect the title/author of the book instead of how they are reflected in the review. This seems to be what is reflected here. With your question, it seems that your understanding differs from mine. If my understanding is correct, we should update the review record, merge the two novels keeping the correct name and delete the incorrect pub record. Let me know what you think. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:05, 21 December 2021 (EST)
I must not have phrased my question well since I 100% agree with your interpretation of the data entry rules for reviews and the proposed fix. Sorry about that! Ahasuerus 10:27, 21 December 2021 (EST)
Fixed. Thanks for finding this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:56, 21 December 2021 (EST)

Two Crowns for America

While getting ready to add notes and PV Two Crowns for America, I noticed that there are missing titles for the illustration on page [1] and a "Partial Bibliography" on pages 372-375. Any problem if I add them and change the page count to [1]+375? Phil 08:53, 30 December 2021 (EST)

That's mostly fine. I don't think "[1]" is correct for the illustration. If I were adding it, I would leave the page count as is and list the artwork with page "bp". However if you want to count the unnumbered pages, assuming that we skip the flyleaf, the count would be "[8]+375" with the illustration occurring on page "[7]". Other than that, I'm fine with your changes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:10, 30 December 2021 (EST)
Thanks. I keep re-reading the rules on how to do the unnumbered page counts and somehow come to different interpretations, especially seeing how some other editors have done it in the past. It looks like your way is to count all of the unnumbered pages starting with the first page with print on it until you get to the first numberable page. I'll make sure to do it that way from now on. Phil 22:08, 30 December 2021 (EST)

The Beast-King Murders

Hello, Ron, happy new year. Can you tell me the source for George MacDonald being the real author of this book? The Greenleaf Classics website says here that it's by D.L. Champion. Thanks.--Rosab618 00:09, 31 December 2021 (EST)

I'm not certain that it was my source 4 years ago, but FictionMags has it by McDonald in the July 1937 issue of the magazine. I'm not sure which is more authoritative, but we should probably note the discrepancy on the parent title in either case. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:42, 31 December 2021 (EST)

Deryni Series - Revised editions

When getting ready to add notes and PV the three volumes that comprise the revised Deryni series hardcover editions (Deryni Rising, Deryni Checkmate, and High Deryni), I found that all three are missing the map at the beginning, the "Index of Characters", and the "Index of Place Names" (both at the end). In addition, "Deryni Rising" is missing the "Introduction" plus "High Deryni" is also missing "Partial Time Line ..." and "The Genetic Basis ...". Would you mind if I add those titles? Phil 08:24, 31 December 2021 (EST)

I wouldn't mind at all. Please go ahead. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 08:34, 31 December 2021 (EST)