User talk:Swfritter/Archive2

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Analog 1981-1982 March/March

I changed Magazine:Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact#Issues table of issues, but I'm not sure it was a good idea. In 1981 & 1982 there were two links labeled "Mar" (& no April issues those years). I changed them to say "Mar2", "Mar30", "Mar1", & "Mar29", which I hope has the advantage of being clear at least. But of course, it widened the table. In my browser & resolution, anyway, this added a scroll bar at the bottom & cut off the end of the last column of the table.
I can always put it back if this seems like a problem. (Or you or someone else can, of course.) And it seems that the rest of the world uses bigger screens with higher resolution (and apparently has better eyes) than I do, so it may not be a problem at all. I just thought I'd run it by you & by anyone else who bothers to see this & check it out. Thanks! -- Dave (davecat) 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not having the same problem. It sounds like there is one pixel too many!--swfritter 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Asylum Earth

Think the artist on the cover of SLMRTHZCJH1968 is Podwil as in Jerome/Jerry. Have checked several pubs credited to him and his signature has changed quite a bit over the years but a couple of pubs from the same few years seem to be close. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have one of those books. Thanks!!!--swfritter 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alistair vs Alastair Reynolds

Your verified pub SMTHNGWCKC2008 lists on page 17 an interview with Alistair Reynolds and on page 268 an review of a work written by Alastair Reynolds. Since Alistair doesn't exist anywhere else... I imagine the author interviewed is Alastair. Kevin 18:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. Change made. Thanks.--swfritter 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

More NavBar data, please

I have entered navbar data for Analog you have provided. I would like to have data from Dec96 (inclusive) upwards and from year -71 (inclusive) downwards. So, when/if you have time...By the way, I am going to remove the raw data and links as asked, but first I am going to check once more that everything works.Tpi 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

62-71 available. NavBars before that issue have been done.--swfritter 23:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Dec96- Dec08 are here. Have fun.--swfritter 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


When you get a chance, could you please check whether it's "Mendenhal" or "Mendenhall" in your verified Science Fiction Adventures, December 1953? TIA! Ahasuerus 03:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mendenhal (editorial credit - no signature) but clearly, by style, the same artist credited as Mendenhall (physically checked) in this pub and that pub.--swfritter 23:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nav Bars for Asimov's, 1990 through 1997

If it's not too much trouble, I could use Nav Bars for Asimov's from 1990-97. I just finished the set from 1998 up. Thanks!--Rkihara 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is 1990-1992. There is one issue I have to add a date to and then I will have the rest.--swfritter 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Guess you just fixed up the Mid-Dec 1994 issue which is what was causing the problem.--swfritter 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Nav Bars! Interesting about Mid-Dec. 1994, as I went through and fixed all of the dates yesterday, and haven't touched any since.--Rkihara 06:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The new bars are missing the line break at the end.--Rkihara 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I had to wait until the next day to download the backup - it sure was a great idea for the system to generate daily backups. You should get a Google docs invite for 1990-1997 - I think the line feed gets thrown in when pasting from there but doesn't when pasting from webpages.--swfritter 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nathalie-Charles Henneberg

FYI, according to Contento, "Nathalie-Charles Henneberg" is a joint pseudonym used by Charles Henneberg and Nathalie Henneberg rather than a misspelling. And I wonder why our dates of birth/death differ from what Contento has?.. Ahasuerus 17:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia she continued to use the Nathalie-Charles Henneberg name after her husband's death in 1959, eventually using her own name. I have found a reference on a French website that lists the publication date of the story as 1961 - so it might be only hers - although I did find this collection which lists them as co-authors. Unfortunately, French is Greek to me. As far as the birth/death dates - Wikipedia lists the same dates as Locus. I know the International Science-Fiction issue was not in the system before I entered it but I can't remember if any of the other pubs where it appears were already there.--swfritter 01:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Did some annoying clean-up work. There was also a novel by N. C. Henneberg which is by the pair. Not only was the birthdate for the the bogus Nathalie Henneberg wrong but the birthplace was listed as France; she was born in Russia. So now there are massive notes for the story. Also put Wikipedia links in - Charles is actually redirected to Nathalie. Did not put the French edition of The Green Gods in so there may be some work there for an internationalist.--swfritter 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I have now added the first French edition, which was published as by "N. Ch. Henneberg", just to make things a little more interesting. Ahasuerus

Helbent 4

Sorry, the moment I approved the submission I realized it wasn't one of mine. Hope it didn't mess up any work you were doing with the title. MHHutchins 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I almost approved one of yours, too. One milligram more of pressure on a mouse button---.--swfritter 23:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The queues are getting longer[1], and it's not always easy to find your own submissions when you've got twenty of your own edits to approve without further checking, and you're just scrolling down the same amount each time to find them... mistakes will happen. BLongley 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
[1] This is probably a good thing overall, but as I got back home and saw two pages of Rtrace title variants I decided to get a large drink and go do something else. I think we mods could all do with a bit more auto-approval, or at least some help with checks that must be made. BLongley 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Orbit, #2

This magazine that you verified lists a story by August Derleth as "A Traveler in Time". I just updated this collection which lists the story as "A Traveller in Time" on the page, in the contents and on the copyright page (referring to the magazine appearance). I've also noted that the online Contento index lists it with the single l, both in the magazine and in the Arkham House book. I just wanted to double check before I make the book story a variant. Thanks. --Rtrace 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"A Traveler in Time" is correct both on TOC and title page of story. Contento has a tendency to not document variants for titles, artists, and authors.--swfritter 19:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I'm using the magazine appearance as the canonical title since it occurred first.--Rtrace 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Baen's Universe, February 2009

I have cleaned up Voltaire's page and merged/vt'd a few versions of "Micromegas". Your version of the Title record referred to its appearance in Jim Baen's Universe, February 2009 and mentioned that it may have been excerpted from a longer work. The original French text is fairly short (under 50Kb at Gutenberg), so I wonder if the Universe version was really abridged? Ahasuerus 05:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that one is in French but it looks to be the same thing - same number of chapters. I will take the note out.--swfritter 23:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Agony and Remorse of Rhesus IX"

Could you please double check whether the title of this Lupoff/Ova Hamlet story uses "of" or "on" in your verified Fantastic, August 1972? All other appearances use "on". TIA! Ahasuerus 23:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"of" on both TOC and title page. I will make it a variant - it was likely a mistake.--swfritter 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nav Bars for Asimov's, 1985-1989

I've finished Asimov's from 1990-1997, and if you have the time, I could use Nav Bars for the years 1985 through 1989. I'll be slowing down after Asimov's, since the only major magazine remaining to be entered is Analog, and there's a fair number of people working on it already. I may start uploading images as I have 400-500 scans that I did for myself, and Visco among others, which are still not uploaded.-Rkihara 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's in the mail.--swfritter 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!-Rkihara 03:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Corianas / Corianis Disaster

Your verified pub lists a story by Murray Leinster called The Corianas Disaster. Could this be The Corianis Disaster? I can't find any reference to Corianas (Locus1, Erwin S.Strauss' Index to the SF magazines 1951-1965, Google) If it is Corianis, the story can be merged with this version. Thanks Willem H. 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Corianis it is. Fixed and merged. Thanks.--swfritter 20:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Science Fiction, June 1958

Is the story "One to a Customer" in this issue credited to "Theordore" or "Theodore"? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed that I'd asked this before. Have you had a chance to look at the mag? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Guess I missed the previous request. Theodore is right. Fixed and merged. Thanks for spotting the mistake.--swfritter 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Deathworld part 3 artwork

Low priority, but when you get a chance & if it's not too much trouble: Will you please check Astounding, March 1960? The listing shows 5 illustrations to the 3rd installment of Deathworld, but in the new PG pub there are (by my count) 6 illustrations for each installment. (You can tell where the installments begin & end by the fancy initial capital letters.)
This is not, I think, the usual case of PG's splitting an illustration broken by the gutter into two separate ones; in this case they effectively reproduced them with a (visual) gutter between, very nice; I decided that this was the equivalent of what's in the mag, & entered those as single (reprinted) illustrations. (Feel free to tell me that this is not correct procedure, of course.) You can see the PG pub as I did it here.
Thanks! -- Dave (davecat) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is another illustration on page 147. It is only one column in width on the left hand side of the page and I did not notice it when leafing through the mag. Fixed!--swfritter 20:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I noticed there were an awful lot of illustrations in that 3-part serial (18), & that quite a few of them were smaller. I'm really glad the folks at PG chose this time to place the split illustrations side by side, with a visual gutter there. (It's also nice when they put them together into a single illustration, but that's got to be a lot more work & the results sometimes are only so-so. Sometimes excellent, of course.) -- Dave (davecat) 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Analog navbars

I thought that all Analogs have their Navbars in place already - but then I noticed that -91 and -92 seems to have been forgotten. I didn't notice that navbar data for those years is anywhere. If it isn't too much bother...Tpi 15:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue updated.--swfritter 19:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Phillips used as a pen name

As this change approved by Rkihara affects quite a few of your verified pubs, you might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Most Heavily Illustrated Magazine Story?

I thought you might find "The Avengers" in this issue of Amazing Stories interesting for sheer number of illustrations within it.-Rkihara 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is this book which was first verified a couple of years ago with some interesting page numbers and this "issue" of Destinies but as far as magazines go that looks like the current record. The most I've ever had in one issue is 12 but one of those has some classic Virgil Finlay. There are times when I am almost tempted not to include those small pieces that are nothing more than portraits of characters in the story. The biggest problem with double digit artwork entries is that there is no simple method for sorting them on bibliography pages. There is currently no sorting method. See the entries for Creep, Shadow! on Finlay's page. Even if they were sorted by title illustrations 11 through 19 would show up between illustrations 1 and 2.--swfritter 18:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Twenty one illustrations! I'm impressed. In a story with over ten illustrations the artist may have earned as much as the writer.-Rkihara 04:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

J.Jones credits in July 1968 Galaxy Magazine

Flushed with success from a recent pseudonym-ing/merge of "Dick Powers" and "Richard Powers", I happened to notice while looking up "Jones" that there is an outlier "J. Jones" author, connected to the covers of two books (one unverified, the other verified by someone apparently long inactive) and to four pieces of artwork from "There is a Tide" in Galaxy Magazine, July 1968. I see you just recently did a transient verification of that, and since the primary verifier is also long inactive, I thought I'd ask you.... Are those images explicitly credited to J. Jones, and do they have a "J JONES" (sic -- he seems to sign in all caps) signature? Thanks. --MartyD 11:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no editorial credit. Two of the pieces are signed "J. JONES". Both the art and signatures are consistent with other works credited to Jeff Jones. You are bravely treading into treacherous waters as I am sure you have surmised. There are many inconsistencies in the way artwork has been entered. A lot of the cover art was entered from secondary sources and often those sources used standards different than ours. Some editors have different philosophies about how to credit the works. I generally go with the credit that seems to be closest to the potential canonical artist name whether it be the editorial credit or the artist's signatures - and sometimes a credit on the table of contents. For instance. If a story is editorially credited to "Finlay" but signed "Virgil Finlay" I go with the latter while others would go with the former. If the artist is identified by initials I use what I consider to be the canonical name; that is a fairly common practice which is why you do not see a lot of artists credited by initials. I try to make a general annotation in pub notes when a pub contains no editorial credits. As for canonical artist names - we really have no overall standard; they have to be decided on a case by case basis. It is generally a wise idea to seek community advice when making a decision on canonical name decisions that are not totally obvious. I have either primary or transient verifications on nearly all of the magazines in my collection so feel free to query me about any of them.--swfritter 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Great. Seems like I'm pretty safe taking the merge route. Thanks! --MartyD 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Pseudonym!!! Pseudonym!!!--swfritter 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Pseudonym, I meant. Sorry about any anxiety.... --MartyD 10:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's nice to have editors that give a heads up when they are about to make changes. I think you are going to find that you will probably never have to do a merge. I think there may have been a time in the past when the data was a little less stable that they might have been of use. In a way this situation is not really a pseudonym but a variant spelling of the author's name but the only method we have for documenting such cases is the pseudonym process.--swfritter 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Asylum Earth [2]

Added a cover image to [[1]] and fleshed out the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Unknown Quantity / At No Extra Cost

Could you check this pub for me? It contains the story "At No Extra Cost" by Peter Phillips. According to my copy of No Place Like Earth this is a variant of the story "Unknown Quantity". If this is true, the story should begin with: "And I say to you that this Breath of Life is a holy thing, and that they who sin against it .... etc. Thanks Willem H. 13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're All Alone

Could you take another look at this pub? It contains the novel (story?) You're All Alone by Fritz Leiber. I compared it with this pub, and the two are the same. I think they should be merged, but I'm not sure if it should be a novel or a novella. In the Ace edition it is registered as a novel (105 pages), but in Fantastic as a novella (93 pages, it is interrupted on page 83, but continues on page 114. Thanks Willem H. 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See this discussion. It looks like all versions of You're All Alone are novella length and that it was expanded for book publication.--swfritter 16:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It pays to do a little more checking. The magazine version is actually about 42k words long - which makes it a (Complete Novel) Serial. It does seem odd that the Ace appearance is so short but there might be a high per-page word count or perhaps even a third less than novel length version!? It might be quicker for me sort out all the changes. It should only require changes to the magazine versions--swfritter 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Clute/Nicholls have this to say: The Sinful Ones (1950 Fantastic Adventures as "You're All Alone"; exp by other hands as title story of the Universal Giant Edition #5 anth 1953; cut vt as title story of You're All Alone coll 1972; text restored 1980). Ouch! Double ouch! (And there is nothing relevant in the online addenda.) Ahasuerus 02:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I made some explanatory notes for the title. I also changed the date of the title from 1950 to 1953 since that is the date that it first appeared in book form. I was assuming the the magazine version was a novella; I figured the shorter versions were reprints of the magazine version. I was so wrong. The two shorter versions still remain as novels although I would guess that they are about 30k to 35k words. This is worse than novels based upon screenplays that are based upon novels.--swfritter 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks much better! Do we want to mention that, according to Clute/Nicholls, the 1953 version was "expanded by other hands"? Also, it looks like the two "Serial (Complete Novel)" versions have been merged even though Serial Titles are usually not merged. Do we want to unmerge them? Ahasuerus 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Added the extra notation. You may have seen this weirdness before. I think whenever the first entry in a pub is unmerged the title is replaced with the title of the pub.--swfritter 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Eek, that's pretty bad! :( I'll create a bug report, but who knows when Al may be back... Ahasuerus 22:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed now that you have seen it. I always double check pubs from which I have unmerged stories since it is a known bug that the page number disappears.--swfritter 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I always use Edit Pub (to add) and Remove titles from this pub (to delete) for contents, then remerge or delete as required, rather than Unmerge content titles. I only understand Unmerge for Container-type titles, and bugs like this reinforce my view that it's safer that way. BLongley 21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing Editors

I did "Omni" manually as well, I'm afraid, but haven't done the merges as the choice of editor looks silly in some cases. I converted the "unknown"s to "Ellen Datlow" as pretty-certain Fiction Editor, but I'd be tempted to drop "Bob Guccione" entirely. I'm thinking maybe I should have just added "Editors of Omni" instead, but Datlow seemed a good compromise. BLongley 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to create the missing Interzone Editor records from Publication Editors though, those seem just as haywire to me. Feel free to take over Omni (they should all be easily findable now, and I added the missing two years (Shortfiction only) and linked the other year to the magazine page). But I would like advice on Interzone. (I guess I've got to try and do the British pubs, few others will try, and even fewer would fix them right.) BLongley 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I normally don't like to use my Contento magazine CD database for doing database entry - he deserves the bucks for his work - I don't think it is too much of an imposition to go with their editor credits. He credits only the fiction editors for Omni.--swfritter 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
For Omni
   * Ben Bova - Fiction Editor: Omni, Oct ’78 - Dec ’79.
   * Robert Sheckley - Fiction Editor: Omni, Jan ’80 - Sep ’81.
   * Ellen Datlow - Fiction Editor: Omni, Oct ’81.
A bit late, I don't intend to return to them. Perhaps it would be wise to add that info to the magazine page for Omni for the next mug volunteer? BLongley 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
For Interzone
   * Interzone; Leeds, England: Interzone, #1 - 4
   * Interzone; Brighton, England: Interzone, #5 — 192.
   * TTA Press: Interzone, #192 —. 
I'm not too interested in the Publishers, the history isn't as significant as Nova Publications was. And even for Nova Publications I wouldn't dare add credits from secondary sources. Add to the Magazine page, I'd suggest. BLongley 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
   * John Clute - Co-Editor: Interzone, #1 - 9.
   * Alan Dorey - Co-Editor: Interzone, #1 - 9.
   * Malcolm Edwards - Co-Editor: Interzone, #1 - 4.
   * Colin Greenland - Co-Editor: Interzone, #1 - 12.
   * Graham Jones - Co-Editor: Interzone, #1 - 2.
   * Roz Kaveney - Co-Editor: Interzone, #1 - 7.
   * Simon Ounsley - Co-Editor: Interzone, #1 — 42.
   * David Pringle - Co-Editor: Interzone, #1 — 42.
   * David Pringle - Editor: Interzone, #43 — 192.
   * Andy Cox - Editor: Interzone, #193 —.
OK, I think I'm happy to go with those for fixing missing editor records, if that task ends up with me. I'm not going to argue any of them even if they mismatch what the editions actually say though - people will just have to be glad that they can FIND an Editor record, and if they don't like it they can go fix it themselves. And post some guidelines on which Editors should be used, per Magazine. I am growing ever more fond of "Editors of FITB" as a solution to all "How does a new user of ISFDB find a magazine?" problems. I know I'm helping the British John C (Carnell) catch up with the US John C (Campbell) but the importance of the Editor strikes me as less and less useful the more we add new Magazines and Fanzines. Particularly as we're burying Editors of Collections in notes for now, however good a job they did of compiling "Best of" works. :-( BLongley 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Oftentimes during a transition of editors there is a bit of confusion as to who should get the credit. Our standard is to use the masthead but that may not necessarily reflect reality.--swfritter 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I worked backwards through the Pringle editions: the Publication Editors weren't actually a bad match, some differences around changeovers as you suggested, and I've still no idea why Lee Montgomerie is on several pubs. A couple of surprise Guest Editor editions in there. The Andy Cox issues credit far more people than expected though so I'm leaving them for someone else. Still, I finally reached Issue 1 tonight and feel quite good about it. Shame the seasonal editions don't sort right, is it considered OK to use dummy dates on Editor records so long as the Pub records stay correct? BLongley 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
So much fun. My own opinion is that it is appropriate to use an approximate date for seasonal editions especially if there is an independent source. Opinions differ. In any case, once the editor records have been merged and put in series they are independent of the pub. I seem to remember cases where the day field has been used to sort them correctly. That avoids the problem of assigning a month and makes it clearer that the day field is being used to sort the data since a date like 1984-00-01 is obviously not a valid date.--swfritter 18:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm not hiding any secret scripts from anyone, whenever I'm using plain (My)SQL to calculate stuff I post it somewhere on the Wiki. To my regret occasionally - see my recent realisation that all the "percentage verified" figures are wrong. :-( BLongley 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to share my "secrets" of posting via the API too, but do you have API posting capability already? In which case it's just my XML construction skills (hah!) that you might want. If not, but you've got Oracle installed locally, then I could document how I manually convert MySQL results into XML that can be posted via Oracle. I know, I should have MySQL posting capabilities sorted but I don't, and as I can't see how to do checks that the change I want to make isn't already made I still do a lot of intermediate steps manually. BLongley 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, let me know what steps you've accomplished already and I'll try and fill in the blanks. I use TOAD for MySQL and Oracle XE and have played with some old Oracle Application Express that comes with Oracle XE (all freeware) but haven't learnt Python or any other tools that others seem to use. BLongley 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In the three XML projects I worked on the XML was created through programming which also incorporated the submission process. I was thanking of doing ISFDB API the same way so that I can also incorporate data analysis routines in the code. --swfritter 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Constructing XML manually is obviously the last resort. But it's usually easy to convert data to XML. Figuring out what XML ISFDB actually requires has been a bit of a journey though. And I speak as somebody that supports a system that takes XML from five different sources (soon to be six) and has to apply DTDs and XSDs to them, then half a dozen XSLT transforms - with some lovely intermediate steps like an XSL-FO intermediate format before we create a PDF. And I still feel ISFDB is harder, so I'm happy to share anything I've learnt. BLongley 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Best Science Fiction from IF

Can you verify that the publisher of this pub is credited as "Galaxy Publishing Co."? It's the only title under that publisher name, as most are under "Galaxy Publishing Corp.". Thanks. MHHutchins 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was worried it would take a while to find my copy since it is an oddball title. Luckily it was third down in my oddball stack. The credit is correct though I suppose it should be normalized based upon our publisher standards?--swfritter 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
We have Publisher Standards now? I wish somebody had told me, as I thought I was the one that asked for some. :-( BLongley 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I think it should be recorded as stated. It stuck out like a sore thumb when I was doing a publisher search. It might be a good idea to add a note so that any future editor who wants to normalize it into the other name will think twice. Thanks for checking. MHHutchins 19:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Analog April 1961 - Review - Agent of Vega - Schmitz Typo

I updated the notes and contents of the April 61 Analog to fix the James A. Schmitz Typo. I amended the last line of the note already present to read "The author of 'Agent of Vega' James H. Schmitz is incorrectly listed as James A. Schmitz in the review section in the printed publication. Schmitz never published any works under the pseudonym James A. Schmitz and this error is editorially corrected in the database here in order to avoid creating a phantom author." - Thanks Kevin 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--swfritter 18:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy April 1958 - Review of Radiation

Your verified pub Galaxy Apr. 1958 has a review of 'Radiation' by two authors. The review attributed one author with a Ph.D. and the other without. [Amazon] has a very clear image of the cover which credits both authors with Ph.D. I would like to amend the review to credit both authors with the Ph.D. Could you check your edition and see if the review has one or both Ph.D.'s listed and I will put a note in that the review has been editorially changed in order to match the actual publication. - Thanks Kevin 04:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you also check to see if the subtitle 'What it is...' is mentioned in the review or review title? - Thanks Kevin 04:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It is Ph.D. in both places and "Radiation" is the way it is listed. I changed the attribution in Galaxy. I also approved your merge but realize now that we still have two titles when we should have one. there is a variant title and a master title. It looks like the original hc should also have the longer title. I guess the next step is to merge titles and get rid of the variant relationship.--swfritter 17:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think our edits conflicted. We actually need one variant I had entered because Lapp was later published (many times I beleive) without the Ph.D. and our other record Man and Space is without the Ph.D. So I intended to Variant it to the Non-Dr Version of his name. I'll come back later and re-adjust things so as to avoid another edit conflict. Kevin 17:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I should have just left all the changes to you.--swfritter 23:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No Problem - Fixed. Comments welcome! Radiation: What It Is and How It Affects You - Kevin 16:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Astounding May 1953 - Space, Time and Education

The essay 'Space, Time and Education' from your verified pub Astounding May 1953 has been reprinted but with a second comma as 'Space, Time, and Education', confirmed by both the Oxford Press cataloge and Worldcat. Could you check your copy to see if there is a comma in the 1953 version title? - Thanks Kevin 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My entry is as it appears in both the TOC and title page of the story - will leave the rest to you. It is sometimes amazing the obscure items that are reprinted.--swfritter 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

His Share of Glory: The Complete Short Science Fiction of Cyril M. Kornbluth

I added a cover image to your verified publication HSSHRGLRY1997. Thanks. --Rtrace 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Geis letters

There are a couple of pieces by Richard E. Geis that are typed as INTERIORART and titled as "Letter..." in Startling Stories, April 1953 and Startling Stories, May 1953. Can you check to see if these are correctly typed? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

They are actually essays, of course. Odd that I made the same mistake twice for the same author.--swfritter 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Dann's Visitors

It appears that someone has merged the two stories by Jack M. Dann titled Visitors (even though there's a warning that they may not be the same story). Can you check the text of your verified issue of Fantastic with Rkihara's verified issue of Asimov's I've never known them to reprint a ten-year-old story published in another genre magazine. Their rare reprints are usually more recent stories in obscure or non-genre sources. I'll leave a note on Rkihara's page. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it at least one other time. I can't remember the story but it first appeared in Galaxy (middle 50's?) and later in a minor mag (Fantastic Universe early 60's?). Both appearances had the same title. The text was radically different but the story was essentially the same. I suspected that H. L. Gold had substantially edited the story when he accepted it. The later appearance, probably illegal, I assumed to be closer to the original text. Certainly not a common practice. Perhaps the second version could use a modifier; "Visitors (revised)"?.--swfritter 00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Author credit for a story in Helix #8

I believe the author credit for the story in Helix #8 should be for Robert T. Jeschonek. It is the only story of his in the database without the middle initial. In this review of the story in that issue of the 'zine, the reviewer gives the middle initial. Since the 'zine has been pulled from the net I can't find any definitive sources. What do you think? MHHutchins 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are the definitive source. The data was likely entered by an editor from the website, possibly via cut and paste so the credit might be correct. I will change the name and make a notation that the story may have been credited without the T. Thanks.--swfritter 13:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your verified F&SF, April-May 2009

In F&SF, April-May 2009, the 46 •   Review: The Wall of America by Thomas M. Disch • book review by James Sallis is linked to the short story, and I think should be linked to the collection. Thanks. --Roglo 18:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks.--swfritter 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Apache lockups in IE

I just found IE6 locking up on XP when using the local Apache. Fixed by changing "Listen 80" to "Listen" in conf/httpd. Not sure if this is the same as your problem(s), but thought I'd mention it. BLongley 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. IE seems to have more compatibility issues with Windows than Firefox.--swfritter 15:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Does this mean you're at, or close, to getting a working local ISFDB? BLongley 00:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If I were to set my mind to it I could probably do it pretty quickly with all the posts. What it comes down to is balancing that with editing, moderating, and actually reading s-f. I'd really like to reduce the moderating load for those who have done such yeoman work. That's a lot to jam into the three hours a day of addictive ISFDB activity I am trying to limit myself to. There are so many books and magazines I haven't read yet!!! Just re-realized what a good writer Wilson Tucker was; The Skolian Empire beckons as does the Coyote universe (damn those series book). And alternating each novel with an s-f mag from the 50's along with reading all the Sturgeon short stories in my collection.--swfritter 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been concentrating my coding on things to make moderating easier and/or safer. It seems my other efforts (fixing obvious bugs that led to users encountering big purple errors) led to other problems that I shall leave to others to tune. (I didn't invent them, maybe Al left the big purple errors intentionally.) I want to read more, and moderate and fix less. The last major distraction was William Tenn, but I'm sure I've got a Sturgeon that needs reading in the spare time I don't have too... BLongley 01:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Magazine editing improvements

I've just done another "might as well enter another entire Magazine series" push (see Science Fiction Monthly) after JLochhas started referring to certain issues as verification sources for some cover-art. I messed up the 1974 issues (gave them all 1971 dates) and had to fix them. And then had to fix the Editor records. And the Coverart records. Thankfully, not too many content entries. (Hopefully those will arrive at some point.) You're looking at some date corrections on the SFRA Reviews where there will also be multiple edits needed for one magazine. It would be nice to have the EDITOR records corrected automatically too, but given that they're often merged into years, can you foresee the problems this might cause? (If you have a view on the COVERART problems as well, feel free to express it.) BLongley 22:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think the only EDITOR records that can be updated are those that haven't been merged. If I remember correctly the COVERART artist's name is updated if the pub is updated but not the title. The date I am not sure about but I would guess that it isn't. It would be nice if all the COVERART data was updated when the pub is updated. It might even be nice if there were a script to correct any inconsistencies that we have now.--swfritter 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that there are cases, rare but non-zero, when cover art has a title different from the title of the publication. This is particularly true when pre-existing art is used for a cover. For exasmple, several of the Grantville Gazette series have used actual 17th C works of art, or details from them, as cover art. These of course have their own titles. In such cases auto-updating a coverart record maight actually remove valid data, so any update should check if the existing title matched the pub title being changed, i would think. -DES Talk 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Bluesman only today asked me about the artist for a cover where it's from a known painting. In that case I just left it as "Cover: More Penguin Science Fiction". If people are changing them to the name of the painting (which is a bit dangerous, I've seen notes about misattributed masterpieces on the Gollancz Masterworks for instance) are they adjusting the dates to that of the painting? BLongley 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess updating dates for EDITOR and COVERART contents if, and only if, they are used in one publication only and their dates match that of the publication being updated, would be a help though. BLongley 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(after conflict with BLongley's post) DES, are you suggesting that COVERART records be renamed to match the title used by the original work of art? So Cover: My Petition for More Space should be changed to Golconde? And Cover: Long After Midnight should be changed to The Nightmare? I wouldn't agree. MHHutchins 18:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
After checking some examples in the db it seems my memory is at fault. The cases i though had altered cover art record titles merely have publication notes giving the original title, or in some cases notes on the cover art record itself (Which few users will see). See THMSNCHNTD2000 and THGRNTVLLG2003 for examples. In an ideal ISFDB there would be an easy way to edit notes on cover art records, and to display these when non-empty. Perhaps even an original title field on such records. But this is not IMO a high priority. Strike my comments above. -DES Talk 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add a Feature request. The programmers may get bored eventually. :-)BLongley 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Done long since, see Feature:90162. -DES Talk 08:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Another thought: if contents (any kind) are 0000-00-00 dated, and a more definite date is entered for the publication, wouldn't it be safe to adjust all 0000-00-00 contents to that date? It may not be the absolute first date, it may not even be the same as anything it's a variant of, but it's better than 0000-00-00? BLongley 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Another editing conflict. Variant title might be the more appropriate method for COVERART?. Coding changes in this area might be a bit troublesome. There might even be some merged COVERART records. Do we get the 0000-00-00 problem often enough to justify the changes?--swfritter 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Variants like this? Could work, but isn't going to be obvious. BLongley 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think cloning produces "merged" COVERART records anyway, which makes a "used once only" check less useful. BLongley 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've seen 0000-00-00 used on dated Anthologies or Collections contents but that may be down to one or two editors only. BLongley 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally do not like the way the example that Bill cites is handled. There's no way for the casual database user to figure out that "Small Worlds I" is the name of the work of art and not the title of a book which used the work as cover art in 1922. That should be handled in the note field of the coverart title record. MHHutchins 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Worth a try, but I agree. My note usually goes in the pub notes.--swfritter 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I use pub notes too, I don't think anyone reads coverart notes. But it was worth creating the example if only to show how badly it works with current software. BLongley 22:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)When I enter a reprint anthology, and do not have good data on the original publications of the contents, i will explicitly enter 0000-00-00 for contents entries (mostly shortfiction). I think that "unknown" -- which is what all zeros means -- is better than a clearly inaccurate date. Obviously if I can find an accurate date that is better.
For example, I am looking at entering Victorian Ghost Stories: An Oxford Anthology just now. I'm not sure what dates i will find for contents, but I am sure that I will not allow any to default to the pub date. I think that automatically changing 0000 dates to the pub date is very dangerous, and i advise against it. This applies more to shortfiction than to coverart, but Bill mentioned "content (any kind) above. -DES Talk 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That one should be taken to Rules and Standards then (or has it been before?), as I for one find "no later than" much more informative than "unknown". BLongley 19:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
But a date doesn't say "no later than", it says "published on". I asked for "no later than" and other date range forms some time ago, i think there is a feature request in for them. -DES Talk 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel a definite publication date should be recorded not only for the publication but for its contents. That's what we get by default, so I assume Al intended this too. If your "Victorian Ghost Stories: An Oxford Anthology" has a definite date, I'd use that for all contents so we have one "published on" reference at least and later edits can take it further back as necessary. If your edition has no date but seems to be a reprint of one of the existing entries I'd use the 1991 one we have for existing copies. (BTW, who left all those notes on our editions but didn't enter contents?) If you were entering a brand new anthology of unknown date I guess I'd prefer 0000-00-00 all round rather than the date you bought it, but one definite date should trump "unknown" IMO. BLongley 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you'd better check the feature requests too, as AFAIK we're working from ones recorded at Sourceforge now. ISFDB_Feature_List seems to have been deprecated, although it doesn't say so. BLongley 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The last time this came up, not too long ago, the anaswer was that our on-wiki feature list was stil live and ahd not been deprecated, as the on-wiki bug list had. If the on-wiki feature list has now been deprecated, please edit it to say so, and post a link to the live list. -DES Talk 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears from here Talk:ISFDB_Feature_List#Is_this_page_still_current.3F that we're going to retire it and move the outstanding requests to Sourceforge. Any help you can give would be appreciated. I started looking at some and found the current page a mess with duplicated (maybe triplicated) features at times and some features have been already fixed without noting such, I think. The good news is that we have actually started fixing some of them (including some things you asked for) even when the Sourceforge feature request was raised independently. BLongley 19:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done some cleanup of the on-wiki feature list, marking actually implemeted featues as DONE, and cross-referenceing duplicate or related features. -DES Talk 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Leiber's Conjure Wife

Added cover image to your verified pub of this title. MHHutchins 22:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the one.--swfritter 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Helen McCloy's Through a Glass, Darkly

Re: the review of Helen McCloy's Through a Glass, Darkly in your verified The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, Fall 1950, could you please check the review to see whether the novel is a psychological mystery (and thus non-genre) or SF? TIA! Ahasuerus 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully this took less time than the Buck Rogers verification or the time Claimed is going to take. The review is grouped with Fantasy Novel reviews and reads "nominally a detective story, but actually an eerie study in the phenomenon of the Doppelganger" and so on.--swfritter 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Synopsis updated to make sure that this question doesn't arise again. Ahasuerus 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Claimed by Francis Stevens

Please see User talk:Bluesman#Claimed by Francis Stevens as a pub verified by you is relevant to the discussion, and your input might be helpful. -DES Talk 22:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Are You Listening / The Forces that Crush

This concerns your verified Amazing December, 1958. There is a story by Harlan Ellison in it called "Are You Listening". This story was published in book form as The Forces that Crush in the first edition of Ellison Wonderland (and reprinted in at least two printings of Earthman Go Home). According to Ellison's note with Back to the Drawing Boards from Ellison Wonderland he rewrote the story for publication in The Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World, where it appeared under the original title, and replaced it with Back to the Drawing Boards. This is where something has gone wrong I think. ISFDB now has two versions of The Forces that Crush, this and that. The first looks good, but is missing the Amazing publication, the second has no publications and is a variant of Are You Listening. I already made a submission to unmerge them. All publications of Are You Listening are here but I think your version of the story in Amazing should be listed as variant of The Forces that Crush (or the other way around of course since the Amazing publication is the first). What to do? Willem H. 11:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. I have removed the empty variant title. "Are You Listening" is probably the correct parent title not just because it is the first title used but because it is the most commonly used although it appears as though Ellison may have preferred the other title. Sound good? Once that gets done it would be nice if you would update the parent title notes to state which version of the story appeared under which title in the various editions. Definitely a candidate for variant text once that is implemented.--swfritter 13:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like the easiest way to make it all comprehensible. I'll do a submission to make "The Forces that Crush" a variant of "Are You Listening" and add some notes. Thanks Willem H. 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

His Share of Glory

I added the publication month (from Locus1) to this verified pub, before cloning it for my second printing. Thanks Willem H. 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Subspace Survivors"

I was cataloging the Project Gutenberg edition of this (see pub & page scans.) This only includes four illustrations; the magazine version from which it is taken (Astounding/Analog, July 1960, which you've verified) shows six, with numbers 5 & 6 on pp. 140 & 149. The page scans of the last page PG uses (p. 136) show "The End" at the bottom of the page. I've tried to catalog what I found, but I'm interested in feedback from you, for obvious reasons. (In particular: was there more text too?) Thanks. -- Dave (davecat) 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The last two illustrations are actually for The Brotherhood of the Keepers which is continued. The reason for breaking up the story is that glossy pages are used for Asimov's essay. Thanks.--swfritter 13:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm glad to find out there's a reasonable explanation, & to remove my note about this from my entry of the PG pub. (It seems that often lately PG apparently hides the page scans somewhere, not keeping them with the other files for the books. I'm really glad I could check the page scans this time around; I'd initially assumed they'd missed a continuation, & was about to complain about it.) -- Dave (davecat) 18:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wonder Stories, November-December 1935

Hi. You verified this pub WONDSTNOVDEC1935. The notes state: The cover and table of contents list November as the publication month. Now I found [this cover photo] which states only December as the publication month. Is this the wrong cover? Thanks. --Phileas 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Right issue. I listed the wrong cover month. November-December is accurate for actual date as listed in the interior; Contento and Day also list it as Nov-Dec. Upside down battleships floating in the air have a tendency to throw off my concentration. Thanks.--swfritter 14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Astounding October 1954 - Review: Search the Sky by Frederick Pohl

Could you check your pub Astounding Oct. 54 and see if the Review of "Search the Sky" credit Frederick or Frederik Pohl. The 'Frederick' variant only exists due to this and one other review, and I would like to clear it up if possible. Thanks Kevin 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong name is as credited in magazine. Replaced with correct name and made a note in the pub.--swfritter 14:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Kevin 02:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your prompt response. I have a further followup question at User talk:DESiegel60#Analog May 1976 submission. Specifically will the creation of an extra EDITOR record cause a problem hard to fix? -DES Talk 14:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave vs. David Stone - How is he credited?

Hi Any insight into this discussion?

Cheers Jonschaper 05:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this involves a proposed change to your verified pub Fantastic Adventures, January 1953. See also User talk:Jonschaper#Cover: Sinister Barrier. -DES Talk 05:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ISSN numbers

Bit of a rush, but I saw some comments on Dragoondelight's page and "ISSN numbers in the catalog/id field" look useless to me and I'd support a change to using it for something useful like issue number. Just prompt me when it comes up for discussion - we're now getting big/busy enough that I don't see every discussion any more. BLongley 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably incorrect pesudonym and variant

You verified Amazing Stories, October-November 1953. In this was included a story The Hands, by Richard Sternbach. Someone has made this a pseudonym of Rick Sternbach, and the story an author variant. As Rick Sternbach would have been a litle over 2 when the story was published, this seems unlikely, as was pointed on by User:QMacrocarpa on the Help desk. Do you know anything about the pseudonym or variant? Since the story is on PG (released yesterday of all things) i can confirm the original attribution to "Richard Sternbach", but don't know if "Rick" was mentioned in a blurb, ToC entry, or elsewhere in the original magazine.

Have added the qualifier "(reprint)" to the artwork in chapterbook to make sure nobody tries to merge the artwork.--swfritter 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I was about to do such a merge. I really don't see any good reason why it shouldn't be merged, but I won't if you object. -DES Talk 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Long, long story. If you want to go back into the history. There is a section in Help that restricts it. Editors are allowed to make only one entry for all artwork or individual entries for each piece. Trying to correlate specific pieces of artwork would be an onerous task.--swfritter 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Also had to change the name of the author to "Richard Sternbach (50's author)" because the artist had one work credited to "Richard Sternbach".--swfritter 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Updates to November 1950 Other Worlds Science Stories

Hi. Re this issue

I have a few additions:

page 94 Cartoon: "If I may say so, Earthmen are not very good gin-rummy player, are they, Mr. Hamling?" by uncredited

page 95 Cartoon: "Ohmygosh, I'm seeing humans again!" by uncredited

page 95 "Devils, Deros, and Determined Hoses" essay by uncredited

And a correction:

page 137 should be "The Flying Saucers Grow Up" vs "The Flying Saucer Grows Up"

Cheers Jonschaper 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks.--swfritter 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Additions to November 1954 Amazing Stories

Should these be added to ?

page 41 "Could it be Laziness?" essay by ?

page 94 "Set 'Em Up!" essay by ?

page 100 "Nothing Like Being Sure" essay by ?

page 110 "Atom Bomb Static?" essay by The Psychic News

They're little more than minor blurbs so I'm not certain of practice here.

Cheers Jonschaper 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My own opinion is that they are are way too short to be considered. Help has an entry that says "Quotes and other filler material. For example, Analog has periodically placed quotes of interest to its readers in filler positions. These are not included unless they fall within some other category, such as the table of contents rule mentioned above."--swfritter 15:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nebula -what a horror they are!

Morning! This. [2]. Since you have helped before, I need some critical analysis of the above, maybe/especially the book reviews. It does not look too bad to me, but I can not tell if this is the overall effect desired. I also need to know what the proper method is for the American/maybe Canadian priced issues are. Take your time, no rush, I have four more Nebulas, but I feel like they are so difficult it is more a duty to not avoid them, than to do them. Oh well, I do believe in get it started and then others will come and see it with different eyes. BTW thanks for all the help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Except: multiple pieces of artwork should have brackets around offset instead of parens. Fixed. The entries that were already in the pub had a date of 1958-00-00. Changed them to 1958-02-00. Looks like "Hired Help" might have had two different artists (good documentation) - unless there is some chance that the last illustration is not actually related to the story. You have some artwork modified with a (endpiece) and an (frontispiece) and I am not sure what that is meant to signify. The Greengrass credit. Usually we only enter only the name as credited but since you have documented the credit in the notes it can be left as is. And the reviews need to be linked to titles. Which means you may have to add some of the titles reviewed if they are not in the database already. John Ker Cross - should that be John Keir Cross?--swfritter 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't want to step on any toes, but I linked most of the remaining reviews (and changed "Ker" to "Keir"). Adding the publisher to the title prevents the system from locating the title under review so that it can link them. That's OK, but they'll have to be entered manually. The biggest trouble with Nebula is that these issues were created before the system was designed to automatically create editor records, so editors records will have to be created manually. MHHutchins 14:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Toes still in good order. EDITOR records. After adding nearly all the missing ones from American pubs I am not looking forward to that. NO FUN! And I definitely do not want to have to explain them.--swfritter 15:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
And it now looks as though an author record is not created for reviews if there is no match upon adding the review. Hooray! We can now actually enter the reviews as credited. Harry, one of the reasons I did not link the reviews myself is that I wanted to make sure you know how to do so and give you some practice in case you didn't.--swfritter 15:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I researched Atomic Submarine in OCLC, added it to the database, and linked the review. OCLC does not give a cover price, did the review? If so, please add it to this record, or mention it here so that I can do so. A 1-line synopsis derived from the review would also be nice. -DES Talk 15:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Added price, vendor summary, one line of a review, and put a note in on the transition of a science fiction adventure into the science fact today. Thus a then SF, but not now. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that's what I call collaborative editing. EDITOR record volunteer?--swfritter 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
(Hiding under a bush) I had Bill Longley generate this list a couple of months back. Look at Part Two. I worked on several titles (all marked DONE), but as you can see, there's plenty more for someone who's looking for a project. MHHutchins 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing on TV, I'll do some. BLongley 17:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Added Nebula Editor Records, didn't merge them as it appears some may be Peter Hamilton, Jr. rather than Peter Hamilton. Fixed dates along the way. Fixed dates of variants too. TV is looking far more appealing now. BLongley 19:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
TV turned out to be a repeat, so I started adding Visco art. Did first twenty-four but didn't feel like finding back-cover artist credits, which are due as Visco shows both covers. Someone please take over. BLongley 21:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I am afraid, I am missing something in the 'how to' of doing editor records. Is it simply the adding of the editor's name into the record and from what source? or other? As for Peter Hamilton or Peter Hamilton, Jr., all 5 of mine have Peter Hamilton. Peter Hamilton publishing matches that and makes it personal to him. The editorials, 3 are typed Peter Hamilton and two are signatures copies of Peter Hamilton. Mine are only February 1958 to June 1959. I have grave doubts about the Jr. being his unless a son took over? Pardon the inaction as I am still ruminating on the changes/comments. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hamilton, Jr. was verified on a couple of 1952 and 1953 editions, so this may be a case of him dropping the Jr. after a while, like Kurt Vonnegut did. BLongley 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Harry, don't worry about the EDITOR records that Bill is writing about. Just make sure you enter the correct editor data in the pubs and the ones Bill is talking about can be fixed later.--swfritter 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not worried, yet I am. Found this. [3]. I know am wondering if the Jr. is being added as a second separation (disambiguation) from Peter F. Hamilton. A kind of back dating for form sake? Of course, this db usage is not what others do. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ignore that! That site takes our data, even the erroneous stuff, and re-presents it. There is NO connection between Peter Hamilton (Nebula Editor) and Peter F. Hamilton that we know about. Peter Hamilton, Jr. as Nebula Editor may be possible, but the "Jr." suffix isn't a particularly common British practice. Otherwise I'd be "Bill Longley, Jr." or "Bill Longley, V", or "Bill Longley, IX" (a couple of generations refused to be called Bill, as their brothers had already taken the name. And they were all christened "William" anyway). Just record the data. BLongley 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry lost the thread. Agreed, Data is as is from a source. Thanks for the laughter about Bill's. Also, I though not English, can not remember the Jr. appearing in British books. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

J. Lee Moyer

About "Asp" in Aeon Seven - is it really by Jamie Lee Moyer or Jaime Lee Moyer? BLongley 14:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It must be pick on Swfritter day. I really like epubs. Did not have to lift any heavy boxes as I did for Jonschaper. All entries are as credited in the magazines. Since they all appear in Aeon it is likely that they are by the same author. And as a matter of fact they are. Pseudonym time.--swfritter 15:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, found the same web-page. BLongley 20:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert D. Sampson vs Robert Sampson

I suspect that this 1954 story should be credited under "Robert D. Sampson" (he has one 1953 story to his credit) and not under "Robert Sampson" (who was apparently active from the early 80s to early 90s). Of course it's also possible that there is another Robert Sampson... Jonschaper 03:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And all three might be this guy. It would not be the first time someone wrote a couple of stories, went off and did something else for awhile and then returned. Anne McCaffrey's first published story was in 1953 and she did nothing more until 1967. Research time for me.--swfritter 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Contento actually lists a Robert (D.) Sampson (1927-1992) and credits him with those 50's stories and as late as 1996 with the posthumous "The Narrow House" which is credited Robert Sampson. So apparently the same guy for all.--swfritter 19:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Made Robert D. Sampson a pseudonym of Robert Sampson and updated Robert Sampson's author info. I also made a note as to the source of the information in the bibliographic notes for Sampson. Sampson was only 16 at the time of the publication of his first story so that does leave a little doubt as to the accuracy of the attribution but he certainly would not be the first 16 year old to have a professional s-f story published.--swfritter 17:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Analog, June 1961

I'm holding a submission changing the author credit for "Prologue to an Analogue" to Walt & Leigh Richmond. It was reprinted later as by both, but I wanted to make sure the solo credits are correct. Can you check your copy of this issue of Analog? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Leigh Richmond only toc and title page of story.--swfritter 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Day of the Triffids -- Tuck 1964 version also?

Morning! This. [4]. My copy matches you, but the Tuck entry verified [5] is also the same I believe. This cover? [6]. This is by Terran Trader who usually does a very good job. This comment underneath. "Crest Book No. d741 features cover art by John Schoenherr." The cover matches my copy and I have the next (T1322), but it is also bereft of data. My Tuck is a match to Mhhutchins ver. In your court. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to date your verified record showing Tuck as the source, I will delete the dated and Tuck-verified one, and move my Tuck verification to your record. MHHutchins 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Infinity Science Fiction (1955-1958)

I uploaded or linked cover images for all issues of this magazine. The covers and contents were matched with the data record, but if you get a chance, could you double-check that the images match? I also added a task on the magazine's wiki page to show that all of the cover images have been linked to the records. This has never been part of the template for bibliographic tasks for magazine entry, but it might be worthy of considering adding it since the cover images are about the last things that are added to magazine records. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Images are all correct. I have also added the Cover Images task to the magazine template.--swfritter 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Rules process

Sorry to hear about the jury duty situation -- hopefully the trial is a quick one! Just an FYI that, as per your comments on Michael's page, I have proposed limiting the number of concurrent Rules discussions to "one at a time". The proposal is currently under discussion -- please take a look when you get a chance as I hope it will make the Wiki side of the project a more pleasant place :) Ahasuerus 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's a murder trial. I will probably know by tomorrow whether or not I will be serving on the jury. If I am picked the trial will last until the middle of September.--swfritter 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Eek! That's not a good trial to find oneself stuck at. Good luck tomorrow! Ahasuerus 18:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I found that my last Jury Duty session allowed me to get more reading done in two weeks than I had managed in years... but I get the impression that English Jury Duty is mostly waiting around to get called for a case, whereas US Jury Duty includes almost as much time on selecting Jurors as it does on the case itself. BLongley 19:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As one who has been called for US Jury Duty several times, but never actually served on a jury -- the procedure varies a good deal from county to county and state to state. In at least two jurisdictions most of the time was spent waiting to be called as part of a "panel" -- in another potential jurors were assigned to a panel pretty much right away, and most time was spent waiting to be called and questioned by the judge and lawyers. In yet another a lot of time was spent filling out a 50 page questionnaire after being assigned to a panel. In some places if you are assigned to a panel and not chosen, that is it, in others you stay on call for up to a week if not chosen at first. In one case I was able to take a laptop and do actual work. Of course, if picked for the actual jury, it takes what it takes. -DES Talk 20:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
There's an unwritten (AFAIK) presumption of non-bias on the part of jurors here. You're chosen at random, you serve. You don't get interrogated about potential biases here, even if you want to be. For instance, one person I know asked to be excluded from any cases involving child abuse as he would automatically assume "guilty" by default, just to be sure the kiddies were safe. Not allowed. Jurors are basically asked to try and exclude themselves when they know the case, if they know the defendants or victims - or in my case, if they might have specialist knowledge of some of the evidence. Advice from my current employers is to tell the court that our job includes developing computer systems that help Telecom companies gather phone record evidence against people - apparently this has led to mis-trials in the past even when the evidence is from a phone company we don't work for. There's probably a happy medium, but at least British Jurors don't get scared off by aggressive interviews before they get to do their duty. Or a 50-page questionnaire. (A 50 page questionnaire, fully checked up over about six months, is the sort of thing MI5 put you through to get a full security clearance - doing that for Jury Duty seems a bit overkill.) BLongley 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Stephen has been selected after all. Hopefully, the process, especially the deliberation phase, won't be too stressful.
As far as UK/US differences go, jury selection is a fairly big business in the US. ASTC (American Society of Trial Consultants) will be happy to introduce you to any number of its members, who will analyze the prospective jurors' body language, ask all kinds of written and oral questions -- up to and including questions about their politics and religion (in jurisdictions where you are allowed to ask these question and can demonstrate that they are relevant) -- observe their body language, compile written evaluations, do post-trial jury polling for post-mortem purposes, etc. Ahasuerus 19:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In Search of Wonder -- Knight response to Moskowitz review

Hi. Should the above be credited to Knight instead of Moskowitz here? -- Jonschaper 03:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More accurately co-authorship. Thanks.--swfritter 13:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Assassion

Is it really called that in Imaginative Tales Jul 1957? I expected "The Assassin". BLongley 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The expected is correct. Fixed. Thanks.--swfritter 17:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Moon Pool

According to Tuck, Famous Fantastic Mysteries, September-October 1939 reprinted the novella version of The Moon Pool rather than the whole novel, which looks likely when you consider the page count. I have changed it from Serial/Complete Novel to novella and merged with the other novella Title as part of the Serial cleanup project. Ahasuerus 02:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That one was on my mental priority list before current distractions. Also changed the title of the artwork. The Merrit page should be looking even better once I get to that section in the Bleiler book.--swfritter 12:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Art Credit - "John Jones' Dollar" Apr 1956 Amazing

I'm 95% sure that the signature attributed to John Guinta for "Hard Guy" here is the same as the barely visible signature on p. 50 for "John Jones' Dollar" which is currently credited to "uncredited" (the same box, etc, are used, and I think I make out part of the "John"). The signature box for "John Jones'" is at the bottom right of the drawing, on the base of the projector. Jonschaper 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Made the change and added a note.--swfritter 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Virgil Finlay in May 1956 Amazing?

I'm pretty sure the illustration for "The Girl Who Hated Air" in is by Virgil Finlay (he began doing work for Amazing/Fantastic around this time and he's pretty distinctive), but there is no credit. Is there a policy against educated guesses? Jonschaper 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's covered in help Artist. I'd be careful about Finlay, I've seen a lot illustrations that I thought were his, but were drawn by another artist. Most of these were drawn earlier, when Finlay was first getting established. Later on, he pretty much owned the style.--Rkihara 17:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Finlay almost always signed his artwork which decreases the certainty of it being his artwork.--swfritter 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional Cartoon Credit to Jun 1956 Amazing

p. 49 Cartoon (no caption) by uncredited Jonschaper 00:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. Thanks.--swfritter 16:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Clansman vs. Clansmen

Hi, could you double check if this title is "Clansman" or "Clansmen". I'm pretty sure the "Clansmen" story in Science Fiction Adventures (title spelling confirmed by cover scan) is a reprint. If not, it might be a variant or I could be wrong and it's a different story. Thanks 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, looks like it has been cleared up already. Thanks Jonschaper 05:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Adventures, April 1957 - "Clansmen of Fear"

Can you check to see if a merge I accepted was correct for the title by Henry Hasse in this issue? It was merged with the same story published in the UK SFA the following year which titled it "Clansmen of Fear". I also changed the title of the artwork too. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Late again... I didn't see that the original editor had asked the same question. Doh! MHHutchins 05:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL Jonschaper 05:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The artwork also had the same title so there was no reason for concern. The issue was close at hand so I checked it physically. "Clansmen of Fear" is correct.--swfritter 17:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Credit Correction - Nov 1956 Amazing

Paul Dallas is credited as "Paul V. Dallas" for "The Idiot" in this issue: Cheers Jonschaper 23:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is. Thanks.--swfritter 12:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon Credit - Dec 1956 Amazing

I make out the signature for the cartoon on p 97 of to be "Harbaugh". He's credited with other cartoons in Fantastic here from the same publisher in 1956. Cheers Jonschaper 23:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Change made. Thanks.--swfritter 12:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Letter from "the" or "our" readers?

Hi, could you check if this is "Letters from Our Readers" here All others in this series are "Letters from the Readers". Cheers Jonschaper 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What was I thinking that day? You are right. Change made. Thanks.--swfritter 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Elliott vs Elliot

Hi, please see Jonschaper 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Short Novels of Adult Fantasy 2 title in review in Galaxy, September 1973

If you can easily lay hand to it, would you do me a favor and look up the title used in the review of Volume 2 of Great Short Novels of Adult Fantasy in Galaxy, September 1973? Ron pointed out I got the title of my pub wrong (should be ...: Volume II instead of ... II). I'm wondering if the title itself should be different, too. Thanks. --MartyD 00:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The title is not actually listed in a header. It is referred to in the review as "Volume II of his Great Short Novels of Adult Fantasy". The "his" refers to Lin Carter.--swfritter 18:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I'm going to change the title, then, to match the one from the book. --MartyD 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Babes in the Wood" vs. "Babes in the Woods"

Hi, could you please double check the title for the Dickson story here as per above. Locus and a subsequent collection list it as "...Wood". Thanks Jonschaper 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Woods" on the table of contents but "Wood" on the title page. Fixed and merged with the reprint.--swfritter 18:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Itko's Strong Arm" vs "Itco's Strong Arm"

Hi, ditto re Dickson's story here Thanks Jonschaper 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another toc/title page discrepancy. Fixed and merged. Also fixed the artwork credits for this and the above.--swfritter 18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"IT, Out of the Darkest Jungle" vs "It..."

Hi, another one for the variant or not pile: Cheers Jonschaper 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Our capitalization standards would suggest "It" but it is pretty obvious from looking at the mag that "IT" is purposeful. Merged the two titles and left a note in the mag notes.--swfritter 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Astounding, June 1953

The notes for this issue state the cover photograph is by Lee Correy, but the credit is for simply "Correy". I'm holding a submission that wants to make this into a variant. What do you think? MHHutchins 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The editorial credit on the toc is Correy but I think it would be acceptable to change the credit to Lee Correy and state in the notes that "The cover is editorially credited by last name only to Correy on the table of contents". Since this is the only "Correy" artwork credit in the db there is no major impact. The other perhaps more technically correct option would be to use the pseudonym process and change the note as above. The first option is OK by me. I don't think the artwork credit standards need to be as rigid as the author standards.--swfritter 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the first approach is best. I'll reject the submission and change the credit to "Lee Correy" with the note you suggested. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Baen's Universe, December 2008

Garret W. Vance or Garrett W. Vance in your verified Jim Baen's Universe, December 2008, please? Ahasuerus 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste from the HTML version. Will make a note in the pub and create a pseudonym relationship.--swfritter 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

H. Chandler Elliott

Hi, could you double check if his name is spelled "Elliot" or "Elliott" in the reviews for "Reprieve from Paradise" in the following publications:

1) 2) 3)

There are otherwise duplicate entries for his book here as "Eliot" and here as "Elliott" which should be merged.

Thanks Jonschaper 23:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelled Elliot in Galaxy review. Changed to Elliott and added note. Linked all reviews to correct title and removed duplicate title by Elliot.--swfritter 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gary A. vs Gary Braunbeck

Please double check if the review here credits "Coffin County" to "Gary A." or "Gary". He's been published under both names, but "Coffin County" appears to have been published under "Gary A." (Amazon entry aside). Thanks Jonschaper 05:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Linked to correct title and removed title record for "Gary". Made note in Black Static that the author is listed in the mag as "Gary".--swfritter 13:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Artist Credits - August 1960 Fantastic

Hi, there's a couple of artist credits missing for Bernklau:

"The World-Time [2]" on p. 30 and "The Crispin Affair (Part 2 of 2) [2]" on p.760

Thanks Jonschaper 02:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Page 760? That's one big magazine. I did find an illustration on page 76 though. Added them and the ones below. I might note that there are actually three standards for adding interiorart: 1) One entry on the page the story begins; 2) one entry on the first page where art is found; 3) an entry for each piece of art. When I initially started entering magazine data I used the second standard but later on I usually added all artwork. My own feeling is that pubs entered by the first two standards, even if verified, are fair game for subsequent editors who wish to enter all the artwork. Please feel free to make such additions in my verified pubs without pre-notifying.--swfritter 13:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL I remember the lettercols of mid-1950s Amazings I read being filled with complaints about how few pages there were in the digest sized issues. If 760 pages wasn't good enough for them, they must be really unhappy now. Jonschaper 23:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Artist Credits - Oct 1960 Fantastic

Leo Summers: "The Seats of Hell [2]" p. 18, "The Seats of Hell [3]" p.45

Bernklau: "Woman on Fire [2]" p. 116

Thanks Jonschaper 03:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

General protocol question

(Following up on the discussion on my talk page) I realize I'm not exactly sure how to proceed when making pseudonyms variants of a single author: As an example, I just came across an author appearing as 'E. M. Clinton, Jr.', 'Ed M. Clinton', 'Ed M. Clinton, Jr.' and 'Edwin M. Clinton', where most of these are not linked. Should I contact all verifiers of the respective publications first before making changes here? Fsfo 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When there are multiple pubs, authors, stories, etc. involved the Verification Request Page is a good place to post proposed queries. In this case it looks like all three of the Ed M. Clinton stories were in pubs verified by Rkihara so you can communicate with him about those stories. He is not super active right now but usually checks his Talk Page. I also own the pubs involved. The Edwin M. Clinton story may take a little more research - Since there is a review of the novel in a pub verified by me I will try to figure out what is going on there. It looks like the E. M. Clinton, Jr. story has already been processed. Thanks.--swfritter 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Anthony More/Edwin M. Clinton entry is actually supposed to be a collection rather than a novel. Tomorrow I will fix it up and add the stories as listed in Tuck's Encyclopedia. Looks like there is still data to be mined from Tuck.--swfritter 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I left a message on Rkihara's page about the other stories.--swfritter 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Giessy story in International SF, June 1968

Can you check the credits for "In 2112" in this magazine? There's a story here that matches in title, but the author credits don't match exactly. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether a variant should be created. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. I managed to get both names wrong although it is still a variant title since J. B. and Junius B. Smith are used. For a little more weirdness, read the title notes. --swfritter 14:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

date change on "The Head Hunters" in Omnibus of Science Fiction

I submitted a merge of "The Head Hunters", which appears in your verified Omnibus of Science Fiction, that changes the date from 1953-04-00 to 1952-00-00. Looks like your pub might have picked up that date from the 2nd printing's record, but we do have the 1st printing from 1952. --MartyD 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And actually first appeared in Analog although incorrectly entered with a hyphen. Merged.--swfritter 13:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shadow Out of Space dating

Dan Adkin's back cover here is dated 1957 instead of 1962. I assume the 1957 should be the date for the H.P. Lovecraft reprint (see ) which is dated 1962. Cheers Jonschaper 02:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks.--swfritter 13:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy Magazine, April 1965

I hope you have a copy of this to check. Primary verification is by Alibrarian, and I don't think he'll respond. The magazine has a novelette by Keith Laumer, entered as War Against the Yukks. According to Erwin S. Strauss's MIT Science Fiction Society's Index to the S-F Magazines, 1951-1965 this should be The War Against the Yukks. I came across this story while verifying my copy of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad Galaxy, which led to this question. If this all is true, the story should be called "The War Against the Yukks" for all publications, with no variants. Thanks, Willem H. 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it is "War Against the Yukks" on the toc, title page, and footers in Galaxy.--swfritter 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. It makes the edits a lot easier. Willem H. 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A Word from the (Human) Editor . . . or Author

You verified one of the publications of War with the Robots. All pubs have the foreword as "A Word from the (Human) Editor . . .", but in my copy it definitely is "A Word from the (Human) Author . . . Can you check your copy? If all entries are wrong (a human error, even contento lists it with editor), the title can be changed. Thanks, Willem H. 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Don concurred on three other printings, I made the change at the title level. The only problem we have now is that there are two printings which have the same date. I suspect this one with a price of $0.50 is a later reprinting of this one which has a lower price. It's more fun finding errors in other people's verified pubs than to have other people find errors in mine.--swfritter 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed Scott Latham and Bluesman of the change. The (ghost?)printing of $0.50 is Scott Latham's, who doesn't respond to questions. According to Tuck, this printing doesn't exist, and since yours states to be the second printing (Tuck agrees), maybe the $0.50 one should be deleted. Willem H. 08:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
That is also my inclination. I will do so in a couple of days just in case there might be some other input.--swfritter 15:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy, April 1963

Can you see if there's an unusual character used in the title of the story by Kris Neville (and its illustrations) in this issue of Galaxy? I merged an Italian reprinting of it and wanted to make sure a variant was warranted. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is taken care of?--swfritter 18:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Science Stories February 1954 - Nuetzell

Can you verify that the cover art and the article written by the artist is credited to "Albert A. Nuetzell"? It appears that he's the father of Charles Nuetzel who states in this article that his father added the final "l" only in signing the work in order to balance the initial "N". There are currently at least six variations in credits, and I'm trying to pin down which one should be the canonical name. The article in this magazine might help. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Credited correctly.--swfritter 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I see there are several more issues with his covers that you've verified. Do you have an opinion about which name should be considered the canonical one? The most common one is Albert Nuetzell, most of which were the Ziff-Davis digests between 1959 and 1961. I'm wondering if these credits are based on printed credits or the signature. We could make that the canon or make them all variants of his real name (Albert A. Nuetzel). Thanks. MHHutchins 19:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I will take a look at the Ziff-Davis titles tomorrow.--swfritter 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
All titles entered as editorially credited. Some nice artwork; wish the artist had a bigger s-f portfolio.--swfritter 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Complete Compleat Enchanter

You have verified this pub and it might be that I own a copy of the same book: All details in the pub record match my copy, except the publication date. Instead of a numberline, the copyright page in my copy enumerates printings and dates like this:

  • First printing, March 1989
  • Second printing, November 1989
  • Third printing, September 1992

From this I conclude that I have the third printing, with a publication date of 1992-09-00. Could you please doublecheck if your copy has a similar printing history on the copyright page? Thanks. Herzbube 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My copy contains no printing information at all. Possibly I have a page missing? The first physical page has a dedication to John W. Campbell, the second has acknowledgments, the third has the title page and the fourth a quote form Lucian followed by the preface on numbered page 1.--swfritter 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In this case I'm certain that I have a different printing than yours. My physical pages are these: 1) An excerpt from the book. 2) A list of Baen books by the author. 3) Title page. 4) Copyright page (including the printing history). 5) Dedication. 6) Acknowledgments. 7) Table of Contents. 8) Quote from Lucian. 9) Preface on numbered page 1. Can we conclude that since your copy misses any printing history, you have in fact the first printing from 1989-03-00? Thanks for looking this up, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a printing with a lower price and the same isbn so I don't think it could be. I will put a note in my pub stating that there is no printing history.--swfritter 14:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that. Hm, I don't know what else we can do to deduce what printing you have... if you want to make more comparisons, or have other ideas, I am happy to assist. Just write your suggestions here, I am going to monitor this thread for a while. For the moment, I have cloned your pub record and added my notes. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just another one of the million fish we have left to fry.--swfritter 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SFBC of Asimov's The Rest of the Robots

Can you see if this edition has a gutter code on or near the last page of text? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember looking for a gutter code on this one when I processed it. I could not find one. The inside cover says Book Club Edition; the edges are ragged and it is from a time when I would have purchased it from the SFBC.--swfritter 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Onslaught from Rigel" in Wonder Story Annual, 1950

Do you think The Onslaught from Rigel in your verified Wonder Story Annual, 1950 and The Onslaught from Rigel in the unverified Wonder Stories Quarterly, Winter 1932 are the same? --MartyD 12:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Elixir of Hate" in A. Merritt's Fantasy Magazine and Famous Fantastic Mysteries...

Another same-work question, but this time you're verifier of both pubs (how handy, that). The Elixir of Hate in A. Merritt's Fantasy Magazine, October 1950 and The Elixir of Hate in Famous Fantastic Mysteries Combined with Fantastic Novels Magazine, October 1942. --MartyD 12:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that here and in the previous case you are asking whether they should be merged? Serials are not merged even if they are of the (Complete Novel) type. I think the logic for this was that they should be displayed as unique items because the vagaries of magazine publishing often result in serial versions being substantially different in content from each other and almost always different from novels based upon them.--swfritter 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Right, that's sort of what I was asking. I wasn't thinking that the serials should be merged with the novels, but rather was wondering if the two complete-novel serial instances should be merged with each other in each case. --MartyD 17:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
From Help: "Serial installments of a work are always given the date of the magazine in which they appear even if the work has been published previously in book or serial form. Novel length works (40,000+ words) printed as a single installment in a magazine are treated as serials and given the date of the issue in which they appear." I know it is very tempting and everybody, including myself, has had the impulse to do it.--swfritter 17:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I never did do well on those reading comprehension tests.... --MartyD 17:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sfbooks52's cover art submissions

Do you think it would be OK to approve these submissions without checking with the primary verifiers? There are quite a few of them (mostly verified by you) and it's unlikely that a 1950s/1960s digest magazine had more than one cover per issue. Ahasuerus 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My Talk Page Etiquette covers that point for me. Rkihara has many of the other verifications and Alibrarian a number of others. My own opinion is auto-verify.--swfritter 00:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Congruent People, by A. J. Budrys

Could you please check under what author "The Congruent People" appears in this pub verified by you? I have another printing, and Bluesman has a third one, where the author is given as "A. J. Budrys". I strongly suspect that all publications of the title (yours, but also this unverified one) use this variant name of the author. If you agree, I am going to make the edits. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to say: I am pestering you because it looks to me as if the Primary1 verifier Scott Latham has been inactive for quite some time. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right. A. J. Budrys it is and it makes sense to change the unverified one. Pester away. Secondary verifiers are every bit as responsible for the accuracy of the data in the pubs they verify.--swfritter 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I realized that if I make the changes as discussed, there will be no publications left that have the canonical title of "The Congruent People", as by "Algis Budrys". In other words, the canonical title is obsolete, and the variant title, as by "A. J. Budrys" should become the new canonical title. I intend to merge the two title records to achieve this. If later somebody comes up again with a publication that has the "Algis Budrys" title, he or she will have to recreate the title variant. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 23:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Knight's reviews in Infinity, June 1958

Can you check the dates that are given to the reviews in this issue? I think they should be dated the same date as the issue. Also, I rejected three submissions which wanted to merge them with the original reviews, assuming these are recaps and not the same reviews. Was I correct? Thanks. MHHutchins 14:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the primary verifier entered them this way but they now have the same date as the issue. They are indeed somewhat shorter reviews. I am not sure that book reviews should ever be merged unless there is physical verification that they are verbatim reprints. The discussions of books in the critical essays in In Search of Wonder, for instance, are substantially modified from there original review texts.--swfritter 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I should have realized that before accepting the submissions which merged the In Search of Wonder reviews with the magazine versions. Got some unmerging to do then. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You might also want to get input from others before doing the unmerge work. My own opinion is that they are different animals.--swfritter 15:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the one pub of In Search of Wonder which includes the merged reviews, there appears to be only two sections where they're merged: "The Critics" (2 reviews) and "The Classics" (8 reviews). Are these substantially different than the magazine versions? I'm not sure who else is in a position to compare the two (unless it's ErnestoVeg, who I'll ask.) Otherwise, it would be no problem to unmerge them. Just have to add new records for those ten reviews and drop the previous records. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering the amount of work involved in comparing reviews in magazines to those incorporated into critical essays I think the default might be "do not merge unless the submitter has both pubs verified by him in his possession and is willing to do the work". This is similar to the Interiorart merge problem but I think there is a lot more wiggle room. We commonly merge fiction pieces which have substantial textual differences and we can be fairly certain that the reviews in the book in question are based upon the magazine reviews. I am trying to prioritize my editing tasks and digging through magazines to compare book reviews or interior art is a little too time intensive for me. If others are willing to accept a little ambiguity in the book review/critical essay area, particularly in this case, I would not object to the merges.--swfritter 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Another compromised possibility is a variant title relationship between reviews although there might be unforeseen visual issues.--swfritter 16:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"John Barnes (Helix, Fall 2007)"?

I wonder if John Barnes (Helix, Fall 2007) in Helix, Fall 2007 should be just John Barnes? Ahasuerus 04:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed.--swfritter 14:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted article - May 1951 Other Worlds

Hi, the following is missing from the listing here

"Once in a Blue Moon" - article by uncredited, page 128

Cheers Jonschaper 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Added essay. Another chance to look at another fabulous Bok cover.--swfritter 16:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Richard Greer"

According to Thomas D. Clareson's Robert Silverberg: A Primary and Secondary Bibliography, Silverberg co-wrote only one Richard Greer title, "The Great Kladnar Race". According to Who Goes There, the other two titles, "Calling Captain Flint" and "The Secret of the Shan", are "unattributed". However, Jon Davis' states that all 3 stories were Silverberg-Garrett collaborations. probably has the best data of the three since it is supported by Silverberg and is more recent than Clareson's book, but I wonder if we should make a note of these conflicting sources? Ahasuerus 17:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tuck's bibliography in FSF's Silverberg issue (04/1974), credits both for "The Secret of the Sham" [sic]. No entry for "Calling Captain Flint."--Rkihara 19:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a start. Please correct any misinterpretations of any information presented above.--swfritter 15:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Monster Died at Dawn"

Another Silverberg puzzle: "The Monster Died at Dawn" in your verified Amazing Stories, November 1956 is attributed to Henry Sleasar by Collectors' Showcase, which apparently gets its data from Contento, but Clareson and claim that it was written by Silverberg. I have found quite a few minor errors on, but no incorrect attributions so far. Ahasuerus 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Slesar according to Contento; specifically unattributed according to Rock; not listed in Tuck/f&sf. Henry Kuttner (and C. L. Moore?), of course, must also be considered as the potential author of any pseudonymous story written in this era. It was common knowledge, at least in the letter columns and fanzines in the early 50's, that Jack Vance was one of his pseudonyms.--swfritter 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Complete Stories of J. G. Ballard

I added the missing story (The Last World of Mr. Goddard) to this verified pub. Must have been a hell of a job to enter the contents. I have profited greatly from your work. Thanks, Willem H. 16:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Had to miss something. I am now reading the collection a few stories at a time. Probably even heavier than the Stephen King novel.--swfritter 16:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It's about the same weight as the Stephen King novel I think. I read a lot of these stories in the 70's. Not nearly the complete stories by the way. All of "The Atrocity Exhibition" is missing (maybe that's why the original version of "Notes Towards a Mental Breakdown" is missing), some stories from New Worlds and others. But it's a mighty volume anyway. Willem H. 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Magazine series

Would you be so kind as to check [this] discussion? I'm not sure how to do this and I know Ernesto would like to know. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos: Volume 1

I made a couple of minor changes to this pub where you have the second primary verification. I also have two additional proposed changes and have started a discussion here. I'd value any input you may have. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Publication City

I've put several submissions by ErnestoVeg on hold until there's a consensus on whether the canonical name for a publication should have the name of the city of publication appended. I saw your comments on this subject earlier on his page, so I thought might have an interest on following the discussion.--Rkihara 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I had made my point and so decided to get out of the kitchen. Thanks for helping out with moderation as there are a number of experienced moderators who are busy otherwise. The weird thing about the city of publication is that the city where the editorial offices are located is actually more important. The magazines are more likely to have stories and more especially artwork from people in the editor's vicinity. The publisher city is not always the same as the editorial office city. I think Better Publications may have actually had their editorial offices in New York.--swfritter 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton's A Yank at Valhalla

Should the novel in this issue of Fantastic Story Magazine be dated 1953? Or if not, should it be merged with the title published in Startling Stories, January 1941 (verified by Rkihara)? If the policy is not to merge "serials", wouldn't each one be dated the same as the publication? Or should we make an exception and merge them because these two magazines were published by the same publisher with the odds that the stories are identical? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In going in to edit the FSM issue I noticed that the story length is novella. My guess is that these were at some time merged novellas and the date did not get changed when they were unmerged. I changed the date of the later printing to the date of the magazine. Although these appear to be about the same length it is not unusual that a reprinted serial will be abridged or have topical references updated. The issues of older magazines generally had many more pages than later issues so in order to squeeze in reprints of longer stories they may be abridged. There are other cases, Project Gutenberg, the Zelazny collections, etc. where serials can be expected to be the same and it would make sense to merge them; the only problem with that is it sets up an example that may be used as a basis for merging in an inappropriate situation. FSM version changed to date of magazine.--swfritter 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I knew the policy (and the rationale) behind not merging serials. Just wanted to make sure the dating policy hadn't changed, and that no one else would try to merge the two records because everything was a perfect match. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
There are times, like this, where I somewhat question the inflexible doctrine. It is necessary for multi-part serials because they may have a different number of parts. The (Complete Novel) Serial designation still seems odd to me.--swfritter 14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Universe, May 1954

I just added a link to the cover image of this issue and noticed that it touts a story which wasn't published until the November issue. Or was there a parallel "universe" in which the story appeared in May? :) Perhaps it should be noted in the record for this issue. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Eagle Eye.--swfritter 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Weird Tales, November 1953

Similarly, the cover of Weird Tales, November 1953 says "Things of Darkness", but we list it as "Thing of Darkness". Ahasuerus 19:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Made entry about discrepancy in notes.--swfritter 15:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(Tales From) Not Long for This World

Should the title for [this] include "Tales from...."? OCLC and Currey include it, LOC doesn't list the paperback. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that way on the title page. Amplified notes, added "(abridged)" to title, and notified other verifiers.--swfritter 15:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Much thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapterbook problem

Could you have a look at [this] discussion please. I'm not sure how to fix this. Never came across a publication record that has no title record and I want to get rid of the duplicate content. I get warnings when I tried it so without knowing the consequences decided to chicken out. And of course seek experienced help! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Longley has saved the Empire, once again! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it's an Empire he had a hand in creating too. I'm glad I mostly have stayed in the stands watching the evolution of Chapterbooks.--swfritter 17:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I think I must have been drinking the old "Mad Scientist Juice" when I re-enabled Chapterbooks. Even now they give me a headache at times. :-/ BLongley 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Chapterbooks are the only decent way to do Project Gutenberg short stories and other singletons. Otherwise we would be using orphan records to document them.--swfritter 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarkesworld, May 2008

We have "A Buyer's Guide to Maps of Antartica" in there, and another "A Buyer's Guide to Maps of Antarctica" elsewhere - is it really typoed that way? BLongley 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Research is so easy for online pubs. Copied and pasted so minimal chance of human error. The word is spelled correctly in the story. I did not notice it; probably because we have a local company that named itself Artic Aire and I grew up believing that was the correct spelling.--swfritter 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I recall "Artic Computing" - I thought they'd typoed "Arctic" but it was actually short for "Articulated Lorry". BLongley 17:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Downstairs Room

Added an image to [this] not one of my better covers, unfortunately. Another kate Wilhelm book, [The Abyss] makes mention of a Mercury Press edition of 1967. I have a feeling this might be tied in to a magazine printing of one or both novellas but I'm not sure where to look. Any ideas? Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference is most likely to the magazine version. The February 1968 issue of F&SF has a printed copyright date of 1967. One would expect this for the January issue which would have gone on sale in December of 1967 but for some reason the contents of the February issue also have a 1967 copyright date.--swfritter 18:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I came to the same conclusion. Can't check the way the book refers to the "Mercury Press edition" at present (still not up to heavy lifting, so "W" is a while away yet) but the evidence points that way. BLongley 21:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly as you just typed it: Mercury Press edition. And that is NOT specific to either novella, but to "The Abyss". Thing is, both of the novellas have later dates in the ISFDB record ('68 & '71). If they had been entered in a magazine wouldn't the dates have defaulted to the magazine? Or at least the story would show under both publications? Or is there a missed merge somewhere that would get these two recorded under a proper date? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Just added Wilhelm's web page. "The Plastic Abyss" was nominated for a Nebula in 1971 and apparently was first published in the collection so it is not likely to have an earlier publication date. The reference to Mercury press edition, though badly stated, must only refer to "Stranger in the House" which has a copyright date of 1967. The ISFDB, like most of the awards, uses the cover date of the magazine which is usually the date the magazine goes off sale. Hugo Award example: The Borderland of Sol was first published in the January 1975 issue of Analog- which would have been on the newsstands in December of 1974 with a copyright date of 1974. But still the eligibility was for the 1975 calendar year.-swfritter 14:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Much thanks, gentlemen! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

4 for the Future

Scanned in an image for [this] Changed "Four" in the title to "4" to match the title page. The story "The Children's Hour" was credited to Lawrence O'Donnell but it is as by Henry Kuttner in the TOC, on the story title page and in the Acknowledgments. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kuttner + Moore = Bibliographer's Nighmare.--swfritter 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I try not to dream in bibliographic..... ! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Open Your Eyes by Jessup

I added a missing content (the shortficition record) to this chapterbook. Mhhutchins 19:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There might be a few more out there that were done before I realized content also had to be added to chapterbooks.--swfritter 15:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rest of the Robots

Does your copy of the SFBC printing of this title have a gutter code? Also is the "Book Club Edition" statement on the front flap of the dustjacket? Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Book Club Edition but I could not find a gutter code. Updated pub record.--swfritter 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm finding more than a few titles in the sixties didn't get a gutter code. Mhhutchins 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Navbars for Analog 2009

Could you generate navbars for 2009 Analogs, please? I am going to doublecheck everything, verify them, and add the navbars, also. Tpi 15:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Hopefully before tomorrow.--swfritter 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Added navbars to pubs and also linked 2010 issues in grid and added them to series. I wasn't sure how long it would take to remember how to do them. Verify away.--swfritter 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

New editor

Could you have a look at a submission by a new editor, Ruadhan. There is a thread on his talk page that leads to this. First submission wasn't a magazine or I would have directed him here to start with. There is a magazine series under the author so there's probably more that can be done with the submission but I'd be lost trying to guide that process. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Probably not until tomorrow.--swfritter 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Just realized you are going to have to approve or unhold the submission. I have had a good look at it so you can go ahead and approve it and I will take a shot at fixing it up. Thanks.--swfritter 14:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Unheld and approved. Thanks for looking at these. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic Novels - added cover artist/notation

Afternoon! This. [7]. I added Virgil Finlay as cover artist with notation to where it can be found. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He also signed it. Added notation to that effect. Missed that one. Finlay signed virtually all of his work so if you find any more in verified pubs you might want to ask the verifier if it is signed. A bird in hand is worth two Randy Broecker's and Jane Frank's in the bushes.--swfritter 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
After this I guess you will want to do approvals on Broecker from here in? Everyone seems to be waiting on for something. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It never hurts to have as many sources as possible, especially if there are reproductions of the art.--swfritter 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Outer Reaches

I have a submission on hold that wants to add a sub-title to [this]. You are the Primary verifier. Have a message on the (new) editor's page but no response yet. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Update is accurate. Go ahead and approve.--swfritter 15:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Perfect Bound"

Could you take a look at [this]. I'm not sure what to answer. The submission is still on hold. I thought the magazine would fall into one of the existing categories, by size it's maybe an A5 but it doesn't sound like it's bound as anything but a PB. If it wasn't a mag I'd be tempted to enter it as a TP. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree on TP making sure there is an explanation in the notes explaining the rationale, also mentioning the term Perfectbound there. Note that Digest is also one of the books sizes. If a book can be bound like a magazine I guess it follows that a magazine can be bound like a book.--swfritter 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Warriors and Warlocks - Cover artist attributions?

Afternoon! This. [8]. Randy Broecker in "Fantasy of the 20th Century" and Jane Frank in "Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century" both attribute Jim Steranko. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I could find no credit or signature so I would say add the information.--swfritter 15:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Lewis

The entries under Mike_Lewis seem to belong to two different authors with the same name (indicated by publication dates and this homepage:; Should I use "Mike Lewis (?-)" as disambiguation for the new author entry? Thanks Fsfo 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I will change the author the two earlier stories to Mike Lewis (1950's). I don't think there is any reason to change both of them. Based upon the newer Mike Lewis' webpage it would appear that he is likely responsible for the Vector letters. Contento also has the two authors listed together.--swfritter 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Avon Fantasy Reader #16

There's a note that Kuttner isn't credited as the co-author of "The Black Kiss", but the contents has the record which credits both. There is an existing variant record that credits only Bloch. Could you recheck to see how it's actually credit in this issue? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bloch only. Fixed. My original error or entropy? Guess I could drag out a year and 1/2 old backup.--swfritter 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I should change my name to entropy. The 11/2008 backup has no variant relationship.--swfritter 15:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Quake, Quake, Quake, - Questions to boggle

Morning. This. [9]. I have this [10] version and am checking it. Problem is that the 'interstitial commentary' before it clearly states Edward Gorey did the illustrations and Paul Dehn did the poem. Also the poem is divided into several sections, but it did not state which section is given in book. I am deleting the poem, and keeping the (excerpt) therefore. I would like to change the Gorey 'essay' to interior art. Could you check your version and straighten me out. Did not message Scott Latham as I never get reply. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional, I have Sheri S. Eberhart, not Sheri Eberhart. The S. is a pseudonym of Sheri Tepper, but "Extraterrestrial Trilogue" is missing data. Thanks again, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Right on all counts. You may want to double check, but everything should be better now.--swfritter 14:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate the fixes. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger D. Aycock

The author of [11] should probably be changed to Roger_Dee. Thanks -Fsfo 22:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. Fixed. Thanks.--swfritter 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello, you've just accepted my edit of Chill here. I wanted to add this title to the Jacob's Ladder series but I don't know hos to do this. Can I do it (or is it a moderator's action), and how eventually ? Thanks. Hervé Hauck 19:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, quite easy. Bring up the title record as you reference above. Under Editing Tools click Edit Title Data and enter the series information in the Series field.--swfritter 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the tip. Hervé Hauck 08:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird Tales, March 1950

I made a few additions of artwork to your verified pub: Bok's masthead, illustrations for the Smith poem and "The Eyrie".

I would have just noted this on your verifications page, but there are a couple of additional changes I would like to make and I won't unless you agree:

  1. Many (but not all) of the Coye "Weirdisms" pictorial features include a phrase that is emphasized in the start of the essay (either in all caps, or as in this case a larger font). I have taken this phrase to be a subtitle and entered these accordingly. Thus I'd like to suggest changing the title of the piece in this issue to "Weirdisms: Witch-Finders". I realize this is non-standard, but we don't really have much in the way of rules to cover pictorial features. I've entered others in this manner as to make it makes the disambiguation more clear. Let me know if you agree, and I'll change the titles.
  1. Upon the advice from this help page (Author - Anonymous or uncredited works), I have been entering the author of "The Eyrie" as "The Editor". Since "The Eyrie" is a combination editorial and letters column, I could see going either way. If you agree, I'll make the change.

Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bok masthead entries break the rule of not merging interior art; the primary reason for not doing so is the amount of work takes to verify that the artwork is the same. Since this is a masthead that is not a problem but in this case but it does bring up another issue: Most editors do not document repeated mastheads, essay illos, etc. In my mind OK to break the rules and practices in this case. Weirdisms and Eyrie changes are OK especially for the sake of consistency. Those combo editorial/letter columns are annoying.--swfritter 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You might also want to change the title of Bok's masthead work to "Weird Tales (masthead)" for the sake of clarity.--swfritter 13:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Quake, Quake, Quake - some clarification

Morning! This. [12]. I obtained a book by Paul Dehn with the above (excerpt) in it. I added notes to my ver, which are probably in the 'who cares' category for almost everyone. LOL. Still, I thought you might check it out for anything objectionable and if you could spare the moment, what is it really? Can an editor or even author extract and arrange his/someone else's material into a poem or semblance of a poem. Is that a poem? Beyond my skills to parse, but the parts are definitely snippets from various sources compiled into sections in my source book, as shown in the interstitial material. No cover so I do not have to enter it, nor am I sure it is really pertinent to the DB. Thoughts on nuclear war being more real than fiction. [13]. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no change to the title entry, no problem. Notes are a good place to document items that are somewhat unclassifiable.--swfritter 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Chemo for Algernon

Are Chemo For Algernon and Chemo for Algernon by Mike Resnick the same work? BLongley 19:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reprint. Merged. Thanks.--swfritter 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I wasn't sure if it was an occasional column. They're hard to spot in ESSAY types. BLongley 21:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the tips on Serials. I think the ones published as Anon look better now (apart from "Voice from the Void", author still unknown). Feel free to whack them about to match standards, or ask about British peculiarities (I see Harry has already been confused by Old Pence and Shillings), I think I'm done otherwise. BLongley 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated.--swfritter 14:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, sometimes it's nice to do a bit of mindless copy'n'paste for a change. Beats reviewing Fixer's Paranormal Romance submissions. BLongley 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


This is the only ISFDB appearance by Jeremy L. Jones. I believe it should be Jeremy L. C. Jones. BLongley 12:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

TOC discrepancy. Interview has right name. Changed. Thanks.--swfritter 14:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Another oddity in this - "Louia" Priscilla? BLongley 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks.--swfritter 12:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jose Juan Areola

Jose's story "The Parable of Barter" here would be a translation of Juan José Arreola's 1938 story "La Parábola del Trueque", so it looks like they reversed his names. Could you double-check? Thanks Jonschaper 05:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Credit is correct (presumably mistakenly) and is credited that way on both the TOC and title page of story.--swfritter 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article credited as short story

"One Foot in Yesterday" by Gresham here should be listed as an article. The table of contents lists it with the stories, but as per the editor's intro it is a straight account of a famous, supposedly true paranormal encounter I've read about several times, and it is written as a straight essay. Cheers Jonschaper 23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Essay although it looks pretty hoaxy to me.--swfritter 18
16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Brotherhood of [the] Keepers

Could you check [this] and see if the title actually has the 'the' in it? Hauck submitted an edit for a later anthology that doesn't have it so I checked the Merril 6th Annual Year's Best and it doesn't have it either [though the record mistakenly does] and the acknowledgments for the original Street & Smith copyright doesn't have it. Could be fixed with one edit at the title level... Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be "The Brotherhood of Keepers". I changed the artwork credits in Analog. Looks like I missed this one twice. I also have a secondary validation on one of the Merril pubs which I also checked; it also has "The Brotherhood of Keepers".--swfritter 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Analog Science Fact -> Science Fiction, August 1962

It looks like P. Schuyler Miller's review of "The Glass Cage by Adam Lukins" should be linked to Adam Lukens. Could you please check if it is misspelled in the magazine? TIA! Ahasuerus 12:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Credited as Lukens. Also added the two Day books which strangely enough were not already in. Also added the Hailey book which is somewhat marginal as s-f but to my mind a Miller review makes it valid. Please tell Fixer not to get carried away when he sees Hailey's name. Airplane probably does not cut the s-f mustard.--swfritter 15:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Future Eves

Surely this is an Anthology rather than a Collection? BLongley 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As Leslie Nielsen would say: Don't call me surely! Fixed. Thanks.--swfritter 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

November-December Wonder stories- Bleiler

Morning! [14]. Bleiler, magazine section, pg. 595, adds a 'Letter from Leslie F. Stone'. Off course, he missed several other things, including two author letters. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Added the letter. I think the main reason Bleiler documents letters if if they discuss stories or contain bibliographic or biographical information. In this case Stone's letter is a reply to some criticisms of one of her stories.--swfritter 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed totally. I noted some letters due to name spelling or person not listed in DB. You were totally right that Bleiler listed names according to his own criteria, and even then did odd things to them. As far as I can tell the important data is either entered as content or notation. Unless you can think of something else needed I am done. YEAH! In the very end I felt good about the book. I found that Gernsback was no longer the starter of the genre, never really was, and even his failures proved that the authors and stories went on. My greatest insight is that magazines need material for the reader and even badly done stories are better than nothing and can inspire readers. I also found that the interplay through letters established many people in the field. Thanks to you especially and all the moderators for the yeoman support. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of work but a valuable addition.--swfritter 13:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Theaker's Quarterly Fiction

Would you do me a favor and look over Theaker's Quarterly Fiction for me? Each issue lists the two editors, and their credits changed from initials + last names to first + last names. I listed them explicitly along with "Editors of Theaker's Quarterly Fiction", then did pseudonyms and variants. Now I'm wondering if it would be better to have Editors-only credits, make Editors be a pseudonym for all of the various names, and then make a variant of the canonical Editors-credited title that uses just the two specific names as credited. I hope that line of thought makes sense.... Anyway, I'd appreciate any thoughts/guidance. Thanks, --MartyD 13:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. That magazine has all kinds of good stuff in it -- fantasy and science fiction, along with the horror entries that led me to it. I'm going to see about entering more issues and more content for the issues I've already put in. --MartyD 13:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing that might make sense is to classify this as a genre magazine. Based upon the contents of the issues entered the content appears to be nearly all acceptable. That way you won't need the "Editors of" credit unless you want to use it as you describe. Pseudonyms and rotating editors are a pain when it comes to merging by year but if there is only one switch here it won't look to bad. It can't possibly be as confusing as this. In any case, I think the dynamic grids are going to become the preferred method of navigation so it is not going to matter as much how the mag series look.--swfritter 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I can go with treating it as a genre magazine. Now for what may be a stupid question: what do I need to do to accomplish that? (Or where can I look for instructions?). Thanks. --MartyD 01:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Pretty simple. Just lose the "Editors of" credit from the EDITOR records and the pubs; remove the link from the non-genre page and then follow these instructions. In this case you can probably do the first step in the merge process using "Show All Titles" on the bibliography page of one of the editors. I suggested "Advanced Search" in Help for cases where there might be a larger number of entries for the editor (Ray Palmer for instance). You might conceivably want to dispense with building the magazine page or possibly build one with only a link to the dynamic grid; I would think we will eventually be ditching the HTML grids. I might also note that at least in one editor's case the canonical name only was used in the Editor series. Although there was one holdout who did the June 1963 issue of Analog according to Hoyle. I would not object as long as the pubs have the correct credit.--swfritter 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Another TQF outlier

What do you think I should do with TQF #32 "with" Pantechnicon #10? It's a dos-a-dos-style printing. But I don't think either was ever published separately. Thanks. --MartyD 10:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a penalty kick. You have been fouled. Pantechnicon even displays upside down! My first inclination would be to treat them as separate pubs with adequate documentation. If we had multiple series it could have easily been placed in dual magazine series although you probably could place one editor in the TQF editor series and another in a Pantechnicon Series but you might want to make sure that will work before adding content. Doing so would mean that there would be two EDITOR records in series in the same pub and I am not absolutely positive if the system would be happy with that. It doesn't look like the first nine issues of Pantechnicon are available.--swfritter 12:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I was thinking about making the issue be an omnibus of two editor records, but our interface doesn't make EDITOR available for omnibus content. And because we merge away the titles, can't really do anything with variants. But I like the idea of a Theaker's Quarterly Fiction #32 with Pantechnicon #10 with just the TQF editors and content and a second Pantechnicon #10 with Theaker's Quarterly Fiction #32 with just the PanT editors and content. With a prominent note in each, that shouldn't confuse anyone too much and will fit into what we do with Editor series. Thanks for looking at it. BTW, you can rotate the PDF, but then you have to scroll UP to go through the PanT pages.... --MartyD 12:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Hate to think what would happen if I converted it to a mobipocket file for my ebook reader.--swfritter 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That's why I stick to paper. If it can do EPUB or Kindle, no conversion needed.... Looks like Pantechnicon is dead, but I did find this archive, so I guess I'll give myself that as a project, too. All of this from one little Fixer entry.... --MartyD 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you're curious, I tried an experiment locally, forcing two editor records into a single MAGAZINE publication (you can't enter them directly, but you can edit a contained title and set it to EDITOR), then putting each into its own series. That all almost works, but you can never see the individual editor records (even if the container is Omnibus instead of Magazine), and Ahasuerus' new View Series and View Grid just pick the first series arbitrarily. Just a little too far off to be useful. --MartyD 22:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The system is rather picky about EDITOR records and expects only one to appear in a Magazine/Fanzine pub. If you try to use multiple EDITOR records, especially in a wrong pub type, there is no telling what may happen, so don't hold me responsible if, say, it disrupts local turbo-encabulators! Ahasuerus 22:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The only downside to computer programming is the users. Especially those who just smart enough to screw things up.--swfritter 12:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Brass Tacks in Astounding, March 1958

In your verified Astounding, March 1958, I see Brass Tacks (Astounding, October 1959). It has a page number, and it's not merged with the other title of the same name in the October 1959 issue, so it sort of looks like a paste-o.... --MartyD 11:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Worth Citing" in various 1954 If issues

Similar to the above:

I also noticed that Worth Citing (If, November 1954) in the November 1954 issue is typed SHORTFICTION. Should it be ESSAY? --MartyD 12:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. All fixed. Thanks.--swfritter 15:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Science Fiction: The Early Years

Science Fiction: The Early Years - I changed the title for the E. F. Benson story reviewed on page 55 plus added a note about this. I'm amazed. This publication must set some kind of record with 1784 items in its contents plus another 945 in the second part. What issue did you run into trying to get all ~3000 contents into one publication record?

I don't have time to take up a new project but see some inconsistencies. If you copy/paste the list into Windows Notepad you can go to a line using Ctrl-G (Goto) or view what line you are on. Using that, I spotted that review #181 is missing from the ISFDB contents. These reviews are duplicated:

  • 334&338 • Review: Crashing Suns by Edmond Hamilton • review by Everett F. Bleiler
  • 449 • Review: The Unparalleled Invasion by Jack London • review by Everett F. Bleiler
  • 453&454 • Review: The Unnamable by H. P. Lovecraft • review by Everett F. Bleiler
  • 454 • Review: Beyond the Wall of Sleep by H. P. Lovecraft • review by Everett F. Bleiler
  • 449 • Review: The Dream of Debs by Jack London • review by Everett F. Bleiler
  • 508&711 • Review: The Tachypomp by Edward Page Mitchell • review by Everett F. Bleiler

Review #2475 in the book is Jungle Terror which is 2705 items down in your contents list. I'd need to hunt around for a while to see how we got over 200 lines off. Overall though, an amazing effort. Congratulations. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I just switched windows and see my attempt to add a note to this publication failed and I'm getting "Internal Server Error." The note I was trying to add has

  • Review #176 for The Superannuation Department AD 1945 on page 55 is stated as a review of “The Superannuation Department A.D. 1945.”
  • --Marc Kupper|talk 09:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

    Now you know why I had to break the content into two pubs. When a certain threshold is reached the above message appears. The edit actually goes through and is out there in the queue. I had planned on moving some more reviews from pub 1 to pub 2. The reason that the record count is off is that some of the numbered entries are for collections and anthologies which have unnumbered content that I also entered. There are probably a lot more entries that do not exactly match what is in the database or do not exactly match what is in the book. To my mind the difference is self-documented because the reviews are linked to the works in question. I probably would have found the notes length limitation if I had had entered all the minor differences! It took me nearly a year of doing a few pages a day for a short time each day. Plus I read every entry too. Better than having to read the actual stories.--swfritter 12:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    I had been wondering if you entered that in a single marathon session or had done it via a db-import. A few every day while also reading the thing makes a lot more sense plus you can say you "read" 3000 books in the year while also having a normal life. :-)
    I found my submissions in the queue and so approved them. We could ask Ahasuerus to move the records directly in the database. If we move the content records for pub 29209 for pages 420 on up to pub 309328 that'll balance it out. Doing it in MySQL will be far faster than fiddling with cloning, deleting 1300 titles, importing the rest, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Crashing Suns has both short story and collection entries. Added the missing title and removed duplicate reviews. You are likely to find many other inconsistent undocumented entries. If I remember correctly my primary method was to match story and author via automatching so the entries may quite often differ from what is in the Bleiler work. Since this is secondary data I don't find it is as critical to document discrepancies although I would normally document the differences in a smaller pub. As you can well imagine I was getting a little fatigued by the project which in many cases also resulted in having to research and add the titles reviewed which was also an important part of the project. Please also note the fine job that Harry did on this pub. "Science-Fiction: The Early Years" was a Locus Poll winner but in one of the all time Hugo voting travesties it came in second to "The World of Charles Addams" which is not even in our database.--swfritter 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

    Paizo Publishing & Planet Stories

    When you get a chance, can you join this discussion? You have verified several pubs from this publisher and your input would be important. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

    "Suppliant" or "Supplicant"?

    Can you check to see how Sheckley's story is titled story is titled in Galaxy, November 1973? The art by Gaughan is titled differently. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    Forgot that I have the UK reprint of this issue. And it's "Suppliant". Because the UK's interior was identical to the US's, I'll change the title. If it's different, let me know and I'll change it back. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    The Eureka Years - small changes/art signature

    Morning! This. [15]. I give you a profound accolade for doing this book, it has left me both troubled and upset. Your work is exemplary, but something is missing in making the publication present itself by the author. Yuck ! Added image. Changed "Preface" page to xiii. Found "George" at bottom right front cover and made note of it. I could only think of George Barr, but it is NOT listed by Jame Frank. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    Fantastic, September 1965

    I wanted to check with you before I made a couple of changes to this issue of Fantastic. The Simak story is listed as "Beachhead" rather than under its variant title '"You'll Never Go Home Again"' as it appears in the magazine. Additionally, the Frank R. Paul article about the cover painting is listed on pages 159 & 160, whereas my copy has them on 158 & 159. Let me know if you concur and I'll happily make the changes. While I was looking at this, I also drilled down into Emsh's page and also noticed that it lists two short fiction items that I suspect are really interior art: here and here. They both occur in your verified pub. I don't know if you need to look at the issue. I know that I make errors of that particular sort from time to time. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

    What's interesting is that the artwork for the Simak story is titled correctly which would seem to indicate that somebody did a merge subsequent to my verification. And the artwork is incorrectly credited to Sommers instead of Leo Ramon Summers. If this were an author credit I would createe a Sommers pseudonym but instead will make a note. Paul and Emsh items fixed also.--swfritter 17:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

    Amazing Stories, Special Edition, 2000

    I'm doing another Primary Verification of this pub, so I changed Ellison's afterword on page 33 from SHORTFICTION to ESSAY. Also changed the title from "The Toad Prince or, Sex Queen of the Martian Pleasure-Domes (afterword)" to "Afterword (The Toad Prince or, Sex Queen of the Martian Pleasure-Domes)" to conform with ISFDB standards on generic titles. Mhhutchins 18:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

    Is the source for the dating of this issue from a secondary source? I could find no internal evidence of a date other than the 1999 copyright. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    Issue #599 has a Winter 2000 date. #599 & #600 were probably printed and distributed in 1999. Contento/Miller gives #600 a February 2000 publication date. He also gives the winter issues from 1994 to 2000 a January publication month; the spring issues an April publication month; Summer 1999 & 1998 a July publication date; Summer 1998 an August publication month; Fall 1994, Fall 1999 a September publication month; Fall 1998 an October publication month. Using those dates would seem fine to me but I am not sure about Ron's take on quarterly pub dating.--swfritter 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

    A Wilderness of Stars

    Submission in the queue to add a sub-title to the above. The record also has an odd page count...? --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks. Their change is correct. Also fixed the page count. Am scratching my head in wonderment that "With" is not supposed to be all lowercase but standards is standards.--swfritter 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    I thought that one had been added to the 'lower-case' list? I see it both ways often when merging and have been opting for lower...? --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    A further look indicates that Help was changed to add "With" to the list for story titles but not pub titles. A little inconsistent I would say. See my note on Rules and Standards.--swfritter 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

    England Swings SF - Changed page number of story

    Afternoon! This. [16]. I changed the start page of "Plan for the Assassination of Jacqueline Kennedy" to page 397, after matching my copy to your ver. Do NOT understand it though. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Men Against the Stars- 2nd printing

    Morning! This. [17]. I cloned the first G234 of yours, but perhaps I should have corrected the #534 record instead. My G234 matches Tuck and Contento, but there is no mention of #534. Oh Well! My question for you is, Does your copy not have the red circle with white/gray pyramid at top left. Is it only a white/colorless logo? If so, I have an image without the red if you wish it changed. After, checking contents up and down on this book, I have concluded that at some point they would have printed the title 'without' contents, as each time usually has less than before. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

    White/coverless so you can change the image if you want.--swfritter 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    Submitted. The #534 turns out to be Canadian. Much appreciated, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

    publication date for Walpole's "Saturnian Celia"?

    Hi. I have this proposed merge on hold that wants to keep a 1774 publication date for "Saturnian Celia" by Horace Walpole. This appears in your 2-verified Magazine of F&SF, April 1957. According to a snippet in Google Books, there it is described as being an excerpt of a letter written in May, 1774. I don't know if it has more to say about its actually being published in 1774.... Would you take a look and see what you think? Google says Tuck lists it, so I asked Mhhutchins if he would see what Tuck says. Thanks. --MartyD 10:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

    Contento lists it as first having been published in The Letters of Horace Walpole, 1903, which technically would make that the correct date although I would not be adverse to using the date written as long as there is adequate explanation.--swfritter 18:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks! I will follow your suggestion and keep the 1774 and add some notes. --MartyD 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    I noticed that the piece was also reprinted in an anthology. Merged that occurrence and added information about the publication history. There are some earlier editions of Walpole's letters on Project Gutenberg but they do not contain this letter.--swfritter 12:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

    The Downstairs Room and Other Speculative Fiction

    The introduction to this pub is credited in the database to Kate Wilhelm. In my copy it's signed as by James Sallis. I think this should be changed. Can you agree? Thanks, --Willem H. 19:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

    Change made at the title level. Thanks.--swfritter 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

    Space & Time #111

    Can you verify the spelling of the Pohl interview in this issue? Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

    Copy and paste from the PDF file is actually accurate on both TOC and title page of interview. From looking at the interview it does not seem to be intentional. I will make a note in the pub.--swfritter 22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    We can retain the title as printed, but the subject of the interview should be changed to "Frederik Pohl" (I'm assuming he was the interviewee.) Otherwise it will not show up on Pohl's summary page list of interviews. A pseudonym for "Frederol Pohl" should not be created IMO, because he is not the author of the piece. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    Didn't notice that the interviewee was wrong. Changed. Still looks weird.--swfritter 03:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

    Title correction

    Hi, I've changed the title of the "Amherst" story here from "Sons of the Desert" to "Sons of the Serpent". Jonschaper 01:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

    Too much Laurel & Hardy in my youth. Also changed the canonical title. Thanks.--swfritter 12:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    LOL Laurel & Hardy came to my mind too. I don't think there's such a thing as too much L&H. Jonschaper 08:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


    Hi, I made some corrections for the Oct 1950 Other Worlds. I changed the title for the Randall Garrett story from "The Rules" to "By the Rules" and added a listing for a cartoon. Jonschaper 08:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

    Also changed the variant title which is only in a variant title relationship because there is a pseudonym involved. Thanks.--swfritter 12:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

    Art Credits - Jun 1951 Other Worlds

    Hi, I've added art credits for a couple of titles here. Ray Palmer gives the art credits in response to a letter in the Sep 1951 issue. PS, also added a cartoon listing for the Sep 1951 issue. Jonschaper 02:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

    I suggest you add this information (the source of the credits) to the notes in the pub to avoid confusion in future editors. It's a good practice to include in the notes sources of information other than the publication itself. --MartyD 10:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    Cheers. Note added Jonschaper 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Lightspeed, July 2010

    Can you see if the story by George R. R. Martin in this issue's e-book uses the quotation marks? According to the website's publication, it does. I accepted a submission making a variant based on this non-quotation record, but I think we may have to merge them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

    The epub version does not have quotation marks on either the ToC or title page of the story.--swfritter 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for checking. The variant remains as accepted. Mhhutchins 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

    A Stray from Cathay in Fantasy Fiction, August 1953

    You're the only verifier of this John Wyndham story, here. According to my copy of Tales of Gooseflesh and Laughter, "A Stray from Cathay" was retitled as "Chinese Puzzle". If that's true, the story should begin with The parcel, waiting provocatively on the dresser, was the first thing Hwyl noticed when he got in from work. Can you check this, and if it's true, which title should be the canonical? Thanks, --Willem H. 19:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    Same story. "Chinese Puzzle" is in a Wyndham collection it is probably his preferred title. I would go with that; the title also has a predominate number of appearances.--swfritter 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for checking. I set up the variant, result is here. --Willem H. 09:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

    June 51 Imagination

    Hi, I just changed the page number for a cartoon in this issue from 64 to 65. Jonschaper 23:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

    Book/Magazine sale

    The website is [[18]]. Happy shopping! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

    Publication Date Issue

    You verified Star Science Fiction Stories No. 5 which contains covert art that is dated 1927. This seems a likely data entry typo for the publication's date of 1972 (especially since 1927 is before the credited artist's birth). However, on the chance that it was originally published before the publication, could you look into this and make the appropriate fixes? Thanks. --JLaTondre 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

    Fixed. Odd, since the date is assigned automatically based upon the pub date. Possibly the pub date was originally entered in error and the the cover art data was not updated. Thanks.--swfritter 12:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    Other Worlds, Jan 1952

    Hi, I added a credit for a cartoon here Jonschaper 02:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    Other Worlds, Mar 1952

    Hi, I've corrected the title of Mack Reynold's story from "Final Approach" to "Final Appraisal" here. Jonschaper 04:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    while it's a changed to a verified pub I went ahead with approving this as I don't think this user pays attention to this page. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Stephen's last response was less than 2 days ago (see above), so perhaps you were thinking of someone else? (For now I went ahead and changed the parent of the associated Interior Art record to match.) Ahasuerus 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    To Swfritter - I read your preferences re pre-notification to mean sending you a message before I submit a change for approval. Let me know if you prefer I also hold back on submitting until you respond - I certainly don't mean to step on any toes. Cheers Jonschaper 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Your changes have been so reliable that you can feel free to change anything that does not require interpretation; all I need is notification. I note that someone has been assigning Harold W. McCauley as a canonical artist name for much of his artwork although he was not usually credited that way. Don't know if it was you or not but considering the vagaries of artist credits it seems acceptable although not exactly according to strict standards. Thanks.--swfritter 13:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry about that - I must have Stephen mixed up with someone else. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Ernest Vleck in International Science Fiction, November 1967

    Stephen, I rejected an editor's submission to change the canonical name for Ernest Vleck to Ernst Vleck. At present Ernest Vleck is credited for two shortfiction works. Both of those are in International Science Fiction, November 1967 verified by you. As Ernest vs. Ernst is an easy one for us miss when verifying/typing it may be worthwhile to recheck the spelling of the author's name.

    I saw that we already had a record for Ernst Vlcek (his real name) and so went ahead with making Ernest Vleck a pseudonym. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    It's actually Ernst on the ToC and Ernest on the title page of both stories. Help suggests we have the option of selecting the most appropriate credit when there is a discrepancy and it would seem that the author's actual name might be appropriate.--swfritter 19:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    Murray Leinster's "The Grandfather's War"

    As a primary verifier of a publication containing The Grandfather's War , you input on this discussion is requested. A question has been raised about the proper location of the apostrophe. Thanks. --JLaTondre 00:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Winona McClintic's The Doctrine of Original Design

    You verified this pub (second verifier) which contains The Doctrine of Original Design . You also verified this pub (only verifier) which contains Doctrine of Original Design. I wanted to double check the presence/absence of the "The" in both versions before I submitted a change to make it a variant record. Would you mind checking? Thanks. --JLaTondre 23:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

    Title page/ToC conflict for the magazine appearance. I have merged the titles and made a note in the pub. Thanks.--swfritter 00:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

    Harlan Ellison's The Assassin

    You verified this pub which contains Assassin!. You also verified this pub which contains The Assassin. As these are both novellas published within a year of each other, I was wondering if they might be the same story? --JLaTondre 00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    Nope. Not the same story. Entered a note to indicate as such in title pages of both stories.--swfritter 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


    You've verified the only appearance we have by C Hellison. I think this should be regularised to include a period and made a variant of C. L. Hellison (or vice-versa)? BLongley 17:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Done, although the websites don't exactly verify her identity.--swfritter 02:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    You don't think so? Her works page lists both stories. BLongley 14:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

    Winona McClintic & Margaret St. Clair Questions

    The following are two question on possible variants.

    1. Winona McClintic: Swfritter verified this pub containing The Two Voices. Bluesman verified this pub containing Two Voices. They differ by the "The" (there is also another verified pub without the "The", but I figured one is enough to double check).
    Corrected the content/title. It definitely had the "The" . --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    "The" is correct. No ToC entry.--swfritter 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    Scott Latham is the verifier on the other publication with the non-"The" version. I'll drop him a note, but he hasn't edited the wiki in over 4 years so that seems unlikely to get a response. --JLaTondre 03:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    1. Margaret St. Clair: Swfritter verified this pub containing The Marriage Manual. Bluesman verified this pub containing Marriage Manual. These also differ by the "The." However, the dates don't match so also wondering about the 1951 date. This source shows the 1954 Startling Stories as the first publication (assuming I'm reading that right). Does the 1974 publication give an alternate source?
    No "The" this time and the acknowledgments state "Startling Stories, 1951" and that's it. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    "The" on both ToC and title page entry.--swfritter 02:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    Okay. I'd suggest making the "The" version a variant of the non-"The" version and adding a note about the "Startling Stories, 1951" credit. That seem reasonable? --JLaTondre 03:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    All of the 1951 issues of Startlng Stories have been verified (mostly by me), so I would think we are safe in assuming that the 1951 credit is in error.--swfritter 04:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, variant submitted. I'll update the date & add a note to that affect once the variant is accepted. --JLaTondre 12:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

    I wanted to double check that the difference were valid before submitting variants. I will also leave a note requesting Bluesman participate here.

    Thanks. --JLaTondre 22:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

    Jim Baen's Universe

    Did they really have "David Gerold" (rather than "Gerrold") in this pub and this?

    Yes and Yes.--swfritter 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    Or No and No. We don't trust ToCs do we? BLongley 18:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    Which is another reason why I checked the downloads as mentioned below although I should have mentioned that I also checked the title pages of the stories in the downloads.--swfritter 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    Title page trumps all of course. Looks like they got it wrong and have only partially fixed things on the web version. BLongley 12:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    Same as David Gerrold? I don't know. No bio data in the mag downloads and three stories credited to Gerold.--swfritter 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    Probably the same, I think, but I don't know of a reliable Gerrold bibliography that claims them. BLongley 12:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


    I think I have the same edition of this as you and Apemind, but the story "Impostor" is "Imposter" on the start page (although not in ToC and on copyright page). Can you double-check please? BLongley 00:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

    Mine is the same. Help is contradictory about how to handle this situation but I generally go by the Help entry that allows the editor to use the most appropriate form which is usually the canonical name or title no matter whether it appears on the ToC or title page. I usually put a note in the pub indicating the discrepancy.--swfritter 14:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    OK, you got there first so I've just noted it. (And added a local ISFDB cover-image.) I see that we have a variant already but this is one of those spelling-variants I'm not too bothered about. BLongley 23:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


    You've Primary-Verified (along with others) Five-Odd, which currently has a note of "Source of cover art attribution not known.". I think I have the same edition, and mine says "Cover Painting by John Schoenherr" on the back cover. It is over-priced with a 3/6 edition for the British market, but that statement seems clearly printed on the book itself, which still claims to be printed in the USA. Do I have a different printing or did someone not look on the back cover? BLongley 23:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

    Looks like a number of someones did not look on the back cover. Mine has the same credit.--swfritter 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

    Navbars for Analog 2010

    Volume of Analog 2010 has been verified. I could add the Navbars, if you have time to produce the data needed for that. Thanks. Tpi 18:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

    As soon as the next weekly backup is available.--swfritter 16:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    Done.--swfritter 22:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

    Clark Ashton Smith's The Tale of Sir John Maundeville

    Can you please take a look at this discussion? Specifically, the last bullet. Thanks. --JLaTondre 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

    Title expansion to "An Inquiry Concerning the Curvature of the Earth's Surface..."

    I managed to approve a change of the above title to its longer form, An Inquiry Concerning the Curvature of the Earth's Surface and Divers Investigations of a Metaphysical Nature without an edition of The Year's Best S-F: 5th Annual Edition, in which it appeared for with Kpulliam and you have verifications. I don't know how I managed to miss this pub entry. Anyway, let me know if it's not right, and I will fix it up (I also left Kevin a note). Thanks, --MartyD 02:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

    All three credits, copyright, ToC, title page, in my verified pub are of the long form.----