User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2013Jan-Apr

From ISFDB
< User talk:Mhhutchins‎ | Archive
Revision as of 23:56, 21 May 2013 by Mhhutchins (talk | contribs) (Archiving the Jan-Apr 2013 messages)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Obsession - Ramsey Campbell

Your note "Code "01630-065" on the back of the dustjacket has not been deciphered." on http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?24681. This is just accounting for new booksellers. It's telling the bookseller that they will be invoiced at a price of $16.30 rather than the $16.95 cover price. The other $0.65 is to help cover freight costs. 01630 + 065 = 01695 ($16.95). You see this later on (especially in Del Rey books) under the price. For example...you'll see $17.95 over 1745 FPT (Freight Pass Through) meaning that the bookseller gets a fifty cents per-copy break to help pay for freight. They were slightly more generous back then. SFJuggler 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I was slightly familiar with FPT, but did not know how various publishers record it in their own ways. Thanks for the information. I'll update the record, and others where I recorded the code but wasn't sure exactly what it meant. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 06:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Werewolf Gambit

Your verified pub The Ultimate Werewolf contains the note "All but two of the stories (by Ellison and Niven) are original to this anthology". However, it seems that The Werewolf Gambit by Robert Silverberg, which has the year 1991 in the isfdb, was already published in 1957 in Adam, at least according to [1]. Provided that this is not mentioned in The Ultimate Werewolf, would the listing on the "quasi-official" Robert Silverberg page be enough evidence to change the record in the isfdb? Thanks, Darkday 21:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not by itself, but I was able to find other corroborating sources. Funny though, many reliable sources, including Locus1 and Ashley/Contento's Supernatural Index wasn't familiar with this story's original publication. I'll update the record. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins 06:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Shouldn't the note for "The Ultimate Werewolf" be changed also? ("All but two of the stories ... are original to this anthology" -> "All but three ...") Darkday 23:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the note entirely. It's self-evident which ones are original by looking at the content listing. The undated items are original to the publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Contributions to the Study of Science Fiction and Fantasy"

I'm in the process of archiving old posts on my message board, but making sure that anything I said I would do in one of them has been done. Back in Jan. 2011, I was working on this non-fiction publication series, leading to a conversation here. I got all of the (existing) books in that series included, and you suggested that if I was up to it I could work on entering their contents. Well, I was finally up to it. :-). I've just finished entering the contents for 49 books in that series (there are 106 books total, some of which had contents, and some of which are single author books). Most of those contents I got from WorldCat, but I found a really good site at Texas A&M Libraries where they have a very complete search engine explicitly for their science fiction collection. They appear to have entered all of the contents for all the books they have in their collection. I created a script to convert their format into ours, and then copy those re-formatted contents into one of our publication records. That allowed me to enter something over half-a-dozen contents directly from them to us. (I have another script to convert WorldCat contents to our formats, which I've used for a while.) Anyway, just thought I'd let you know. Chavey 05:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds great. I have to resort to manually entering content data, because I don't work with a local copy of the db, nor do I have the ability to write scripts such as you've done here. So congratulations for coming up with a time-saving solution to the problem. I'll let you know if I come across other reliable sources of content data and ask your assistance in converting the data to ISFDB use. I'm familiar with the SFF Research Database on the Texas A&M website and have obtained data from it. It's nice to know it's easier now to grab data from there, rather than the old-fashioned way I've been doing it. Mhhutchins 06:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pub dating and gutter codes

Would you do me a favor and see this and confirm or correct what I suggested to him about the pub dating based on gutter codes? Thanks. --MartyD 12:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He's correct by dating the publication date six weeks after the printing date indicated by the gutter code. I've checked hundreds of titles published by Doubleday, and came to the same conclusion. On the average, the publication date, as confirmed by Locus, review copies, SFBC catalog and announcement flyers, Amazon listings, etc., tends to be six weeks after the date indicated by the gutter code. As I explained on the page for gutter codes, the printing date should not be confused with the publication date, considering the logistics of getting the books from the printer and into the bookstores. Mhhutchins 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Berkley Showcase: New Writings in Science Fiction and Fantasy, Vol. 3"

The contents for this verified anthology had two poems attributed to "Thomas M. Disch". In fact, they were listed in the book (both in the ToC and in the story title page) as by "Tom Disch". I changed the attributions and added the appropriate VT's. Chavey 07:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. The contents were already in the database (probably from Contento, who credited the poems to the full name), and I failed to catch the error when I verified the record. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Test data set for Dürrenmatt

Hello, Michael! Just a question if this is still necessary. Stonecreek 13:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Someone must have added the pub record by this author after I created the test record. These test records are for authors (there are dozens of them) who had titles reviewed but no pub records for the work being reviewed. These test records kept the author from being a "stray author" (an author in the database but with no titles listed under his name), and I was systematically going through them to either add a pub record (if it were spec-fic) or change the review to an ESSAY if the work was non-genre. Now that there's a title for Dürrenmatt I can delete the test for his name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, I wondered what that was about. Dürrenmatt really is a hard case if it comes to his works belonging to ISFDB. There are some 'historical' plays by him (for example one on 'Romulus') that really use the historical persons only to comment on society of today. I haven't figured out if they are to be included. At the moment I'd lean more towards a No. Stonecreek 17:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It was this 1965 review of his play "The Physicists" that got him into the db to start with. I still had not got around to it to deterimine if I should add a record for it or just change the REVIEW into an ESSAY. According to Wikipedia: "The satirical drama The Physicists (Die Physiker, 1962)...deals with issues concerning science and its responsibility for dramatic and even dangerous changes to our world..." Sounds like it's tangential, but not truly spec-fic. Mhhutchins 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
From time to time I do read something by him but "The Physicists" is still somewhere in the reading tower. I hope to get to it sometime this year and then we hopefully can determine its content. Stonecreek 19:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

All of Them Were Empty

Could you check how the above story is listed in [this] edition. The original [Ballantine] has an emdash on the end of the title [I haven't done anything with it yet, as Willem has both of the other editions where the story appears]. It may just be a single Title change or a variant. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no emdash on either the title page or the contents page. Guess a variant is required. Mhhutchins 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Both of my editions have the emdash on the titlepage, so I corrected them and varianted yours. See here. --Willem H. 20:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Credit Q

I thought it was ok to add an artist credit from a secondary source and matching publication note and to do concurrent verifier notification, needing pre-notification/agreement only if the credit is derived from the book. At least, that's how I've been handling submissions. Am I mistaken? If so, I've probably (certainly, in fact) been giving some bad advice and will need to go clarify. Thanks. --MartyD 12:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the documented etiquette concerning notification of verifiers: It is very strongly encouraged that you notify the verifier first if the change is particularly significant. I consider it's a significant change to add cover art credit to a publication record in which the publication itself isn't credited. There should be no problem with the editor discussing this before making a submission. I would hope that other moderators would feel the same about such changes to my verified records. Most active verifiers are more lenient about notification when it comes to the addition of notes and cover image links, but the changing of any other field of a verified record should be considered significant enough for discussion before submission. The subject is always debatable, but that's my interpretation of the etiquette. Mhhutchins 21:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess I've always thought of it as falling under Changes that only add data.... But I'd certainly rather fall on the side of caution. I know I had someone accept some title changes to my verified pubs that I hadn't (still haven't) agreed to, and I'm not happy about it, so I certainly appreciate where you're coming from. --MartyD 00:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps that line about Changes that only add data... should be changed to Changes that add data, unless that data is unstated in the publication... We should be more clear about the difference between changing and adding. Or specify that changes to the Note field and the Image URL field are considered less significant than changes or additions to any other field. Mhhutchins 01:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Locus, #385 February 1993

Can you please confirm that the review of Mathew D. Hargreaves's book in Locus, #385 February 1993 (p.59) really did use two Ts (Matthew vs. Mathew) before I make a variant? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't create variants based on the credits in a review. Read the Author section of this. I'll make the correction to the canonical author's name. Mhhutchins 01:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Essay in The Language of the Night, 1982 mass-market pb edition

Hi! Could you check and verify that the title of the essay on page 151 of The Language of the Night is really "Is Gender Necessary? Redux" -- I am trying to track down the first appearance of "Is Gender Necessary? Redux" versus just "Is Gender Necessary?" The "Redux" version has the original essay side-by-side with later commentary. No rush, but I'd love to find out eventually... Thanks! BungalowBarbara 03:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be the essay titled "Is Gender Necessary?". When I did a second primary verification of the record, I failed to notice the difference. It's been corrected. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The acknowledgements page of Dancing at the Edge of the World (1989) gives a 1987 copyright for "Is Gender Necessary? Redux", but it doesn't give the original publication. It's possible that the 1989 publication is its first publication, regardless of the copyright date. Mhhutchins 03:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, just noticed that my 1993 copy has an essay title as "A Citizen of Mondath" not "A Citizen of Mondrath" -- what about yours? BungalowBarbara 03:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, another error of the original verifier which I failed to catch. I'll correct it. Mhhutchins 03:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the amazingly speedy responses! BungalowBarbara 04:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding foreign editions...

I've decided to ONLY add books I actually have in hand (not cover scans I've collected since 1990) that way adding them will be SO MUCH EASIER on everyone ^-^ -- and most English-language books I can get ILL or already have, so... I have 40 more Whelan foreigns that are NOT in here (about half would new pubs and about half new titles). But since I don't have the books themselves, they can wait. Thanks for your diligence in making sure I don't screw things up ^-^ ☺ ☻ ☺ Ofearna 22:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Called

In your verified The Called, there is a listing for "The Called (map)" which is marked as an ESSAY. Should this be INTERIORART instead? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Little Sisters of Eluria & Down these Strange Streets

How do I import contents? When I go to title data, there isn't another version to import from. O'Fearna 04:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Import the contents from 190461. This means you'll have to add the novella "The Little Sisters of Eluria" as a new content record. (You can do this in the same submission to import the other contents.) After it's accepted by a moderator you can go back and make any necessary changes, ie. removing contents that don't appear in this publication (e.g. the Michael Whelan interior art for The Dark Tower: The Gunslinger and possibly King's Afterword. I don't know if it's included in the revised collection. I'm assuming you have a reliable source for the contents which you'll be able to provide. Mhhutchins 04:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the URL for Donald Grant's page to the title. O'Fearna 04:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The URL was to Grant's secure site, which we discourage linking records to. We also discourage records linking to a sales page which could disappear without notice. Nevertheless, if you would read the message I left on your talk page about pub-specific notes versus title-specific notes, you'd have seen that this is pub-specific and should have been entered into the publication record. (You may have read it, but without any response from you, I have no way of knowing you did.) In this case, the page appears to be OK to link to in the pub record's Note field, since the edition has sold out.
Hope the latest change makes it OK. My copy is still in original packaging, so... O'Fearna 05:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
So you'll never know if your copy is one of those remarqued by Michael Whelan? I couldn't live with a copy and not be tempted to remove the shrinkwrap. Mhhutchins 06:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I won it for free -- not a huge fan of Dark Tower. I'll eventually sell it so I know this will help. As give-away I'm reasonably certain it's not a remarque...O'Fearna 16:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, you've placed the SFBC submission on hold and I've researched for Down These Strange Streets. Apparently, I need to go back in and place the catalog # in the ISBN field. If you could approve the changes (so the notes don't get lost) I'll go make that change. I'll be switching computers to my boss' laptop as soon as I finish here, but I'll check it as soon as I've done a spot of work. Thanks So Much ! O'Fearna 04:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll accept the submission and ask you to replace the SFBC ID number in the ISBN field. You can note in the Note field the ISBN of the trade edition of it's given in the SFBC edition. Also, the HTML is rather wonky. Please clean that up when you edit the record as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hope the latest change makes it OK. O'Fearna 05:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It's fine now. I fixed the HTML for the unnumbered list. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!!! O'FearnaF

There Was An Old Woman—

you rejected the unmerge, so I need advice on what to do. The story is in my book, but in every instance it doesn't have the — ... I was going to unmerge and variant it to that title? O'Fearna 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the reject message. I told you how to do it. You should not "unmerge" a publication record from a content record. You should go to the publication record and "remove" it from the publication. Then go back and add a new content record for the one you just removed. Only then can you variant it to the parent record. Mhhutchins 02:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool... O'Fearna 16:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How to Succeed at Science Fiction Without Really Trying

Your rejection message regarding Parodies Tossed: How to Succeed at Science Fiction Without Really Trying said "There is no record of the poem being published without the pre-title." I've seen many titles in the ISFDB that were only published under a variant title, e.g. this one. Why isn't this possible here? Darkday 19:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That title record shouldn't be in the database, and the editor who submitted it and the moderator who accepted it should have brought it up for discussion first. There are many author titles which are changed before publication, and we would never know that. But if someone becomes aware of an author's working title (especially if there are apocryphal tales of titles that are changed before publication), we can add that data to the published title's note field, but we should not create a variant title record for it. If you disagree with this approach, start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Mhhutchins 19:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Besides, it is debatable whether this poem was published with this pre-title. As I pointed out to Swfritter, the words "Parodies Tossed" do not appear on the title page, only in the TOC. Thanks, Darkday 19:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Then the primary verifier needs to correct the mistake. It is ISFDB standard to record only what is recorded on the work's title page. It appears that "Parodies Tossed" is a feature created by the magazine for such poems and so should not be part of the title. In cases like this, the title can be placed into a series. Please go back to Swfritter and discuss the matter with him. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I'm going to delete the Asimov title record (for the unpublished title) and add it to the note field of the canonical title. If you come across any more of these cases, please let me know. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Silverberg: At Winter's End

According to majipoor.com, At Winter's End from Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, January 1988 is an excerpt from the novel At Winter's End. Since you have both the magazine and the novel, could you please on occasion check if this is true? Thanks, Darkday 19:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. It seems clear that the two works are related, but I think the question is whether the shorter text is an edited/shortened version of the novel or whether it is a straight excerpt. I guess in the former case its title should be changed to "At Winter's End (novella)", and in the latter case to "At Winter's End (excerpt)". Darkday 19:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to dig out my copy of IASFM to double check. If it is credited as an excerpt from the forthcoming novel, I'll add "(excert)" to the title. If the story was published and only later became the basis for the novel, I'll leave the title as is, and note the connection in both of their title records. We don't add "novella)" to the title of a SHORTFICTION record which is already designated as a novella. Mhhutchins 19:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. This is what gave me the idea to add "(novella)" for disambiguation: The End of Eternity vs. The End of Eternity (novella). Darkday 20:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
That was probably done to disambiguate the two SHORTFICTION pieces (one of which is an excerpt), not to distinguish it from the NOVEL record.
The listing on majipoor.com is wrong. It is not an excerpt. I checked the issue of IASFM in which the novella appeared and it seems to be an early version of the first part of the novel. There's a lot of re-writing, character name changes, etc. Unfortunately the ISFDB has no function that indicates the relationship between the texts of two title records, so I'll make notes and add a link to each of them. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 20:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Darkday 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On Land and At Sea

Wondering if I should change the publication date of On Land and At Sea to 2013-01-00 or 2013-01-15 or if I should leave it the heck alone -- see the notes that the pre-orders were shipped January 15. O'Fearna 03:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Leave it as is. When a shipping date is within a month of the publication date, there's no need to correct it. The note about the shipping date should suffice. The title's publication date is officially December 31, 2012. Now if it didn't ship for several months, then it would be a different matter. Is there an explicit publication date given in the book? Most SubPress titles only give a year of publication on the title page, and no publication date on the copyright page, so I'm assuming this title does the same. Mhhutchins 03:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It just says 2012... thanks O'Fearna 17:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Verification question

This C.J. Cherryh book [2] you and four others verified as being the 1st printing as per number line with "Printed in Canada". My 1st says printed in the US. Now there is no entry for a US printing. So is the there a Canadian printing with with a number line starting with a "1"? Is it a contributor's typo? Could five verifiers made the same mistake? Seems unlikely. I'd like to enter the US printing if these aren't the same book. I'm sending this to the other four verifiers to help figure this out.Don Erikson 00:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I was the Primary 1 verifier, and it's my copy that was printed in Canada. I suppose the other verifiers either have the same Canadian copy or failed to see that in my notes. Back in December 2009 we weren't designating Canadian dollars so I suppose that may have led to the confusion. My suggestion: clone my record to create the US printing, changing the fields that apply to your copy, and then the other verifiers can either confirm which printing they're verifying. I'll change the price field of mine to make it clear that it's Canadian dollars. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 00:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've created a clone now. Thanx for the info.Don Erikson 19:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Except for the price, you made an exact clone record. You'll need to adjust the notes. Mhhutchins 21:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Moderating Automated Submissions" update

As one of the "top two" Fixer approvers, could you please take a look at this section of my Talk page? TIA! Ahasuerus 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

TestMHH

Do you still need this pub? If yes, would you mind at least changing the stories that have real authors to non-real names? Having test records show up on actual author bibliography pages for an extended period doesn't seem user friendly. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read this explanation. (Some of the examples given there may no longer apply because work on the list has continued since the rationale was written.) If there are any test records for authors who have other title records, please post the list of those authors here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand the intent, but it does have its own issues. It's also confusing for users to stumble across an author page with these entries. Adding notes to the pub's title and publication records would at least alleviate that. (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
And unnecessary. Any user who stumbles across these author pages would see a single shortfiction title and would readily determine they're test records. These will eventually be cleared up, but it takes time, especially since there's no other editor who is willing to work on clearing up the problems found with this particular clean-up script. Mhhutchins 05:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
R. Thomas Riley was the author who originally caught my attention, but you have already deleted that entry. Looking over the others:
-- JLaTondre (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll check to see if the alternate names you give here should have been used for the review records that created the stray authors. As for the others, until the project is complete, I see no reason to remove the test content records. Mhhutchins 04:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You realize that even if I deleted the test records, these names would remain in the database as stray authors? Mhhutchins 05:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that without correcting the reviews (at least for those with reviews), deleting the test records would not remove the stray authors. I thought I would help out on resolving some of these if I could, but was loath to make the edits on my own since it was your project. That seems like it was the right choice. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Retief and the Pangalactic Pageant of Pulchritude

Hi -- I saw your note on the rejection of my edit to Retief and the Pangalactic Pageant of Pulchritude. I am happy to check with the verifiers, but before I do that I wanted to check with you on what current usage is for the OMNIBUS type. It's been a long time since I edited here and I am probably misremembering what the norms are. This is a novel with a short story added; the short story had no prior publication. I'm sure that the verifiers correctly checked that the contents matched the data entered, but can you tell me if OMNIBUS is now a standard description for a work such as that? If so that's fine; I just would have expected it to be called a collection. Or are you suggesting that, right or not, I should get consensus from the verifiers first? Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The current standards definition for an OMNIBUS: A publication may be classified is an omnibus if it contains multiple works that have previously been published independently, and at least one of them is a novel.. I personally disagree with this standard, but not enough to start a rules discussion, because two previously published collections or anthologies would also constitute an omnibus. I agree with you that adding a previously published novel to flesh out a book publishing a single short fiction piece (as we have here) should be typed as a COLLECTION. We may have an "out" here, because following the standard to the letter, in this case, the title novella is new, so it could not have been "previously" published. Because such a change would involve many verifiers, you should do as I suggest and notify each of them to correct the type of their publication record. Then it would be no problem to correct the title record as you submitted. This is the standard protocol for changing primary verified records. Mhhutchins 18:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Will do; thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I've corrected the type of the title record based on the change that was made in the first printing. We just need the verifier of the second printing in order to come to a full agreement so that the pubs match the title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Go for it. I'm not going to argue for "NOVEL, with bonus SHORTFICTION". ;-) BLongley 21:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, considering the title and order of contents, it would be "SHORTFICTION with bonus NOVEL". :) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Locus

Locus this cover is by Frazetta... should it be credited to him? O'Fearna 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add the credit to the record. Mhhutchins 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

After Earth: A Perfect Beast

Since the Amazon image for After Earth: A Perfect Beast says "Final Cover to Come", do you think it may be better to remove it and wait for the final version to become available? Ahasuerus 05:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that. I didn't notice the banner (they're usually more prominently displayed.) Thanks. BTW, I added a few more observations on your talk page after doing the Fixer submissions. Mhhutchins 05:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, reading it right now... Ahasuerus 05:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Keeper of the Moon

Just an FYI that I have made a few changes to Harley Jane Kozak's Keeper of the Moon :

  • Removed "(Harlequin Nocturne)" from the Title record
  • Turned the title into volume 2 in The Keepers: L.A.
  • Added The Keepers: L.A. to the The Keepers Universe as a subseries
  • Entered publication series number, 155

Ahasuerus 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have forgot to remove that when I updated the record. Guess I just moved it to the publication series field of the record. There was another Nocturne that I handled, but didn't look for a series number which is something I normally would do, but wouldn't expect anyone else handling Fixer submissions to do. (I hope you're not expecting other mods to be as thorough!) Mhhutchins 05:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was kind of hoping for (at least) that level of thoroughness... I guess my problem is that it's not unusual for me to spend 5-15 minutes on a single Fixer submission, looking for the author's Web site and other bio data, entering series data, tagging, cleaning up publication details, adding missing pubs, etc. The results are usually quite pleasing, but the downside is that it takes me roughly 2 weeks per month to process everything. Which means that the time that I can spend on development is cut at least in half (since I also have to take some time off now and then) :-(
I guess it may not be realistic to expect other moderators to spend an equivalent amount of time on Fixer's handiwork -- they have other things to work on, after all, and not everyone is retired -- but then I have to go back, review/tweak the results and probably spend almost as much time following up. Hm... Perhaps some kind of compromise solution may be called for, e.g. I could handle the top tier stuff myself and then release the rest of the monthly catch on Fixer's behalf. Ahasuerus 04:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If you find you have to add series name and numbering to other Fixer submissions that I've handled, feel free to do so without informing me. If I actually make a mistake though, don't hesitate to let me know. Mhhutchins 05:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sleep No More

I wonder if we want to list this book, volume 15 in Iris Johansen's thriller series. Although two volumes in the series reportedly have SF elements, this one apparently doesn't -- or at least I can't find any SF-nal references in online reviews. Would you happen to know more about the author/series? Ahasuerus 06:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a bit. I thought Fixer only pulled titles from certain Amazon categories. Guess I was wrong. When I saw there was an existing series in the db, I let it slide. In the future, I'll pay more attention. I'll delete the record and title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Fixer does try to eliminate non-genre books, but it's not a foolproof process since Amazon's tagging can be flaky, especially when dealing with mixed genre series. Ahasuerus 18:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Locus, #596 September 2010

Locus, #596 September 2010: I moved "$6.95" from the ISBN field to the Price field (which was empty). -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Mhhutchins 16:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Locus 621

Hello! I believe that two reviews: 1505808 and 1505805 are of the whole collection Jagannath: Stories rather than of a single story. Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 01:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

You're correct. When a review record is created in a submission adding a new publication record, the system looks for an exact match of both title and author. If found, it will automatically link the two together. Unfortunately sometimes the title is for a different work. In this case, the Locus reviews both gave the title of the collection as Jagannath and not Jagannath: Stories, so the system linked it with the matching SHORTFICTION record. It's easily fixed by updating the review record by clicking on the "Link Review to Title" link, and replacing the SHORTFICTION record number with the COLLECTION record number. Would you like to do that or would you rather I do it? Mhhutchins 01:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll try do it - will learn a new trick:) Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 01:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

Karin Tidbeck

Hello! Thank you for creating more Karin Tidbeck's titles (I assume that was you). But there is a mistake. According to copyright page in Jagannath (ebook) as well as author's website, Cloudberry Jam was written in English and published in Unstuck #1 then translated into Svenska as Blodsband. Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 05:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

I was thinking there may be some reversing to be done. I have a question for you. I can't find anything about "Att vara en humla" being the original name of "Herr Cederberg". In fact, I found at least two reviews that give the later title as appearing in the 2010 Swedish collection. Mhhutchins 05:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about "CLoudberrgy Jam" appearing before "BLodsband". You have the English version published in December 2011, while here is a listing for the Swedish version dated September 2011. Mhhutchins 05:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
My source is copyright page in Jagananath. It states: Swedish title "Herr Cederberg" collected in "Vem ar Arvid Pekon?" (2010). First published in Ordkonst #1 (2007) under the title "Att vara en humla".
For Cloudberry Jam: Originally published in English in Unstuck #1, Swedish translation as Blodsband (2011). I guess it was written in English, accepted for publication but there was a delay with publishing, then translated into svenska and published quickly. So, "original" title is published later than the "variant". Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 06:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC).
Got it. I've also had to reverse the variant of Jagannath for the same reason. I will make the Swedish title of "Herr Cederberg" into a variant of the Swedish title "Att vara en humla", which will have two variants of the same name but different language. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, from copyright page: Vem ar Arvid Pekon? (2002) was published as "Arvid Pekon" in 2010 Swedish collection. [[User:ForJohnScalzi|ForJohnScalzi]
Did you know that there were already five stories listed in the 2010 Swedish collection? You should have just added the three missing titles. I'll have to go back and clean it up. Mhhutchins 06:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
No, that was a conflict of edits. When I was adding titles there were none. Sorry for the mess, anyway! Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC).
And you changed the name of "Vem ar Arvid Pekon?" to "Arvid Pekon", but added a new one with the name "Vem ar Arvid Pekon?". I'm going to leave the record alone and let you finish adding the titles. There seems to be one missing after I removed the duplicate. Mhhutchins 06:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Jagannath has "Vem ar Arvid Pekon?" as Swedish publication for 7 stories only. I have no clue what the 8th one is. ForJohnScalzi 06:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

Shelly/Shelley

Hello, I've changed author's name from Shelly to Shelley as per cover of this pub, same for this text. If you've got some time, can you check the title page ?. Thanks. Hauck 08:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those. In one case, the contents must have been entered from the contents page where the name is spelled incorrectly. I should have caught that when I verified the record while adding the missing contents from the interior credit. Mhhutchins 19:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Die Einhorn-Berge

I added some notes and specified the month of publication for this book. Christian Stonecreek 14:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the date. I'll have to add that to my Bishop bibliography. Mhhutchins 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Tomorrow Speculative Fiction, August 1993

Hello, can you have a look at your copy of this pub, to see if Brooke (as per Locus1) or Brooks is credited as the author of this story. Thanks. Hervé Hauck 14:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That issue is stored inconveniently away. Give me a day or so and I should be able get to it. Mhhutchins 20:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Finally got to it, and saw it was entered incorrectly. I've changed it. Thanks for catching the error. Mhhutchins 02:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible pseudonym

Hello, I suspect the covers for your verified 283719 and 283715 are done by the same person. Could you please check how the names appear (with/without middle initial). Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC).

It's very likely the same person. The names are entered as credited, so I'll create a pseudonym and a variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Series for artwork?

Hello. Sorry if it's an inappropriate place for the question. I wonder if it's possible to create "series" for artwork. I have in mind Hunter's robot, for example, 61256 61127, etc. ForJohnScalzi 00:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

I seem to remember discussions about this subject, but nothing solid ever came from them. There was an underlying issue that prevented us from using the title series method we currently use for fiction, but right now I can't recall what it was. It may have something to do with how they're displayed. Perhaps posting this on the Community Portal might spark another editor's memory. I'll do some testing to see if it would work. Mhhutchins 00:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Will repost. ForJohnScalzi 00:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
I added an arbitrary series name to a cover art record just as a test. Looking at the artist's summary page, you can see it doesn't display the series. So the software writers will have to come up with a different function other than the one we use to create title series. After you've seen this, I'll remove the series. Mhhutchins 01:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Interestingly though, it does display series if one clicks on series title in the record. ForJohnScalzi 01:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
Yes, but unless it was displayed on the artist's summary page, there would be no way for a user to know that the series exists. Mhhutchins 02:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On the "originals" for art

On the issue of the "original" art. A (part) of painting by Bonestell was used as cover first: 57517 and then (further cropped) somewhere else (varianted in db: 290276). But then, the original is used as a whole (or maybe not, I haven't seen the original!) for a new cover: 272925. And, apaprently copyrighted anew, to Bonestell estate. Which is variant of which? In my opinion, all these are variants of the "original" art. But in the database, which should be recorded as variant of which? Should probably ask it at the portal, but I'd like your opinion first. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 02:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

Its first publication would be considered the parent, even if a later publication used an uncropped or more complete version of the work. The title record represents the work (the art itself, sans cropping, colorizing, overtexting, etc). The publication record represents its usage. This is just my opinion based on my experience here (more than six years). I don't know if it's been documented in the Help pages and I'm not aware that this question ever came up on a community forum. (It may have, and I may not have been part of the discussion.) Mhhutchins 03:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! That's almost exactly my opinion as well. I think it's reasonable because it treats artwork in the same way the text is treated. ForJohnScalzi 04:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
That's true for fiction about 95% of the time, but there are many cases in which an author's title was changed when it was first published, and the author reverts it back to his original title when it is reprinted. So in cases where a new title is used in an author's collection and more often than not reprinted with that new title, it becomes the parent title, and the first publication title becomes the variant. For example, Asimov's "Green Patches", Bradbury's "Frost and Fire", Clarke's "The Road to the Sea", and Heinlein's "Lost Legacy". Mhhutchins 05:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Collected Stories of Robert Silverberg, Volume Six: Multiples: 1983-87

While verifying The Collected Stories of Robert Silverberg, Volume Six: Multiples: 1983-87, I noticed that the page number for "Tourist Trade" is 16, although it should be 15. Can you check this, please? Thanks, Darkday 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. It should be 15. I've made the correction. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins 21:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Newsletters 28 and 29

Would you happen to remember how you accessed/approved Bill Longley's submissions which updated Fantasy Newsletters 28 and 29? Were the submissions linked from the New Submissions page? Or did you have to manipulate URLs to get to them? (See this discussion for details.) Thanks. Ahasuerus 18:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I played the URL trick on them. They'd been in the queue for awhile and I figured he must have forgotten about them. For the first time in a long time there was an opportunity to see an empty queue, and I wasn't going to let the moment slip away! Mhhutchins 23:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was worried that there may have been a flaw in the display logic which let moderators access other moderators' submissions directly. Bill left his submissions in the queue since he needed to do some other things with the affected pubs, but no harm done because he remembered what the pubs were and has already updated them. Of course, now that the software has been modified again, the URL trick shouldn't work any more, but you never know with moderators -- they are devious creatures :) Ahasuerus 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't actually finished checking them - all I've done so far is add covers. But while checking a few of the later titles that Michael had covered, these two issues seemed rather short on contents. I will get round to them, but I really don't like doing Magazines - far too much typing involved! Sorry for being lazy, I should at least have held them - which reminds me, would a "Submit and HOLD" button made available to Mods be desirable? BLongley 11:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
But whether or not you'd finished working on the pub records, there's nothing more that could have been done to the submissions other than rejecting them. Placing them on hold would not have accomplished anything other than just having them sit in the queue. You still would have had to make further submissions if you needed to update the records more. In these submissions you were linking just the cover images. These were clearly the correct covers for the records so I saw no reason that they sit in the queue.
To answer your last question: I don't understand why a moderator would need a "Submit and Hold" function. If he's not sure about the submission, why submit it at all? Why not wait until he's sure? Perhaps I'm not seeing something obvious. Mhhutchins 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick: The Short Fiction

In Silverberg's Reflections and Refractions, there is an essay titled "Philip K. Dick: The Short Fiction" which has an original publication credit of "Amazing Stories Anthology, 1996". I believe this credit is incorrect (your verified Amazing Stories: The Anthology (1995) doesn't list a Silverberg essay) and it it is probably Quantity and Quality: The Short Fiction of Philip K. Dick from More Amazing Stories (1998). Would you mind checking your verified copy and see if that essay has the following starting and ending lines: It was the late spring of 1953, and I was eighteen years old and finishing ... I direct your attention to it wherever you can find it--starting right here. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same essay and the essay in Reflections should be varianted to it. Mhhutchins 00:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Varianted with a note added. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Citadel of the Autarch - Wolfe

My copy of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?108251 is subtitled "Volume Four of the Book of the New Sun" on the title page. Should this be reflected in the record? (Claw is similarly subtitled as "Volume Two" and so on.)SFJuggler 06:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No. This is less a subtitle, than just a series designation. There are no hardfast rules about including the series in the title, even if it appears on the title page. I choose not to, another editor might choose otherwise. Mhhutchins 06:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Just checking as I had the books out.SFJuggler 16:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

When the Black Lotus Blooms

Michael, I entered another version of one pub you verified, When the Black Lotus Blooms. I notice you identified the item on p. iii as a poem; it isn't, it's just a quote from the novel. And there is a second quote, one by Robert Bloch, on p. 13 from his story "Black Lotus". I changed the Howard item, but didn't enter the Bloch quote except for my version. Bob 01:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember entering those contents. It's possible they may have been in the record before I verified it, and I failed to catch that error. I can see how someone would have confused it as a poem because of the way it's set on the page. I would suggest using the ISFDB standard of "When the Black Lotus Blooms (excerpt)" and not "quote" to describe the piece (although that term is actually closer to its spirit). I'll add the Bloch excerpt to my record, but, by the same reasoning, it should be titled "Black Lotus (excerpt)". Mhhutchins 01:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Just discovered another set of Bloch quotes on page 6. I created a single record for them. Mhhutchins 02:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Destinies, Fall 1980

I found Vincent Di Fate's signature on the cover of Destinies, Fall 1980. --Willem H. 20:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Glyn Jones

Hello! I believe I did things in incorrect order. When I first looked at entry for Glyn Jones, it had material from three authors: 1. Welsh novelist, now disambiguated as Glyn Jones (1905-1995), 2) Dr. Who writer, currently Glyn Jones, and 3) Richard Glyn Jones. The last one only had one title: 345641, which I varianted to him, but I haven't created pseudonym. What's the best thing to do now? Shall I change the author's name in 345641 to Glyn Jones (1946 - ) and the make it into pseudonym of Richard Glyn Jones? Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 05:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC).

The first thing to do is to make sure that the credit for the single artwork is correctly credited. Bill Longley is active, but may have some difficulty finding the book since he's moved recently. For the US edition, leave a note on Swfritter's page. He's in and out but usually responds relatively quick. If the record is correct and credited to "Glyn Jones", I would recommend suggesting to the verifiers that they change the credit to "Richard Glyn Jones", and note it it the record. Why defy the ISFDB standards? Because of the inelegant way in which all of these records are going to look if we create three disambiguated authors. As I said in my rejection of the submission to change the name of the Doctor Who author, it's not necessary to disambiguate both authors when two use the same name. Now that I know there are three (one of them a relatively well-known artist), and the third one has only one credit under that name, I think it's better that we let this one slide when it comes to being 100% faithful to the standard. If the verifiers disagree, we'd have to make "Glyn Jones" into a house name used by three people, create three disambiguated names, each of which uses "Glyn Jones" as a pseudonym. Personally, I think that's just not worth the effort for the results achieved, when a little note in the pub record would do it more effectively. Still, it's up to them. Just leave messages on their talk pages, and feel free to link it back to this discussion. Mhhutchins 05:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

S. R. Daugherty

S. R. Daugherty appeared in your verified Fantasy Book, June 1984 and Fantasy Book, March 1985. There is also a Steven Roy Daugherty that appeared in your verified Fantasy Book, March 1984. Is there anything in these pubs that indicates these are the same author? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Without looking at the issues, the odds are extraordinary that they are the same person. I'll create a pseudonym and variant. Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Mhhutchins 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Need Help fixing addition of a title

I wanted to add a new title "Noveishee puteshestvie" (1784) by Vasily Levshin I have created a fake publication for this, and i know i need to delete it now, but I am confused how and which one (I have two): http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?186479 Qshadow 19:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Clicking on each of the title records, you'll see that one has a publication record and one has not. You can delete the one that doesn't have a publication record, or you can merge the two title records into one. This happened when you added a novel content record in the submission that created the pub record, creating two title records. When you add a NOVEL publication record there's no need to add a content record, the system does that automatically. Mhhutchins 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, you are right I created publication with content record, but immediatly after that i recalled that you told me it is not needed and deleted the dup title under the publication, but it again appeared as standalon title. probaly just the link pub<-> title was deleted? Anyway, now I deleted the dup one again. Qshadow 20:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jay K. Klein

There is a Jay K. Klein in your verified Destinies, February-March 1980 that is likely to be Jay Kay Klein. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

True, but I have to give the credit as given in the publication. I've created a pseudonym and varianted the title record. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 01:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Gold Coast

Finally got my hands on a copy of this edition of The Gold Coast. As you were the one that pointed out the ISBN discrepancy from Locus1, thought you might be interested to know that it probably originated from a discrepancy on the book itself. Albinoflea 23:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Dream Years", by Lisa Goldstein

You verified this edition of this book. The book is listed with a publication date of "1985-09-00", and yet the notes for the book say that the copyright page claims "A Bantam Book / September 1989". Can you resolve this conflict? (I suspect the note is a typo.) Chavey 15:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the date field is correct and the note is wrong. I've fixed it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 19:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review, March 1979

Hello, could you please check in your verfied pub 216729 the last name of reviewer on p. 54 Is it McMuray or McMurray? Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 01:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC).

Should have two "r"s. I've made the correction. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 01:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing Spaces

The following two titles in your verified pubs are both missing a space between words:

Are these typos in the database or the publications? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to check the publications. I just went ahead and added the spaces. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Noting Sources made easy

Just a heads-up that I've submitted the first part that we discussed over a year ago. It only covers Add Pub to Title for now: if we can persuade Ahasuerus to let that in, then New Pub and Clone Pub will be much the same. Then we can discuss subsets of the change as applicable to Edit Pub, etc. (All future related changes will probably be subsets of this one big change.) BLongley 19:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. A few questions: Is it a check box/drop menu for the submitter? Is there an option for multiple sources? Will it be visible to the moderator? Mhhutchins 19:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty much as the proposed design, so check boxes all the way. This does allow for multiple sources, although the generated notes may lead to confusion - e.g. if you select "Publisher website" AND "Author website" the notes won't say which parts of the data came from which source. We're going to have to write the help carefully to indicate that a follow-up edit for clarification may be needed if somebody went tickety mad. Of course, you can still enter notes manually rather than let this do too much work for you. Moderators will see the generated notes and if you can read the SQL dumps you'll see the Verifications being done. I'm waiting to see what Ahasuerus does to this foot-in-the-water before rolling it out as I'm sure we'll need a little fine-tuning: E.g. Make the Primary and Transient verifications mutually exclusive (which would mean radio buttons rather than check boxes I think) or improve Mod messages for such edits. BLongley 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about the Mod display - turns out I'd misplaced that. Mods will actually see warnings like:
Sources_used.jpg
although hopefully not so many sources at once. BLongley 17:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Is there a way to kick back a submission to the editor if it isn't sourced? (Just kidding, but in my ideal world, it would.) Mhhutchins 18:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fantasy Review, May 1985

Hello! Could you please check in your verified 283721 the last name of reviewer on p. 24. Is it Nelson or NeIlson? Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 03:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC).

It's given as "Nelson" on the review and on the contents page. It's very likely a typo considering this publication had several reviews by "Keith Neilson" concurrently with this issue. I'll create a pseudonym and make this record into a variant. Mhhutchins 03:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fantlab Series

Hi Mhhutchins, can you please take a look on my series list (on the main help page), and mark thouse series that are clearly an ISFDB error and should be added? I am sure that you can easily spot some even without research. Also if you see some that are clearly should NOT be added please mark them. It will reduce my possibility of errors. and I will research others. Thanks, Qshadow 09:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the majority of these works to know whether or not they are part of a series, but looking at some of them makes me wonder why the readers on Fantlab consider them a series. For example, Le Guin's Always Coming Home is part of a series of the same name. For it to be a series there has to be more than one story. What are the other stories in the series? The same situation with Stephen King's The Stand, Disch's The M.D., Good Omens by Pratchett & Gaiman (missing credit), and Zelazny's "The Graveyard Heart". There are some that have very tenuous connections: the two novels by Poppy Z. Brite are set in the same fictional town, but that's the only thing they have in common. The same for the stories by Tom Reamy, three of them are set in the same town and the other has a character from that town, but does that really make them a series? As I said in my comments on the Help Desk, we sf readers want to make connections between stories that are not as strong as the author intended. If you can find any kind of corroboration of Fantlab's data with any other source, be it an authorized website or not, feel free to make submissions. But give your sources in the Note to Moderator field and be prepared to answer any inquiries from the moderator. Mhhutchins 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Mhhutchins! Yes, there is a big problem and discussion going on at Fantlab as to how should they organize works that are not completly belong to a series but do have somehting in common (like happening in the same town, or the same hero is briefly appears, etc...) you called them "tenuous connections". they want to make some special mark/sign next to title to show that this work is not really part of the series but instead has "tenuous connections" to the series. But right now they have not yet implemented this mark, so all the titles are shown as completely belonging to series. This makes my work so much harder, as I need to find only the titles that are REALLY in series to import here... Qshadow 13:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Asimov's, January 2013

Per ISFDB standards, I changed each of the records for the reviews of the Harvey Horrors comic book collections from REVIEW to ESSAY in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a formal reference for this, has this rule been added to the "Help" page? I have a vague recollection of the discussion relating to this.--Rkihara 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I can never find anything specific when I'm looking for it on the wiki, but here are the logical steps that lead toward the current standard, whether it is documented or not:
  • Comic books and graphic novels (among other types of works like films, non-book audio recordings, and nongenre novels by "below the threshold" authors, etc) are not eligible for inclusion in the database.
  • The REVIEW type record creates a link between the REVIEW record and the TITLE record, automatically if there is a matching TITLE record in the database. If there is no record for the reviewed author in the database, the system automatically creates an AUTHOR record, but naturally would not link it to a title (if there had been a title then the author would have been in the database already.)
  • So if an editor creates a REVIEW for a work which is not eligible for inclusion in the database, there is a stray author created. (In this case, there was a new author in the database named "Harvey Horrors". This name came up on the clean-up script that finds authors that exist in the database only because of a reviewed title, having no publications in the database. That's how I found it, not because I'm checking everybody's submissions. More moderators should use these scripts to find errors.)
  • The only way to avoid the creation of such stray authors is to convert these REVIEW records into ESSAY records. So, editors should not create REVIEW records for any work which itself is not eligible for the database. In order to create a record for the content of a publication, they should instead enter these reviews as an ESSAY type record.
That's why we enter a film review as an ESSAY, and not as a REVIEW. In other words, even if it doesn't say it in the documented help (but should), editors should only enter a review as a REVIEW type record if the review is of a work which is eligible for the database. If the work is not in the database, then the editor should follow this up by creating a publication record for the work, and then link the REVIEW record to the new publication's TITLE record. Mhhutchins 19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I was wondering if a protocol had been agreed on. I'll use your edit as the pattern for future entries.--Rkihara 01:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Novik

In your Miller/Contento verified Great Science Fiction, No. 5, there are two pieces of interior art (Moon of Death, The Moon Chute) by Novik. I believe these are probably by Novick. Also, that the second is likely the same as this one since it's an illustration for the same story. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Miller/Contento doesn't give interior art credits. The editor who added them to this record didn't give the source for their data, so I can't help you. Maybe one day other moderators will feel as strongly as I do about editors providing sources for record updates. And maybe one day each record will have an edit history so we can know who made the change so that we ask for a source. Until then, do what you have to do to fix the record. Mhhutchins 00:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Xenocide

Does your copy of [this] have dual US/CDN pricing? My copy is price-clipped. Thanks --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no Canadian pricing given anywhere on the dustjacket. At the top of the front flap is printed "0-312-85056-5" to the left and ">$21.95" to the right. On the back of the dustjacket "52195" is printed over the second barcode, but there is no stated price. Mhhutchins 04:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Omnibus vs Anthology

Although you give a good reason for rejecting my proposal to make an omnibus, stating that two short fiction typed stories form an anthology, would you say that such a distinction has been made for the whole of this list?--Dirk P Broer 19:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Some have novels, some don't. Each should be taken as a separate case. If you find any that have two works which are SHORTFICTION feel free to change it to an ANTHOLOGY (both the pub record and its title record). If any have at least one NOVEL record in its contents, it should be typed as OMNIBUS. Mhhutchins 19:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Publisher/SFBC oddity

See the note re the two cover spines for [this] edition. Any thoughts? The two books are identical in every other way. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've occasionally ran across SFBC editions where the title page publisher doesn't match the spine's publisher, but never seen one with two different jackets. In the cases where there's a mismatch, I go with the title page credit. (IMHO, bibliographically speaking, a dustjacket is not part of the book, but I'm sure others will disagree.) Can I assume from your note that the publisher given in the record is the one given on both books' title pages? What about the publisher given on the spine of the book itself? Do they correspond with the matching dustjacket? I suppose the only thing to do is to just record the two states, but keep it as one record. (I'm against creating separate records because of different dustjacket states, but I've seen it done in the db.) Thanks for bringing this anomaly to my attention. Mhhutchins 19:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The only difference is the spine credit on the dustjacket. Spine credit on the books is Ace. Internally they are the Ace paperback. Just pointed it out because I had never seen one like this either. Ace was already a subsidiary of Berkley by this time so no corporate change would apply. Just an interesting footnote [and hey, it is Ace!!]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Poems in Skeleton Crew

You have verified Skeleton Crew, which contains "For Owen" and "Paranoid: A Chant". Both are classified as short stories, but I rather see them as poems. What do you think? Thanks, Darkday 22:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. They should be typed as POEM. I'll make the changes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Secret Books of Paradys

Corrected the title for [this] to match the title page. Roman numerals on cover and spine but Arabic on the title page. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a note about the discrepancy. Mhhutchins 03:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ConNotations

I'm assuming you did the work to get this into an editor series and issue grid. Thanks! Albinoflea 20:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was me. After recently working on entering series data into literally hundreds of editor records, I was going to make sure they wouldn't pile up like they had before. So I try to jump on them as soon as they're in the database. But I don't bother doing the merge into annual records, mainly because in most cases it's not necessary. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the Blue Event Horizon [gutter codes]

Added another possibility to the notes re: gutter code V13. A copy with that code was in the lot I just purchased. The person who had the collection was a member from about mid-1971 until late 1992, continuous [didn't keep the fliers ... I asked!]. He ordered virtually every Main selection, rarely any alternates [I think he just let come whatever was up for the month]. Makes the V13 copy interesting as I can't imagine what other club it could have been available to. It's definitely SF, not marginal like a Vonnegut, and a sequel to Gateway which wasn't offered elsewhere that I know of. And it would have been shipped like any other ordered book to a member. If it was available to another club then maybe Canadian orders were filled with left over stock? That seems remote as I've come across several instances in this collection of second printings within a few weeks of the first and that leads me to believe that US orders would be filled first and Canadian ones second and from a quick second printing if order levels were high [which makes sense as there were always more US members than Canadian]. All sorts of possibilities ... --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My copy also has gutter code V13 on [281] (so that rules out the Canadian scenario.) I don't know how I missed that when I verified the record and wrote the notes. Your theory about the transposition of V31 could be the answer. But that's at least 9 weeks before it was a selection of the SFBC when the average lag time was closer to 6 weeks. (But the alternate selection had the code K31 so I guess it was possible.) And I have the flyer in my own two hands, so I know it was the October 1980 selection. Like you, I don't see the possibility of this being offered earlier in the year by another one of Doubleday's books clubs. And back then, it was at least six months after the trade edition that the book club edition was released. I don't know the source of the K36 code or its placement, even that it perfectly lines up with the gutter code system (and the second main selection of that month has gutter code K36.) I guess it will have to remain an unsolved puzzle. Mhhutchins 18:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jem [gutter code]

Another interesting [one]. A copy with gutter code 'J20'! That's a full 12 weeks before the current earliest code. Only a month after the trade edition. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As Alice would say "Curiouser and curiouser!" Maybe Pohl was more popular outside of the sf field than we thought, and Doubleday was offering his titles through one of their mainstream clubs. I added a note how the binding of my J32 printing differs from the J20 printing. Just when I thought we had the SFBC all figured out. Guess we'll have to just make notes and let the chips fall where they may. Mhhutchins 18:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The SFBC could have printed them earlier if a slot opened up in production schedules? Also it could have been an error and meant to be J30? We seldom consider that such a small thing could just be a Monday run scenario ...? I started adding the bindings because with few exceptions it changes with each printing, even if only a couple of weeks apart. I have seen sellers swap covers and books which can be misleading for printings around the time the SFBC #'s moved to the back cover. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I never thought of that. Guess we'll have to keep an eye on such cases, since we're pretty sure when id numbers moved to the back cover and when "Book Club Edition" was removed from the front flap. But they can't change the gutter code and the binding. Mhhutchins 22:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Essay by Michael Bishop

I know you keep track of all things re Michael Bishop, so I thought I'd mention that I added an essay by him to the July 2000 issue of New York Review of Science Fiction. It's not really a "new essay", but rather is just a titled review of The Eternal Footman by James Morrow. It's a full two page review though, and he also spends a substantial amount of time discussing Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death. Let me know if I should send you a pdf. Chavey 06:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the essay. It was among those that I chose to include in the nonfiction collection A Reverie for Mister Ray. I don't understand why the author's byline is in the title of the essay. Otherwise it should be varianted to the existing record. I also see you've chosen to use HTML in the title field to record the italics, something we've been told not to do. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I fixed those issues, and made this essay a variant of the title in your collection. Chavey 05:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Interview of C. J. Cherryh

Hello, Michael! I entered this interview for which no exact source is given, only a copyright to Douglas Fratz (which is why I credited it to him). Searching for an original source I came upon this interview by Schweitzer. Are you at the moment able to get a hand on this issue? For comaparison, it begins with a question on creating imaginary worlds and ends with a question on limits or borders she has experienced in her writing - she answers that she actually experienced none, with the possible exception of some readers thinking a long time on physics and astronomical settings. Thanks, Stonecreek 08:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Christian, that is the exact same interview which was published in Thrust #11, Fall 1978. So I think it would be correct to make the reprint into a variant of the original which was credited to Schweitzer. Mhhutchins 23:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll proceed as suggested. Stonecreek 08:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

American Science Fiction: Nine Classic Novels of the 1950s

Hello Michael, just a question. Does your boxed set looks like the amazon picture like here or is more like this image corresponding to my own set ? Hervé Hauck 10:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the art on my box is reversed (mirrored) from the Amazon image, so it's exactly like yours. Please link your image to the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Silmarillion

I have been asked to start a discussion as to whether or not J. R. R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion should be considered a collection or a novel with multiple parts. I haven't read this book, I just listed a French translation of this book on this site. Still, it looks like a collection to me. Please enter this discussion here and weigh in on the subject. I'm in the process of informing all the verifiers of this. This is my message, I hope that it's alright, and that I'm getting it right. Also, do I have to inform mystelf of this discussion? MLB 21:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No. But you started the discussion on the wrong page. Ahaseurus has moved it to the right one here. Mhhutchins 21:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Variable Man

Found a signature on the back cover of [this], Charles Mikolaycak. Added to the record with note. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Mhhutchins 03:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Skorpios Antares vs Antares Skorpios

Hi, you once entered a book by Skorpios Antares. I am afraid that your source may actually have read Skorpios, Antares. This is based upon the titlepage of the book in question as I found it on OpenLibrary and the author's entry in SFE3.--Dirk P Broer 22:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I verified the record based on data in Reginald1 (page 34, record number 00878), which must have mistakenly inverted the name. It is given as "Skorpios Anares" without a comma. (Reginald gives the main heading as "Lastname, Firstname", but all "as by" credits are formatted as "Firstname Lastname".) I'll make the correction and note Reginald's error. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note on Barbary. The publication date is on the front flap of the jacket in the code "10127086." The first two digits (10) are the month and the last two digits (86) are the year. The middle four digits (1270) indicate $12.70, the price the book will be invoiced at and discounted from for booksellers. The extra $0.25 ($12.95 cover price - $12.70) goes to the retailer to help offset freight costs for getting the book to the retailer. SFJuggler 20:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll update the record. BTW, you'll notice the way your original post appears on this page, without a subject heading and looking like it's part of the previous subject. Use the plus tab to start a new topic and enter a subject into the appropriate box to keep topics separate. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter Saxon

Thank you for your help (and patience:) with untangling Peter Saxon. Could you please Reginald-verify Saxons' titles (if not all yet done) when you have time? Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC).

I did a Reginald verification of all of the first-edition publications yesterday. (Reginald only lists the first edition, and if the title changes, the first edition of that.) There were a few discrepancies in credits which I've noted in the title records. I decided to favor the SFE3 credits over Reginald's since there's been a few years for more research to reveal who the true authors of the novels are. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 02:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC).

Kingsbury's Courtship Rite

I've added a title record for four uncredited maps that appear in Donald Kingsbury's UK edition titled Geta, maybe they also appear in your first edition Courtship Rite. However they're not indexed and aren't mentioned in your note. Possibly an addition before we recorded the interior art? PeteYoung 16:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No maps in my copy. Even if there had been maps, I probably wouldn't have added them to the record. I usually don't create content records for uncredited maps, but only note them in the Note field. I don't see the point in creating records that point to nothing and only wind up on an impossibly long "author" summary page. Mhhutchins 17:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2013Jan-Apr&oldid=316231"