ISFDB:Help desk/archives/archive 12

< ISFDB:Help desk‎ | archives
Revision as of 11:59, 12 July 2015 by Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (header)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page for the Help Desk. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from January - July 2010.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Help desk.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

Expanded archive listing

Three Colin Harveys - mistaken identity and false listings

In your listings there are three Colin Harveys, one of whom i work for. I noticed that two publications ('Thermoclines' and 'On the rocks') are listed under Harvey where i am certain they should be credited to Harvey (1960 . Is it possible to ammend this mistake in any way? Im a novice at editing and wouldn't want to muddle things further.

thanks x x

Steph171717 2/1/2010

The stories have been moved to Colin Harvey (1960-). When you get a chance could you please update the author data for this author? The Geocities site no longer exists, and if you know the link to another website it would help to try to keep the two authors' work separate. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess this is his blog. Are blogs valid as webpage entries?--swfritter 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everso for that. He's due to launch a new website at some point this newyear, so i will update as and when. Oh and that is his blog. Apart from the usual networking sites that is Colins biggest web presence at present. Thanks again steph171717 18:02 2 January 2010
Guess it should be no problem linking his blog to the author data record. At least it gives some information until something else comes along. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been (fairly) happily adding author's blogs in lieu of other web-sites recently - indeed, several authors have given up their domains and moved wholesale to blog-only. What I do check is that it does have some bibliographical data on, and that such is open to all to view - I've added no Facebook sites as I have no desire to sign up for Facebook, for instance. And no Twitter feeds as they'd never have enough info in any one post. BLongley 20:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The Facebook pages for professionals are actually very similar to blogs. It would be nice if we could format the weblink entries in wiki manner so that the web addresses would be visually replaced by user designated text. Facebook - the place where almost anybody can become your friend.--swfritter 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Message from a new user

Hi! I just wanted to add some short stories to an authros web page. Do I have to pick the add new maga zine or anthology or is there some way I can just add the stories and their references. Terry Cooper —The preceding unsigned comment was added by terrycooper (talkcontribs) .

You'll have to create a record for the publication in which the story was a content. For magazines and anthologies, the minimum info required is the title, the editor and the year of publication. Choose "Add New Magazine" or "Add New Anthology" from the left-side menu of the main page of the database. For more information use the links at the top of your user talk page. Here's the link on entering a new pub. Also see here about how to use these wiki pages for communicating with moderators and other editors. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

More Colin Harvey stuff!

Hello again!

I have just a couple more questions then i promise i'll leave you alone. How do i alter the publication date on an existing listing? In this case 'Vengeance' was published in 2001, and revised in 2005, not published in 2008 as the listing cites.

Also, how do i enter an essay? Colin not only wrote the intorduction for 'Killers' but for 'Future Bristol' as well, and i'm afraid i have no-idea how to add this in.......i'm a luddite. Forgive me!

Thank you again Steph171717 14:09 3 January 2010

Go to the title record for Vengeance and choose from the Editing Tools menu "Edit Title Data". You can then change the date to 2001. You can also add the 2001 publication by choosing "Add Publication to This Title" (back on the title record page). There's a help page that starts you on the way to entering publications here. In order to add the introduction to Future Bristol, go to its pub page (which I linked there), and choose "Edit This Pub" from the Editing Tools menu. Go down to the bottom of the edit page and click on the "Add Title" button, which will open a set of fields which you will complete the page number, title of the work [if it's only titled "Introduction" add the title of the book in parentheses to distinguish it from other generic titles as in "Introduction (Future Bristol)"], enter the date (if it's not the same as the pub's date; if so, leave the field blank), choose ESSAY in the drop-down menu, leave the length field blank, and then enter the author's name in the Author1 field (it has to be Colin Harvey (1960-) to distinguish it from the other author). Hope this helps. MHHutchins 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
   Thank you thank you! You've been so very helpfull, and it's much appreciated.
   Steph171717  17:39    3 January 2010

Darrel Andersen

Both Darrel Andersen and Darrel Anderson are credited with the cover for Gibson's Neuromancer. I suspect the latter is correct given the number of entries under that name, etc. I believe the Andersen credit only comes from Locus which lists him as a cover artist for this edition. Can anyone verify if this is an error or an actual variant? Jonschaper 04:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Parent Name: Gerald Heard or H. F. Heard?

Gerald Heard and H. F. Heard (both the same person) seem to have relatively equal numbers of entries. Are there preferences re which one to make the parent? Jonschaper 08:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that many of the titles attributed to H. F. Heard should actually be attributed to Gerald Heard. See this example from Google Books. And this one for books on the H. F. page which should be on the Gerald page. Most of this data was probably entered from secondary sources and those sources may have changed the credit from Gerald to H. F., which closer approximates the author's real name. Also, Wikipedia suggests Gerald. If Gerald is used then the biographical links on the H. F. page should be moved to the Gerald page. Looks like a mini-project.--swfritter 15:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I fixed those titles that were misattributed, based on OCLC, , and Google Books searches. Looking over each summary page now, it appears he used "H. F. Heard" for his horror and mystery, while "Gerald Heard" was used for his science fiction and popular science. (Although one novel, Doppelgangers, was published in the US by H. F. and in the UK by Gerald.) I say make "Gerald" the parent name. It was the one he used the most in his native country. Any objections? Mhhutchins 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, an instance of the same title by H. F. and Gerald which may require some research. It could be another UK/US issue.--swfritter 17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I just added the pubs of that title from OCLC, and Tuck. Author credits are based on more than one secondary source. Once it's decided which is the parent I'll make one a variant of the other. Further research has shown that genre was less a determination in authorship than the country of the publisher. US publishers (mainly Vanguard) used "H. F." from the 40s onward. UK publishers all used "Gerald" (I've not found one title published by a British publisher as by "H. F.") I'm more convinced than ever that "Gerald" should be the parent name. Mhhutchins 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There's an official website under the name Gerald Heard. Mhhutchins 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and submit Gerald as the parent and perhaps leave creation of variants to whoever researches each title. Jonschaper 00:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Two Jack Andersons?

I've entered biographical info for Jack Anderson, the author of the satirical novel "Millennium" here. That Jack Anderson was a muckracking journalist who also wrote several political non-fiction books. I have found no info that he also wrote poetry so I suspect the poems may be from another Jack Anderson. Jonschaper 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not likely that the journalist was the author of the poems in the Umbral anthology. I suggest changing the author of those to "Jack Anderson (poet)" or something similar, until we can get more biographical detail. He may be the author of this poetry collection. If so, there is a wikipedia page. Or he could be someone entirely different. That's what happens with such common names. Mhhutchins 04:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the poet looks to be the Wikipedia's "Jack Anderson (dance critic)" per Google Books. The Wikipedia article credits him with Traffic: New and Selected Prose Poems which can be found on Google Books here. If you preview the book, the table of contents lists The Mysterious Sound. The preview also includes the back cover which has his picture which is different from the journalist. --JLaTondre 04:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There's also the Jack Anderson who presents The Young Astronauts. BLongley 19:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Besides the fact that all but one of the poems appears in Umbral, most of the other poems turn up in other collections by "Jack Anderson" I've just located on Google books. "Aesthetics of the Moon" (the only one not in Umbral) is in "City Joys", which is at least tenuously connected to the other Jack Anderson collections in being given the same subject headings by Google books (gay fiction, gay men, etc), and in being "Original from the University of Michigan". "The Lost Space Ship" and "The Mysterious Sound" are also listed together in an excerpt if you search for "Jack Anderson" here, and "The Mysterious Sound" is already connected to the dance critic, so I think it's very safe to conclude all or most of them are by Jack Anderson (dance critic) until any conflicting info comes along.Jonschaper 01:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(Safe unless, of course, I'm perpetuating an error found on wikipedia) Jonschaper 01:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that we've determined that he is most likely the same person as Wikipedia's "Jack Anderson (dance critic)", perhaps we should change his name to "Jack Anderson (1935-)" to disambiguate him from the other Jack Anderson (who was born in 1922). We generally give the lesser known the birth year as part of their name. (Or is "Jack Anderson (poet)" sufficient? We might find a short story from him one day.) Mhhutchins 02:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Technical question: Would each of the titles need to be updated separately, or does editing the canonical name take care of that? Jonschaper 02:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Changing the canonical name will change how it's displayed in all records, including title records and pub records. Mhhutchins 03:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dominick vs Dominic vs Domenick D'Andrea

According to Locus, both "Against the Tide of Years" and "The Conqueror's Child" have covers by "Dominic D'Andrea". The unverified entries for "The Conqueror's Child" match this, but "Against the Tide" has entries verified by two different people with his first name spelled "DominicK". "The Legend of Tarik" features art in a similar style as these two books (complete with horse) by "Domenick D'Andrea. As per the two verifiers and Random House's info about a cover artist for "Black Beauty" here I believe "Dominick" is correct and wonder which other spellings are variants and which are just typos. Help? Cheers Jonschaper 03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Domenick D'Andrea" should be the parent name. You can go ahead and make the others pseudonyms. You probably should ask the verifiers on their talk page about the "Dominick" credits (in case they don't look at this message). Mhhutchins 06:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Bronsnatch vs Brosnatch

Going by the info here"Bronsnatch", the artist for "The Loved Dead and Other Tales" here is the same person as Weird Tales cover artist Brosnatch. Can anyone verifiy if the former spelling is actually used in the actual publication? Jonschaper 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The publisher's page gives the correct spelling as "Brosnatch". This should trump a dealer's listing. Go ahead and correct the ISFDB record since it hasn't been primary verified. Mhhutchins 06:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lea vs Leah Bodine Drake

Can anyone verify if Leah's name was credited as Lea for two Weird Tales poems? Jonschaper 04:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This secondary reference has them both listed as "Leah". --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Two Andrew Collins?

I've just entered biographical info for Andrew Collins, the author of "From the Ashes of Angels" here. I note that the rest of the entries for "Andrew Collins" are short stories related to Doctor Who. I cannot find mention of fiction by "Ashes of Angels" Collins. There is another Andrew Collins listed on IMDB here and wiki here with his own webpage here who has written for British TV and played himself on "Doctor Who Confidential". I haven't found anything yet stating that Andrew Collins the broadcaster is the same Andrew Collins who wrote the Short Trip stories but I think this is strong circumstantial evidence (certainly a stronger case than for "Ashes of Angels" Collins who just happens to have that common name). Any opinions / detective work? Jonschaper 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've built a good case for separating the author of the Doctor Who stories from the author of From the Ashes of Angels. I would suggest changing the author of the book to Andrew Collins (1957-), and leaving the other as simply Andrew Collins. Mhhutchins 03:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bug in changing cover art credit.

I was doing a second check for verification of this pub and noticed that the cover artist was credited as "Rick Sternback" instead of the record's then credited "Rick Sternbach". Before I changed the pub record I went to the cover art record and noticed that there were at least four more pubs that credited it as "Sternbach". I was worried that changing the credit in my pub record would affect how it was credited in the other pubs. And it did. Once I approved the edited pub record, I went back to its title record and saw that every cover art credit had been removed, except for the one I just edited. (Stupidly, I forgot to note which pubs had cover credits.) Now I worry that this must have happened in the past when I've changed cover art credit, and there's no telling how many records that I (and other editors) have affected by this bug. If the cover art credits of these pubs had not been merged this would not have happened, so I'm thinking we should hold over merging cover art records until this bug can be fixed. I'm going to do some tests to see if it affects other records. After others have had a chance to see the results of my blunder, I'll try to find out which pub records were affected. (Or can someone check a recent backup copy?) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A little SQL says 1, 2, 3 seem to be the culprits.--swfritter 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
My backup (23-Jan-2003) says these five - note that one co-credits a (badly spelled) Murray Tinklelman, and notes suggest he did the border for later editions of Sternbach's original:
   * A World Out of Time, (Sep 1976, Larry Niven, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 0-03-017776-6, $7.95, 243pp, hc) Cover: Rick Sternbach 
   * A World Out of Time, (Jan 1977, Larry Niven, Holt, Rinehart and Winston / SFBC, #3196, $1.98, 214pp, hc) Cover: Rick Sternbach 
   * A World Out of Time, (Jul 1977, Larry Niven, Del Rey / Ballantine, 0-345-25750-2, $1.95, 246pp, pb) Cover: Rick Sternbach 
   * A World Out of Time, (Oct 1978, Larry Niven, Del Rey / Ballantine, 0-345-25750-2, $1.95, 246pp, pb) Cover: Rick Sternbach , Murray Tiknkelman 
   * A World Out of Time, (May 1988, Larry Niven, Del Rey / Ballantine, 0-345-33696-8, $3.50, 246pp, pb) Cover: Rick Sternbach 
BLongley 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw the typo in Tinkelman's name at the time of the first submission and corrected it. Perhaps all of the paperback editions should be credited to both Sternbach and Tinkelman, because the frame design is as prominent as the artwork. Thanks for checking your backup copy, Bill. Mhhutchins 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the deletion bug (and will log it, if no one has yet). I'll bet deleting a pub with a shared coverart title would do the same thing, so I'll check on that while I'm at it. --MartyD 11:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed pub deletion will do the same thing. Logged as #2942175. I will make a fix for this (probably tomorrow). While thinking about this, I wonder if we need to make the artist fields have similar treatment to other content titles: gray/not-editable if shared. Even in the single artist case, we have no way to know if the editor intends to change only this pub or all pubs. Right now (with the deletion prevented), the behavior will be inconsistent. For a single-artist record, only this pub will be changed. But for a multi-artist record, all pubs will get the old artist removed and a new one added. Guess I'll log that one, too.... (#2942192). --MartyD 12:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I lied about pub deletion. It does know about shared coverart. But the bad news is, I've discovered that updating a pub to ADD a second artist is also broken. Instead of putting the artist onto the existing COVERART record, it creates a second COVERART. This shows up in the biblio displays as Ivan Artist, Ima Painter instead of Ivan Artist and Ima Painter. This is independent of sharing of the COVERART among pubs. --MartyD 10:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Adding a new publication with multiple artists does the same thing: makes one COVERART per artist instead of a single, multi-artist COVERART title. Editing the COVERART title to add more artists of course puts the artists on that same title. Sigh. Logged #2943196 to cover new/edit pub with multiple artists. Since this is now way beyond "help", I've started this discussion: ISFDB:Community_Portal#Opinions_urgently_needed:_handling_of_Multiple_Cover_Artists about the add/edit problem. --MartyD 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] I've always wondered why some records show the and while others didn't. I even questioned it here before and only learned that it happens when a pub has been edited, but never knew what was the underlying cause. Hopefully, it can be resolved. I've responded to your inquiry on the community page. Mhhutchins 16:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked in a fix for the deletion problem (and only the deletion problem). Editing a pub's artist has been modified to handle the removal of a previous artist ("changing" a name removes the previous artist and adds a new one) as follows:
  • A single-artist, unshared COVERART is deleted (unchanged)
  • A single-artist, shared COVERART is only dissociated from the pub (NEW)
  • A multi-artist, unshared COVERART has the artist removed (unchanged)
  • A multi-artist, shared COVERART is dissociated from the pub, and a new copy of the COVERART is added back, minus the artist being removed (NEW)
So in no circumstances should editing the artists at the publication level affect other publications. One can still edit the title record to affect all pubs. Watch Ahasuerus' announcements for when it is put up on the ISFDB server. --MartyD 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Marty! With luck, testing will commence in a few hours. Ahasuerus 01:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, testing has been delayed due to very limited ISFDB time this week :-( Ahasuerus 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Tested and installed. The larger issue definitely needs to be addressed since the current approach results in a mess when adding/editing artists for multi-artist covers, especially when there are two covers and one of them is co-authored.
Also, Title Edit apparently has a problem when editing Cover Art titles. It deletes and then re-adds Authors, but it restes the Last Name field to the default value, so the last name of, e.g., "Michael Shea (1938-)" would change from "Shea" to "(1938-)". Ahasuerus 04:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging with a variant titles for pseudonym authors

My first anthology submission was accepted and I began merging the titles of the stories with their existing entries. I promptly encountered a title that is listed both as itself and as a variant of itself. (See "Hero" by Haldeman in Advanced Search.) The variant shows a pseudonym of the author (with a middle initial). Since my anthology entry also shows the pseudonym author, should I merge the newly added title with the "variant" title that has the pseudonym? PortForlorn 06:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should only merge it with a record which matches exactly the name of the author and the title of the story. The easiest way to do this is to go to the pseudonymous author's summary page and click on "Show All Titles" from the menu. You get a list of all titles published with this pseudonym. Check the boxes for the records you wish to merge. There will be a conflict because one of them is already established as a variant record. Choose to keep the record with the variant title. Mhhutchins 07:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Anna Katherine"

This page confirms that "Anna Katherine" here is the pseudonym of two female authors. This page confirms that one of them is Anna Genoese. Can anyone identify the other author? (I assume she's named Katherine) Jonschaper 04:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Publisher's Weekly as quoted by, the other writer is Katherine Macdonald. Ahasuerus 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Jonschaper 05:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anna Mnyuka vs Anna Mnyukh

This publication has one poem under each of the above names, so I strongly suspect one is a typo. Cheers Jonschaper 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but who's to say which is correct? The editor who entered the contents did not verify the pub, nor note the secondary source. An internet search was fruitless. Now it's a matter of flipping a coin. Anyone else have a better ides? Mhhutchins 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
These people have a copy. Perhaps they will respond to a request.--swfritter 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Broecker's Fantasy of the 20th Century done- next?

Morning! Big question. Do I variant the cover interior art to the actual cover credit, thereby creating a second source for the art and (in many cases) allowing a Broecker user to see the art of the original with least effort? Second question. What obvious tag-ends have I missed? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried something similar when I added the interiorart for a Kelly Freas collection and somehow it didn't display right. So I gave up. There have been a few changes in the software since then, so it might work better now. Only do a few of the records so we can see how they work out. Then you can determine whether it's worth the effort. (Great job, by the way. It's tempting me to do another collection of cover art. Over 300 works!) Mhhutchins 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I started with Belarski, only one and then did Virgil Finlay, which should have enough to give a good or bad impression. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
As for "Tomorrow and Beyond" you stumped me till I found the appendix. Still it will call for much back forth, but still a most worthy effort. I do wish that he had done the titles on the page, but I presume spacing for art versus text was too much. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The first thing I noticed was that it removed your entries from the INTERIORART section of Finlay's summary page and made them variants of the records under the COVER ART section. Which is fine with me, if you don't mind. Also look at your pub record and you see all of those AKAs. If you're willing to fill up the page with all of those, just say so and we'll proceed the remaining records. (Yes, it was great that the book titles of the artwork in Tomorrow and Beyond are credited, even if in the back of the book. I've seen many artbooks that don't even bother unless it's a single artist collection.) Mhhutchins 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It does not bother me. All the others are cover merges elsewhere (except Belarski). I will await others who may find it inappropriate. So more comments requested. I will do the "Norman Saunders" tomorrow and see how that looks also. ( I just got a copy of Infinite Worlds and it reminds me of Broecker). When I look at the secondary AKA's though, it makes me want to get the originals or reprints. It de-emphasises the art and generates interest in other publications for me. I wonder if it affects others that way? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Tom Kidd's "Kiddography: The Art and Life of Tom Kidd" has been variant connected through the art attributions. Here is Kiddography [1] and Tom Kidd [2] for comparisons. Comments/objections invited. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page

I've been asked to sign my name to a talk page with four tildes. I'm not finding tildes on my keyboard. Must be a special character. I suppose I could cut and paste. My main concern: do I hit "my talk" and then "edit" to access the talk page, or is it somewhere else? Ed DeGeorge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EDeG (talkcontribs) .

The tilde is usually in the shift position of the first key to the left of the "1/!" key. Just clicking on the "My Talk" page from any other wiki page will get you to your talk page. To respond to a comment that's been left there (or on any wiki page) click on the "edit" link for that comment. Use a colon (":") to separate your comments from the previous comment, adding an addition colon for each new comment. You can begin a conversation by clicking on "Post a Comment" link or the plus sign "+", depending upon what skin you've set as a preference. Hope this helps. Mhhutchins 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In the standard Wiki editor, there is also a shortcut button you can use -- the second one from the right in the set of small buttons that appears above the editing window, to the left of the "Horizontal Line" button. That button inserts --~~~~. --MartyD 10:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In all my years of using a Wiki I never knew about that button, in fact, never even tested it out to see what it could do. Thanks Marty! --Mhhutchins 14:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anne Brown AKA Anne K. Brown?

Both Anne and Anne K. produced stories for TSR series so I suspect they are the same person. Of course "Anne Brown" isn't exactly an uncommon name... Jonschaper 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how authoritative or complete this list is, but notice it does not list Bigby's Curse (which we have by Anne Brown). --MartyD 11:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, that site doesn't list any Endless Quest books - they're Choose-Your-Own-Adventure rather than RPG. BLongley 12:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
If they're not the same person, the Wikipedia link is on the wrong author. I have Pools of Darkness and the author bio states she's a TSR editor. The Wikipedia article also includes that link which is the "Anne K. Brown" author. --JLaTondre 17:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
So that leaves us at this: I think there's agreement that "Anne K. Brown" is the same person referred to in the Wikipedia and links, thanks to cross-referencing those pages and the author bio in Pools of Darkness. So I'll move the Wikipedia entry to "Anne K. Brown", whom I imagine would wind up the parent name at any rate if we combined the two authors. But since someone who is clearly "Anne K. Brown" is referred to as "Anne Brown" on both these links, I think that can be considered additional evidence that she's the same person. MartyD and BLongley's points considered though, this is hardly conclusive evidence. Jonschaper 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Cover Art variant of Interior Art

ChanurBe has noted that this cover illustration is the same as this interior art and wants to make a variant relationship (see this discussion). I'm not certain as to whether we can, or should, make COVERART a variant of INTERIORART. Has anybody attempted this before? Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Harry (Dragoondelight) has been doing this very same thing for the past week or so, and it seems to be working well. Check out this pub record to see how it is displayed. Mhhutchins 05:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthea Bell cover art credit

I believe that this is a typically screwy Amazon entry. Anthea Bell is a known translator and the book in question was originally in German, so my guess is that she translated this. Jonschaper 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thorndike Press publishes large-print editions, but I don't think they would commission new covers to replace the original publisher's editions. If the cover for this is correct, then it is the work of Don Seegmiller, who did the Chicken House edition. The English translation for Dragon Rider was by Anthea Bell, according to the OCLC record. I would suggest correcting the cover artist credit for the Thorndike edition to Don Seegmiller. Mhhutchins 05:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The Amazon Look-Inside also confirms Anthea as translator. (I don't trust Amazon US much, but their book-scans can be useful). BLongley 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Hope's "Phroso"

From my quick skimming on Google books it appears that Phroso is an adventure story in the vein of the author's other works like The Prisoner of Zenda, and he does not appear to meet the threshold for inclusion of non-genre works. The note here says that it is not clear if it is SF but that it contains a ghost which may not be real. Is anyone familiar enough with the book to judge it more conclusively? Thanks Jonschaper 04:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've not read the novel, but there must be many stories in the database in which the true nature of the possible supernatural element remains ambiguous. And many more in which the horror element is shown to be non-supernatural (e.g. Psycho, Misery). I'd draw the line at this novel and not allow any of the more obvious, non-genre adventure titles by Hope creep in through association. (Gotta be careful about the punks you hang around with. Some may follow you home.) Mhhutchins 23:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

John Williams

So far under John Williams there are two music scores by the american composer of Star Wars, a science article from a 1951 Marvel Tales, a 1971 story which is included in a collection of "Australian writers", plus a story from 2000. This means there are at minimum 2 John Williams (american vs australian) lumped together, probably 3 (the 1951 science article). There is a 29 year gap between the two stories, plus only the 2000 story is listed under "John Williams" in Locus and only the 1971 story is listed under "John Williams" on, but the 2000 story is included in an Australian reading text (it also has american and british content though) so they're probably by the same Aussie writer.

My personal feeling is that: 1) the music scores should be deleted, 2) the two stories be attributed to something like "John Williams (Australian)" and 3) the article left as is. Thoughts? Jonschaper 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to the music scores: I see no reason to include scores for 2 out of 6 Star Wars films when we exclude scores for Mozart's The Magic Flute, Berlioz' Symphony Fantastique, Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, anything by Tangerine Dream, etc etc. Jonschaper 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Proceed submitting and I'll check them out. Mhhutchins 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I bought this two years ago, if I can find it the "Contributors" essay might shed some light on one of them. I've not yet got round to unpacking the Anthologies yet though. BLongley 21:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate/Deathdate Search

I'm trying to look up birthdates and deathdates in the ISFDB Author Search Form, and I am unclear on the format I am supposed to use. If I put in a year, I will get results, but any combination of month/day that I've come up with yields nothing. Anyone know what I should be putting in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bojnberry (talkcontribs) .

Looks like you are out of luck. The search code specifically only compares the year of those dates to the value you entered. So any of yyyy, yyyy-mm, and yyyy-mm-dd will have all but the yyyy part ignored. Sounds like an enhancement request might be in order.... --MartyD 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a shame. I just want to see who shared my birthday. I keep managing to miss it somehow :-). --Bojnberry 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to recall whether it was an intended change to make it harder to commit identity fraud (we have had some requests long those lines), but I'd have to check code history. Ahasuerus 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding World Fantasy Awards

Hello, All, I am interested in adding the World Fantasy Award nominees and winners for 2007-2009 since those pages are blank in the DB. In reading the site and the wiki I've been unable to figure out how exactly we can add Awards to titles. Is there currently a way for registered users to do this? Dgeiser13 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is - there was ongoing work on an Awards Editor at some point, but it hasn't materialised yet as far as I know. BLongley 19:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
At one point Al deployed an Award editor, but then had to pull it since some of the remaining bugs were destructive. Now that he is back, perhaps he is working on fixing it? Let's ask... Ahasuerus 22:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<type 'exceptions.IndexError'>: tuple index out of range

Afternoon! Undoubtedly my errors, but there seems to be no correction available my end. Am I correct? What is the 'to do' for this?. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you have run into a new bug in the ISFDB software. Could you please describe what you did to get that error? TIA! Ahasuerus 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Just guessing, but I think I corrected the original twice with an inwork version being added to. With no pride of accomplishment, I think I created three errors. I can redo easily, but I am not sure of what happened. Here is the python error result.
A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.
/var/www/cgi-bin/edit/submitpub.cgi in ()
  81         new = pubs(db)
  82         new.cgi2obj()
  84         old = pubs(db)

new = <pubClass.pubs instance at 0x828528c>, new.cgi2obj = <bound method pubs.cgi2obj of <pubClass.pubs instance at 0x828528c>>

/var/www/cgi-bin/edit/ in cgi2obj(self=<pubClass.pubs instance at 0x828528c>)
 810                                         if int( > 0:
 811                                                 oldTitle = titleEntry()
 812                                                 title_data = getTitle(
 813                                                 oldTitle.setTitle(title_data[TITLE_TITLE])
 814                                                 oldTitle.setID(

title_data = (1100788L, 'Foreword: The Artist Formerly Known as EMSH', None, None, None, None, None, '2007-07-00', None, 'ESSAY', None, 0L, 0L, None, 0L, 0L), global getTitle = <function getTitle at 0x8302224>, newTitle = <pubClass.titleEntry instance at 0x8317d2c>, = 721353

/var/www/cgi-bin/edit/ in getTitle(title_id=721353)
  29         result = db.store_result()
  30         record = result.fetch_row()
  31         return record[0]
  33 def getPageNumber(title_id, pub_id):

record = ()

<type 'exceptions.IndexError'>: tuple index out of range

Hopefully, it is my inate idiocy. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This error is because a title being referred to does not exist 721353. That title was "Forward (Emshwiller Infinity x Two: The Life and Art of Ed and Carol Emshwiller)". Could it have been removed and deleted or merged away while you had a pub editor window open that still showed it? --MartyD 02:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I assumed it was cross working in the same item. Yes, there were two deletions, followed by a third. The good news is that it was nothing new I was doing and all I have to do is transfer the new data. If it was something else, I would be up the creek figuring it out. Thanks greatly, Harry. --Dragoondelight 10:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vampire &/and/without Werewolf Stories

Hi, for anyone who owns copies, some cleaning up obviously needs to be done with these titles:

1) Vampire and Werewolf Stories (full spelling of "and" is as per the cover scan) has a cover attributed to Nick Hardcastle. It currently lacks contents listings, but are presumably the same as #2.

2) Vampire & Werewolf Stories (ampersand as per the cover scan) has the same cover as #1, but the cover credit is given to Mark Edwards instead of Nick Hardcastle.

3) Vampire Stories (variant title per the scan) has a different cover than either of the above books, but like #1 the cover credit is given to Nick Hardcastle. This cover credit ignores the change in title and gives cover credit for "Vampire & Werewolf Stories" vs "Vampire Stories". #3 is entered as a variant of #2, and other than the incorrectly titled cover credit being switched over to Nick Hardcastle, it lists the identical contents (werewolf stories inclusive) despite the notable ommission of "Werewolf" from the title and has the exact same pagination despite (going by the cover scan) the apparent change in publishers -- the scan shows the publisher to be Scholatic, but the credited publisher is Kingfisher (same as #1 and 2).

So at present, 1 cover is attributed to 2 artists, 2 very different covers are attributed to 1 artist, at least one cover credit has the incorrect title, #1 should presumably be a variant of #2 and/or #3, #3 appears to list the wrong publisher, and I am left wondering if "Vampire Stories" really does have the same content as "Vampire and/& Werewolf Stories". (Note: per the covers scans all three books are indeed edited by Alan Durant so it is probably safe to assume there really is at least some overlap between #3 and the other two) Jonschaper 01:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite it's title, #3 has the same stories as #2 (click on the "Worldcat" link on the pub record's page.) The cover for that pub is not currently credited (just the interiorart), so there's no problem there. Each of the books' titles matches those of the OCLC records. I don't see "Scholastic" credit on the scan of #3, just the "Kingfisher" at the top. The variants look OK, unless there's some nitpicker who wants to make the ampersand a variant. (If a nitpicker is reading this, go ahead and do it. I'll accept the submission...) Mhhutchins 05:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Just did a "Look Inside" on of the third title, and it has the werewolf stories, and the cover is credited to Simon Bartram. Mhhutchins 05:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, and mea culpa re the scan, the image didn't come up well and it looked like the Scholatic logo, but I've now taken a better look. I'll just merge in the other title then (oops, already done). Still the conflict with the first two covers though... Thanks all Jonschaper 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Cover for both 1 and 2 should be by Mark Edwards (source: an dealer.) I've corrected it and merged them. Someone must have saw the Hardcastle credit for interior art and confused it with cover art credit. Mhhutchins 22:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page keeps adding new comments as parts of old -

Afternoon! Disgusted that I can not understand, but more that I can not see what changed, nor why. Comments are being added as .1,.2, etc. I manually changed them, but apparently there is coding that allows all new to redo it. Help. I hate the effect and I did not start it as I absolutely do not understand the conventions to even try. (more curses than can be imagined). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. Looks like maybe someone did a manual entry for a comment, instead of using the "Post a Comment" or "+" function. It threw off everything that came after it. Have you considered archiving some of the older comments? If you need help, just ask. Mhhutchins 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Greatly. Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick Aristovulos vs Nick Aristovolous

I suspect Aristovolous is a variant or misspelling of Aristovulos Jonschaper 03:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the record using the former name hasn't been verified, and I could find no source that gave the cover art credit, I've corrected the spelling to the latter name. We'll have to wait for physical verification to see if I was correct in doing so. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. Mhhutchins 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forever War cover scan

I suspect that the cover scan for the 1991 edition is incorrect. As per this Wikipedia article, the 91 edition cover has what looks like Robin Williams in a funny hat. The cover in this scan also refers to that edition as Haldeman's prefered edition, which would be the 1997 edition. The same artist (Jean Pierre Targete) is credited with both the 91 and 97 editions. Since these were apparently different covers, I suspect one cover credit is in error (likely the 1991 credit since that looks like something generated from Amazon and another 91 edition from the same publisher gives cover credit to Dorian Vallejo). Jonschaper 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Novella published as a book

What do we do in the case of Resurrection, where the same title has two lengths: NOVEL and SHORTFICTION? Is it acceptable to have either a NOVEL publication with a SHORTFICTION title, or is it acceptable for a Best Novella nomination/award to point to a NOVEL title? Or do should they be left as-is? --MartyD 12:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This would be the perfect example of why we reenabled CHAPTERBOOKs. BLongley 12:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It might be noted that some editors/moderators are hesitant to do so for novellas appearing in Ace Doubles. This Poul Anderson submission has been sitting in the queue for a while. There was once a huge controversy about The Dragon Masters which apparently was resolved and the Ace Double version was categorized correctly as a novella.--swfritter 13:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Just used chapterbook for a Wildside standalone novella. Sir Harold and the Gnome King which also had no ISBN despite being 1991. I swear publishers like to screw with bibliographers. Dana Carson 23:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Purple and badly written

Story review terminology in Bleiler. Anyone ever heard of purple as a descriptive of a story? Seems to always be attached to negatives, but anything more specific? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See here. Mhhutchins 14:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Even with a mangled arm Mhhutchins beats me to the punch.--swfritter 14:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Got it! Chuckle. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Variants of foreign titles

Several months back I noticed that the 2001 French publication of this title had been made into a variant of the 1998 English title. I corrected it by removing the variant and merged the title records using only the English title. Well, tonight I saw someone had changed it back into a variant, so I did the same procedure as before. Has there been a change in policy about how foreign publications of original English works are handled in the database? I know I've not been very active lately, but I thought I was keeping up with the changes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no policy chances so far. The plan is to turn translations into variant titles once foreign language support has been beefed up, but it hasn't happened yet. I had to make some changes to the design to handle collections/omnibuses that have no analog in the original language, which complicated matters. Ahasuerus 11:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has been entering Hungarian translations without variants, as documented in Help:How_to_enter_foreign_language_editions, which was what I have been going by as official policy. --MartyD 11:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The first variant-making was my mistake. Resulted in this discussion. I know better now. --Willem H. 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone since our October 2009 discussion must have changed it back to a variant. Ah well... Mhhutchins 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Demon in the Skull

I just verified this pub, and noticed there is an identical entry here. The only real difference is the title reference. I.m.o. the second is wrong, but it's verified by Scott Latham. Should this one be deleted, with a note on his talk page (no activity for 2.5 years), or can his verification be moved to the other pub? --Willem H. 11:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just delete the latter (it's under the wrong title record anyway). Verifications for another user can't be transferred. I wouldn't bother notifying Scott. He's another editor who has/had issues with the wiki paradigm. :) Mhhutchins 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Submitted the delete. --Willem H. 18:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Bill (Bluesman) had a better plan. Involved some more edits, but doesn't delete Scott's verification. See here. --Willem H. 19:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical Glitch

"Arnold Brede" seems to get listed twice in search results during any applicable search (e.g. brede, bred, etc) although both links go to the exact same page. Jonschaper 04:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I'll have to take a closer look at the software to see what caused it. Thanks for finding it! Ahasuerus 12:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Hanging Man

This is listed as both a novel and a collection. Since it is 68 pages I assume it should be a chapbook instead of either of the above. Jonschaper 05:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Audio versions of books vs audio version of stories (Subterranean Online)

I wonder why this is currently treated differently in the db. When a book has an audio reading the publication is merged with the title. But here there's a chapterbook record for Rude Mechanicals where the publication in the audio format was made into a variant with the "(Audio Download)" appendage and merged with the chapterbook record. But looking at the page for the story's title record doesn't show its publication in Subterranean Online. The separate record for the Audio Download of Rude Mechanicals gives the type as NOVEL. I don't know if this is over 40K, but the printed story is given as SHORTFICTION/novella. I'm not sure who entered these early volumes of Subterranean, but wonder about the reasoning in entering the audio versions this way. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the display-related problem is occurring because a novel is both a work title and a container title, whereas chapterbook is solely a container title and shortfiction is solely a work title. So the variant relationship has been made at the container level, but now there's no way to also make a variant relationship at the work level, so the novel-as-a-work from Subterranean Online can't (and doesn't) have a relationship to the shortfiction title, and you then don't see it when looking at the shortfiction work title. You sort of see it when looking at the novel title, but that's really because you're seeing the containers. If the shortfiction title were also in, say, some random anthology or collection, you wouldn't see that one either when looking at the novel title. --MartyD 10:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I notice on the Subterranean site, the cover for the audio entry says "short novel". I wonder if whoever entered it was struggling with the fact that we don't have a way to handle different formats within the same publication. Except in the title itself, there's no way to indicate that one contained piece is audio, while others are the HTML implied by "webzine" -- only publications carry format information, not titles. If we want to preserve the information about the format discrepancy, the best way to fix it within the current software limitations is probably to undo the variant relationship to the chapterbook, change the title type from novel to SHORTFICTION/novella and make it a variant of the original novella title. The note about who read it could be moved to the "(Audio Download)" variant, and an explanation that it appeared in a format different from the rest of the publication could be included to help someone down the line to understand why it is set up this way. --MartyD 10:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The editor was probably Kpulliam and I think Marty's reasoning is correct. The same problem presented itself with Clarkesworld but luckily their audio content is also published as a podcast (not the case with Subterranean) so I document the podcast separately and mention the audio content in the notes of Clarkesworld.--swfritter 12:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Why make the audio version of the story into a chapterbook to begin with? It's not a container, it's contained in another container (the magazine). Once the content record is created it is merged with any existing record of the same title by the same author. That's how we handle reprints that are...printed. The only difference is this reprint is read. Sure, anyone looking at the title record won't know it's audio until they go to the magazine's publication record. This is the only drawback, but the info is there somewhere. Mhhutchins 14:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The "(Audio Download)" version of the story isn't entered as a chapterbook, it's entered as a novel. The novel has been made a variant of the chapterbook. If we want to keep it as a variant (see below), I am saying the relationship should be moved -- it properly ought to be a variant of the shortfiction title (and should itself be changed to shortfiction, as the "cover" corroborates it is not novel length). --MartyD 11:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Another thing: why make the audio version into a variant? Variants are used to indicate a change in title or author, not a change in the delivery system. Otherwise ebooks and audiobooks would be entered as variants of the printed book. That's what brought up the question to begin with. Why should audio stories be treated differently than the way we handle audio books? Mhhutchins 14:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Normally, they shouldn't, and I am not advocating that they should in this case. I'm just thinking about why a variant would be desirable and/or useful. The problem here is unusual in that it's a deviation of delivery system WITHIN the publication from the delivery system used for the rest of the publication. Obviously, I don't know what the original editor was thinking, but if there were no variants involved, one would look at the "Rude Mechanicals" summary bibliography and see that it had been published in three hardcover chapterbooks and one webzine. Unless one went to the webzine record and read the notes, there'd be no way to tell it had been published in an audio format. That is the difference. Had it been published in an audiobook (or podcast, as in Swfritter's example above), you could see in the bibliography that it had been delivered as audio. This case would specifically need a way to indicate as part of the content relationship between the webzine publication record and the "Rude Mechanicals" title record that it is contained in audio format. We don't have that, so our choice is lose the higher level visibility of published-in-audio-format (bury it in the notes) or put format information into the title itself (have an offbeat variant). --MartyD 11:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If I were voting, I prefer losing the publication format visibility to having a misleading precedent of embedding format in the title itself. Someone will see "(Audio Format)" on a variant title and will start doing the same thing without understanding that this case is an exception. --MartyD 11:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
An option is to remove the variant relationship and use "mp3" as a tag and add an HTML link to the online version in the title record of the story.--swfritter 13:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaron K vs Aaron L Kolom

Aaron K's "Heavenly Gifts" is presumably a translation of Aaron L's story. Without contacting Swfritter I know from my own copy of Worlds of Tomorrow that the Aaron L entry is correct. Since I understand Ernesto sadly passed away I cannot check with him. Should I presume the Aaron K is correct and make it a variant? Jonschaper 00:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source claiming that Urania issue uses "K.". I can't tell if it's independent or if it's propagating Ernesto's info, though. --MartyD 02:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I worked a great deal with Ernesto's submissions for the first 15+ years of Urania. In almost every instance when there was a difference in credit for a story (either title or author) it was due to an error in the magazine. Here's another source which was independent of Ernesto's database. I think the "K" record should be taken "as is" and made into a variant. Mhhutchins 03:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Feldman AKA Scott Meredith?

According to wikipedia Scott Meredith's original name was Arthur Scott Feldman. Does anyone know if Meredith wrote under the name Arthur Feldman? Meredith would have been 30 and he "wrote some short fiction himself as a young man". Jonschaper 01:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm sure this is based on a screwup by Amazon, but I thought I'd check: Nightworld is credited here as a 2005 book by Arthur Bloch. As far as I can tell the only references to it are generated from an error-filled listing on Amazon here for what appears to actually be a 2010 reissue of ROBERT Bloch's "Night-World". Is there a "Nightworld" by Arthur Bloch? Jonschaper 05:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an Amazon error, you can see the name Robert Bloch faintly on the larger cover image. Fantastic Fiction and Abebooks have it corrected already. BLongley 12:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Arto Paasilinna's The Year of the Hare

I'm not sure if this is SF. From the reviews it appears to be a picaresque satire firmly set in the modern world. Apparantly there's one scene in which someone tries to sacrifice the rabbit as part of a magic ritual, but I haven't found a reference to any actual fantastic elements. Anyone more familiar? Jonschaper 01:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the product description on Amazon and some of the comments and I agree, it doesn't appear to be spec fic.Kraang 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hot links scrambled in Amazing Stories notation section 1930

Morning! This. [3]. The notation hot links go from April 1930 to April 1930, which is June, to May, to July. I looked at the notation, but with my proclivity to drop . and - 's I am leery about trying to correct. Also I have to wonder if this was a prank, etc. Hard to figure for myself. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I will fix. --MartyD 13:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Greatly. Looks very good now. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dating seasonal magazine issues (IASFM in particular)

With the new database-generated issue grid, it's become more obvious that the magazine issues with seasonal dates would benefit from a monthly date. I see some of the titles (e.g. Planet Stories) have been given monthly dates based on the Ashley histories. I was particularly interested in dating the first four issues of Asimov's, so I did a Google Books search for Ashley's Gateways to Forever. Unfortunately, the only applicable page visible in the Google search is the issue chart on page 433, which gives the months as January, April, July and October. I am willing to use these dates, but looking at the contents page of those first four issues I see that they all give the newsstand date of the next issue. If I use that date (which I believe would be more accurate), the Spring 1977 issue appeared on December 16, 1976, Summer appeared on March 16, Fall on June 16, and Winter on September 16, each being one month earlier than Ashley's dating. Do any of you magazine aficionados prefer the Ashley dating over this newsstand dating? The major drawback of the newsstand dating is that the stories in the Spring 1977 issue would all be dated December 1976. I remember reading more than one article by Robert A. W. Lowndes who had a pet peeve about how we (the SF community) disregard newsstand dates, and absent-mindedly (in his opinion) always fall back on issue dating. I know perfectly well which method he would have preferred! Mhhutchins 17:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First, a little background for those who were not around during the original policy discussions: "Newsstand dates", aka "on-sale dates" are generally a more accurate indication of when a particular book or magazine became available to the public. However, they are not always easy to determine, which, if I recall correctly, was one of the main reasons why we originally decided not to use them. The same problem arises with mass market paperbacks, which usually go on sale about a month before the "publication date" printed on the copyright page. We use the printed publication date in part because of the aforementioned difficulties associated with determining the "on-sale date" and in part to avoid confusion.
I suspect that if we were to use "newsstand dates" to date undated issues, it would introduce a discrepancy vis a vis our standard dating practices, so I would go with Ashley's dates instead. Ahasuerus 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a rational reason to use Ashley's dating. At the worst, they would only be 15 days off from the newsstand date, and I can live with that. As I said above, it'd be strange to change the dates of stories, like Varley's "Good-bye, Robinson Crusoe" which will always be a 1977 story in my head! Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Contento also gives month of publication dates for the quarterly and sporadic magazines. They are most often the same as Ashley. Contetno lists Spring 1977 of Asimov's with a March date and June, September, and December for the other issues. The date on the cover of most magazines is actually the off-sale date - the date the magazine is taken off the stands. In this case the Ashley listing is kind of fuzzy and could be interpreted as being anywhere between January and March. The earlier Ashley books are less fuzzy - they use monthly grids like Contento. Contento is probably preferable because he always uses monthly grids and covers more magazines - especially the recent ones. The current methods used by publishers for magazine cover dates are inconsistent. Many of them are primarily subscription based and often use the actual date of publication. I'd say it's the horseshoes and hand grenades principle. Close is good enough and is the best we can do. The dates as listed in books and magazines are also important for identifying editions.--swfritter 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox Series - Bulmer

Morning. [4]. This series is NG but does not appear as NG Series. Can not find the way to pop it over. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because of the Omnibus entries. Anthology/Collection/Omnibus do not carry a type with them, so they are treated as "Fiction". The series presentation process does not read through them to figure out whether they represent all-NG or all-ESSAY or all-POEM or all-SHORTFICTION.... --MartyD 02:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviews of Magazine issues

In Theaker's Quarterly Fiction #23 appear two reviews on p. 55 of (genre) magazine issues. We have the specific issues reviewed: Apex Science Fiction and Horror Digest #12 and GUD Issue 2 - Spring 2008, but the titles have been merged into the one-title-for-the-year style (Apex Science Fiction and Horror Digest - 2008 and GUD - 2008).

Should I leave the reviews dead ends? Should I link them to the year titles despite the mis-match? Should I do something else? I can't see making an issue-explicit variant of a year-general title, just for the review.... Thanks. --MartyD 02:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Because magazines don't have title records, you're going to have trouble linking a review. In most cases I make the record into an ESSAY instead of REVIEW. Unfortunately, this doesn't link to anything, but at least there's a record of the review. (If the review has already been created, you can't change the type to ESSAY, so you'll have to remove it from the pub, delete the orphan title record, and then add the essay record.) Occasionally I will link a review to the editor record, if there's only one issue in the year in which it was reviewed. I used to link reviews to editor records with more than one issue if the magazine was an obscure title, though I don't recommend this. If I come upon them now, I'll change them to the essay method. Mhhutchins 05:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. In both of these instances, there is only one issue under the editor record, so I went with linking to the records. It's sort of nice to see it show up on the magazine's side. I don't know yet how often he reviews magazines; if I end up needing to use the ESSAY approach for others, I may come back and change these for consistency's sake. But I will use ESSAY for his graphic novel/comic reviews instead of dead-end Reviews. Thanks again for the help. --MartyD 10:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Completeness of author bibliographies when we have non-genre work

I thought we had a page that explained the ISFDB goals in how complete a bibliography should be in terms of if non-genre work should be included but can't find it. Also, do we have something that says how complete the publication list for a non-genre work should be? Finally, is there a page that explains what to do when we have a single specfict story in a non-genre publication such as a magazine? I know we do partial contents but did not see that spelled out in the editing help.

The issue came up for Umberto Eco and User_talk:GaborLajos#Il costume di casa. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The basic rules for including non-genre works are listed in ISFDB:Policy: "
  1. In - Works (both fiction and non-fiction) which are not related to speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold (see below). This includes any non-genre works published as standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but exclude non-fiction which was not published as a standalone book. Thus, Poul Anderson's mysteries and his non-fiction book about thermonuclear weapons will be included, but Gregory Benford's and Robert L. Forward's professionally published scientific articles will be excluded.
  2. Out - Works that are not related to speculative fiction by authors who have not published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold. This "certain threshold" is hard to define, but we need to draw the line in a way that would exclude Winston Churchill, who published at least one work of borderline speculative fiction. The goal here is to avoid cataloging everything ever published by James Fenimore Cooper, Robert Louis Stevenson, Honore de Balzac and other popular authors. Instead, we want to catalog their speculative fiction works only.
  3. Out - Works unrelated to speculative fiction that are found in primarily non-genre publication that will be cataloged based on other criteria, e.g. a Norton anthology of 19 century literature or a Playboy issue that include a single speculative story. This is done to avoid having to catalog huge amounts of non-SF data.
There is additional guidance re: non-genre magazines in Help:Entering non-genre magazines which covers the "single specfict story in a non-genre publication such as a magazine" scenario pretty thoroughly. Ahasuerus 01:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd looked at the ISFDB:Policy page but had not scanned all the way down. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 01:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Distinctly titled serial episodes

This may be a topic for R&S, but I figured I'd start here. I have run across an instance of a long-running serial where each installment has a distinct (and long) title. E.g., "Newton Braddell and His Inconclusive Researches into the Unknown: Some Observations on the Natural History of Kadaloor". Putting "(Part n of m)" on the end of that seems excessive and also would be misleading (it's part n of "Newton Braddell ... Unknown", not part n of "Some Observations...").

My choices seem to be omitting it entirely, adding it at the end as called for in the help, or adding it in the middle (after the title, before the colon). Or I suppose I could make a variant title that is just the main title plus "(Part n of m)" as the parent for the actual title used in the magazine. Suggestions? Precedents? Thanks. --MartyD 01:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer & Jenny Ashley

Anyone know if Jennifer is aka Jenny? Jonschaper 04:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Jennifer is aka "Jenn", so "Jenny" as yet another form of the name seems somewhat unlikely. Ahasuerus 04:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, "Jennifer" writes paranormal romance, while the one story by "Jenny" was published in a magazine specializing in slipstream fiction. It's not likely the same author, but stranger things have happened. Mhhutchins 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Login failure

Can't log into; site repeatedly says login failure after I verified my email address

Known issues preventing ISFDB users from logging in:
  • The browser has cookies disabled
  • The browser is Safari, which has reportedly caused problems for some users
  • The user is trying to access the ISFDB using a URL other than
  • The user is unaware that the user name is case sensitive (although the ISFDB Wiki lets you log in even if you use the wrong case)
  • The user is unaware that the user name is automatically changed to have an initial capital letter
I wonder if one or more of these issues are causing your login problems? Ahasuerus 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I submitted three books but cannot find them. Also, it would not let me submit cover images. Thanks for the login help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinemabon (talkcontribs) .
Checking submission history, I see that Bluesman approved all three on Friday. Does the Voices Saga by William L. Stolley look OK? Ahasuerus

The Venom-Seekers

Hello Everyone! [5]. Okay, I submitted the real thing, but the record is varianted to Rolf Garner (first problem), no Rolf Garner on book and has dash between Venom and Seekers (as above). So what is the 'preferred correction model'. I have in possession the data to reconstruct all the records and my personal inclination IS to delete the records for Rolf Garner, etc and Add to publication at the 'Bryan Berry' header. Is there a better Simple Simon correction? LOL Obviously a bad info variant plays hob with my thinking. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have been simpler just to change both pubs and the title record, and delete the variant - but the add two delete two mostly worked. However, the pubs you added aren't hyphenated titles? BLongley 11:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will catch the title. So simple, yet I stumble after knowing it! LOL Actually, I shudder at the variant angle as I envision sticky spiderweb relationships that I may not find. EEEEK! Appreciate the catch! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I delete a cover image?

I was a bit over-enthusiastic with my first upload and chose to upload an image for a book I had no cover for but had sourced an image from elsewhere. I can see no way to remove said image and I have no suitable image to replace it with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoddy (talkcontribs) .

It's possible to delete the image, but I don't think there is a need to even if you didn't scan it yourself. The act of scanning doesn't give the scanner any special rights unless the scanner added new content and thus created a "derivative work" -- e.g. claims copyright protection for their scans since they spend hours cleaning up every image manually. Regular scans, however, are not protected and the use of low resolution scans is generally permitted as part of "fair use".
Granted, this only applies in the US, which is where the ISFDB server is located, and copyright laws may be different in other countries. In addition, this is an evolving areas with the courts still fine tuning what is and what is not fair use on the Internet, but that's what we are using for now. Wikipedia uses more elaborate guidelines, but then they have higher visibility and have to spend more of their time worrying about it. Ahasuerus 21:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Parent Name: Henry Bott or Charles Recour?

According to Paul W. Fairman's response to a letter from Henry Bott in the September 1952 issue of If, "Henry Bott is also Charles Recour who does that short, very interesting science stuff". I note Henry Bott is also listed as Recour's legal name here. I presume one hasn't already been made the pseudonym of the other due to questions over who should be the parent name? I would personally prefer making Bott the parent due to legal name and number of entries. Jonschaper 02:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard for canonical names is "the most commonly used name" and in this case it's almost a 50-50, so I am sure either one will be fine. The important thing is to get them linked :) Ahasuerus 03:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Island of Fear review

The review for Island of Fear here links to the short story instead of the collection here that contains the short story of the same name when it is the latter being reviewed. I'm not sure how to fix that. Jonschaper 06:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just use "Link Review to Title" to link to the correct title. The Automatic linking of reviews does get it wrong quite often, especially with Collections that use one of the contents as an overall title. BLongley 13:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard E. Stockham & Richard Stockham

Does anybody have any insight into whether Richard E. Stockham and Richard Stockham may be the same person? --JLaTondre 12:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Project Gutenberg lists them as the same person. BLongley 13:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Avery, Martin's Hedge Knight

Hi, Ben Avery is listed as a cover artist for two publications of George R. R. Martin's "Hedge Night". From a quick websearch (e.g. here) it appears that Ben Avery is the WRITER of the Hedge Knight comic book adaptation. The entries under his name appear to be collections of those comics. Besides the fact that corrections appear necessary, should these be included? Martin only wrote the original story, not the comics, and if these meet criteria would any comic adaptations (Classics Illustrated, etc) also be included? Jonschaper 02:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are certainly graphic adaptations and should not be part of the database. I've deleted the pubs, but can't figure out why there remains a summary page for Ben Avery. Mhhutchins 05:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a bot to go after things like that? There are a fair number of names with no entries left over.Jonschaper 23:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Usually, it's an author that's been reviewed but there's neither title nor publication record. You can do an advanced search (in the Title Search Form) for "Reviewed Author". In this case, there's no review. So I can't explain why the Ben Avery summary page remains in the db. Usually, if you delete a pub and its corresponding title record, the author is deleted as well if there's no other titles under his name. Is there anyone else who can explain this anomaly? Mhhutchins 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bug -- I just reproduced it on the development server. When you delete a pub record, the submission approval process doesn't delete the cover artist even if there are no other Title records in the database. I'll see if I can fix it tomorrow - thanks for finding it! Ahasuerus 04:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I had to merge "Farah Mendelson" with "Farah Mendlesohn" earlier to remove another stray author. I can't believe she's been a cover artist - so there's probably another bug. (Adding a pub for "Farah Mendelson" and then deleting the pub and the title didn't work, which often does clean up some strays.) Any ideas on why that occurred? BLongley 23:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Not yet -- some of that logic is seriously convoluted. It would be nice to rewrite it to make it more maintainable, but it would mean postponing other changes... Ahasuerus 23:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Denis McEoin

I noticed Denis has two separate pages under two separate pseudonyms (Jonathan Aycliffe and Daniel Easterman). He's written about the same amount under both names. In this case, should both names be made a pseudonym of Denis McEoin (for whom there's no listings)? Jonschaper 04:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Typically, the ISFDB canonical name is the name that the author is primarily known under within the genre. In this case it's a 50-50 split, so flip another coin :) Ahasuerus 04:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. I'll make Aycliffe the parent since he edges out Easterman by 2 short stories and 1 interview. Jonschaper 03:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

John vs John B. Aylesworth

There are two entries for the novel Fee Fi Fo Fum (one here and one here). Both look like they refer to the same printing. The one that doesn't use the middle initial is linked to a review in a verified Analog, so I assume that the John B. Aylesworth entry should either be made the parent (if it's correct) or should be deleted (if it's incorrect). Can anyone check the book itself? Jonschaper 04:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The OCLC record credits the author with a middle initial, but the responsibility is given without the initial. This means the book itself doesn't give the initial, but that the author is more generally credited with the middle initial. Tuck gives the initial, but he often gives the author's full name without noting how the book is credit. The cover image doesn't have an initial (but only the title page can tell us definitively.) If the Analog review credited the authorship to "John B. Aylesworth", it would be changed to the actual author credit (with the miscredit noted on the review's title record). Variants should not be created based on a miscredited review, but created only if the publication itself is miscredited or if a pseudonym is used. With that in mind, I'm going to delete the pub record that credits the middle initial. If we determine later that the canonical name does have the middle initial (right now there are no other pubs for the author) we can create a variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

USA / UK variants of SF Magazines

I have a box of magazines published in the UK. I suspect that all of them are present, with cover scans, in the database yet they are quite tedious to check as you can't use the magazine grids. For example my issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction was clearly published in April 1962 but the db record USA Mag is for December 1961 and cost $0.40 rather than the 2/6 on mine, though they look to have the same content and cover art. Should these be:

  • ignored?
  • amended as a note or biblio comment on the existing record?
  • some sort of clone?
  • entered as a new publication?

Hoddy 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cloning of magazines isn't currently allowed, but probably should be. It would have made entering this a bit easier - it's similar to, but not identical to, an earlier US edition. So I'd recommend you go ahead and add them, and use "Import Contents" to get you started rather than do a lot of typing and merges. BLongley 01:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Magazine which titles each issue differently

How do we handle a situation like this? Jupiter is a printed SF magazine, and each issue is titled one of the moons of Jupiter. It's up to issue #28 (what happens when it reaches issue #50?) and I'm holding a submission for it. Someone (new editor Ohoward) has already created a wiki page for the title. The cover of the magazine titles it using the astronomical symbol for Jupiter, followed by the roman numbers for 28, followed by the name of the 28th planet of Jupiter, Autonoe. My recommendation for the title field "Jupiter 28: Autonoe, 2010". Any other ideas before I accept the submission? Mhhutchins 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your idea seems fine to me. Another thought: If (since) the names are unique, what if the pubs used just the moon names (e.g., Autonoe)? The title the 2010 issues would all share would be Jupiter - 2010. Unlike a normal magazine, where we need to include date or issue number to distinguish, that's not really needed here. --MartyD 00:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It also looks as though they could use a month of publication.--swfritter 13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I overlooked the dates of the issues. I'll accept the submission on hold, and tweak it a little. Mhhutchins 14:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's the results. I titled it the name of the magazine, the issue number, the issue name, and the date (phew!). Guess that'll do until a standard is formed. Mhhutchins 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language characters

Can anyone fix the author credit for this record so that the author's name correctly links to his title page? There's some problem associated with the non-English character in his name. If not, I'll simply change the letter to an "s" and merge it with this author. Thanks. Also how amazing is it to learn that Jaroslav Olša, Jr., science fiction fan, is an ambassador of the Czech Republic? Mhhutchins 04:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a known software problem, I am afraid. Marc shed additional light on it a few weeks ago and it's on my list of things to look into. Ahasuerus 11:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony Parker

I strongly doubt the 1966 short story writer here is the same as the 2005+ artist but thought I'd enquire before submitting edits. Cheers Jonschaper 01:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'll disambiguate the artist name. Thanks for catching the duplicate names. Mhhutchins 04:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


From the description here it appears that the vast majority, if not all, of this anthology (edited by the author now probably best known for The Jane Austin Book Club) is nongenre. Anyone opinions re deletion? Or if Karen Joy Fowler meets the threshold for non-genre titles, should the entries for the individual stories be deleted? Jonschaper 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a non-genre anthology, then individual non-genre stories need not be listed, but we'll probably want to keep the Anthology title/pub records. Parenthetically, our software generally assumes that all NONGENRE records are Novels, which is clearly not a universally valid assumption. At some point we will create a separate NONGENRE field for Titles, but it will require a fair amount of work and we are not quite there yet. Ahasuerus 04:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a non-genre anthology and I agree that the pub's contents should not have been entered. But Fowler does meet the threshold for inclusion of ALL of her books, regardless of their genre. By the way, what is an "anthology of fine fiction" (as the anthology is subtitled)? Would anyone be so honest as to subtitle their work as "mediocre fiction" or "hack fiction" or "the best fiction the editor could find considering the restraints of cost, time, and editorial prejudices"? Mhhutchins 04:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine fiction is, of course, the opposite of coarse fiction. Ahasuerus 04:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Mixed-Genre Anthologies are a pain, especially if you haven't read them. We've probably got a lot of "Romance" authors that aren't "Paranormal Romance". I'm suspicious of editors like Trisha Telep and Maxim Jakubowski who undoubtedly did good work in keeping an SF bookshop alive in central London, but they were more related to the Romance and Crime genres, the SF being the odd stuff in the basement. BLongley 00:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Beware the Cat

Hi, I was doing edits to William Baldwin and Gulielmus Baldwin (making the latter a pseudonym of the former, etc) and have apparently come across a dating controversy. There was an entry for an F&SF review of Beward the Cat here dating it as "1533". This is consistent with what the University of California press stateshere, and I would think that a university press would try to get its information correct and have access to exacting scholars. However, according to other sites like this and Wikisource, the earliest publication is 1561, and according to Wikipedia "the existence of a 1561 edition relies on evidence from Joseph Ritson and the discovery of the broadsheet. No edition prior to that of 1571 is known to exist". Based upon the estimated DOB of William Baldwin (15 year old geniuses aside) I am starting to lean towards 1561 over 1533. Anyone else have any info to weigh in on this, particularly someone with access to Rick Norwood's essay in the Mar/Apr 2010 F&SF? Jonschaper 05:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This bibliography says 1570, written c. 1553. Perhaps the UC date is a typo, "3" vs. "5", of the date it's thought to have been written? I found several sources repeating the 1553 / 1570 combination. See this, though, which mentions 1561/Ritson (seems to be implying this is unproven) and also cites a 1568-1569 register entry for printing of "Beware the Catt". --MartyD 10:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Google Books has the Ritson's bibliography from which the 1561 comes. And this note suggests there are indeed fragments of the 1561 edition.... --MartyD 10:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The F&SF review lists 1533 as the date and cites a 1995 edition edited by A. Rangler, Jr. and Michael Flachmann (the California Press edition as mentioned above).--swfritter 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The California Press edition is available at the local university library. I can check it out on my next visit in a week or two.--swfritter 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The California Press edition must have been right next to the Connecticut College edition - which is the one I picked up. It gives the author's graduation date from Oxford as 1533. It agrees that there is a possibility of a 1561 edition (perhaps of shorter length) but acknowledges the first known edition as being 1570 rather than 1571.--swfritter 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like this one will call for an extensive note. I'll see how things go with the California Press (thanks as always to everyone for their detective work). As for William Baldwin's birthdate, the estimate of 1515 in MartyD's link looks more realistic since multiple sources agree on his 1533 graduation, so I'll alter his birthdate accordingly. I had already noted in the biography page that the DOB is an estimate. Jonschaper 01:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
PS, to me it looks like he maybe began writing it in 1533/53, but that the earliest evidence of actual publication (in some form) is 1560/61 (with arrangements made a year or two earlier) and with 1570/71 being the earliest extent. Jonschaper 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The Ringler/Flachmann book seems to be the most authoritative. They don't think there is enough proof for the 1561 publication date. Also, 1533 is the date a William Baldwin (possibly not even the same one) supplicated for a B.A. There is no record of one actually being granted. Based upon internal evidence the story could not have been written as published before 1552/1553. It could not have been published between 1553 and 1558 because it's anti-popish stance would not have been agreeable to Queen Mary. The appearance in this pub appears to be an extract. The story is actually 18,000 words in length. The California Press/Huntington press printing mentioned above is a later tp printing of the book I have in my temporary possession. Unless it has been updated it is possible the blurb created an error which has been replicated. Oh well, the paperback is not very expensive and is available very cheaply on Abebooks and it is also a very entertaining read. To make things even more exciting the Baldwin book was first published anonymously although there is more than adequate information to credit Baldwin as the author.--swfritter 15:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I ordered a new copy of the tp from B&N. Something I want for my own collection anyway. The book also has plot summaries of prose works prior to 1858 - many of which are fantastical in nature.--swfritter 21:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The tp is identical to the hardcover for the above. I also purchased the anthology in which the story appears and, as I suspected, it is an extract. To add to the confusion Parry gives the story a publication date of 1551!!! for which I can find no other evidence and is inconsistent with topical references in the story. Based upon the evidence from Ringler and Michael Flachmann I think 1570 is the most reliable date.--swfritter 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL quite a history for that story. Maybe the 1551 is a typo of 1561. At any rate, I'm tempted to leave it to you, Swfritter, to do up a note for the title entry since you have the source material (yes, I am trying to avoid having to make sense of it myself) Jonschaper 04:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ISFDB images what happens?

What happens if a saved to this wiki picture is changed by someone and that pic is shared by later printings? Is it lost? and if so is there a way too guard against losing those extension pics? Second question: I tried changing an "Earth Unaware" ISFDB pic with one that matched mine and vendor. It would not save and the original pic kept returning. Not a great loss, but the old pic does have about an inch difference in art than my copy and the image I liked, (Belmont is notorious for slippage on images in my experience). Is this important and should be reported as a flaw? This. [6]. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If an image has been linked to a pub, and the image is updated (replaced by a new, better image), the new image will appear on the pub record. If that same image was used on multiple pub records, all will have the new image. The old file is overwritten. It can be restored by a moderator, but it must keep the same file name. It can't be renamed so that it can be linked to a different pub record. That's why I object to using an image for one printing that is "close" to another one, having the same image linked to both pub records. (The only time I do this is when a book club edition is identical to a trade edition.)
About "Earth Unaware". I'm looking at the current image and your three attempts to upload an image. They look identical. (At the bottom of the page, click on the links in the Date/Time column for each image.) Is the current image the one you uploaded? Did you refresh your cache? I have to do this each time I replace an image as the original image remains until I refresh. Mhhutchins 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Understand first. Earth Unaware, what you are stated is what happened. I said replace image and instead it used the 'replaced image' and then stated it could not replace image? I did it three times, trying to find the error or to show me my error. So, from my perspective the image is in a loop. I did get the 'error' message of can not do, everytime. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Harry, if you're saying you have an image that's different from the three listed as uploaded by you (which are identical, but different from Bluesman's original), try uploading it to a different name (you can use the upload a new cover scan link, but change the destination file name to something else, like RTHNWRBVZX1968-1.jpg). Post the link to that here. Then we can see what you've got, and one of us could download it and try uploading to the original name to see if the behavior's any different or if we see the same problem you do. --MartyD 10:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You are correct it is the image that matched another copy, which I wished to show, instead of the slightly different old one. So, What I must have achieved is the replacement and at some point confused the system to tell myself I had NOT. All my fault then. Thanks, for everyone's time and help. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)