ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard/Archive 31

< ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard
Revision as of 11:51, 29 June 2022 by Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (archive through April 2022)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page for the Moderator noticeboard. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from January - June 2022.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old discussions from the Moderator noticeboard.

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

Expanded archive listing

Words Without Borders

I wanted to add the january 2015 issue of Words withojt Borders but spotted that the series entry has a note about first checking with the mods. The theme of the issue is Uchronia so it should be in scope. My personal interest in it is to add a missing short story to Karin Tidbeck's bibliography. /Lokal_Profil 06:46, 1 January 2022 (EST)

Go ahead and add it. I changed the note from "Non genre webzine. Check with moderators who deal with webzines before adding content." to "Non genre webzine. Only genre contents should be indexed." Our moderation system handles the "check with moderators" part. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks. Submission is now up. /Lokal_Profil 17:22, 1 January 2022 (EST)

Two Shadows; I added the cover to The Shadow Over Innsmouth, coverless on ISFDB since 2007 when it was entered, but there's another record for the same publication, probably redundant and not needed if mods agree. --Username 18:20, 1 January 2022 (EST)

Duplicate deleted. It would be helpful if you just linked to the actual pubs when you post these type things... -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2022 (EST)

Nesbit Collection; I wondered why the publisher, Methuen, didn't have any of the hundreds of other books published by them listed when link was clicked, until I realized whoever entered this spelled it METHEUN. Also, E. Nesbit's Tales of Terror is already listed by Methuen in 1983 on ISFDB, so why this was entered is unknown; this image, [1], from Dalby's site shows ISBN that's in E. Nesbit's Tales of Terror here, so where this other ISBN came from is also unknown; is there an edition from the same year where they changed ISBN for some reason? Edit History reveals this wasn't done by regular editors but by a mod and then added to by another mod; no PV, though, so whoever wants to look at it may find it doesn't really belong here, except maybe for the note. --Username 22:46, 2 January 2022 (EST)

Misspelled tags, and tags that are near duplicates

The tag "Detectve" is misspelled and is probably a duplicate of "detective". Also "fatasy" and "handicapt children" and "hyptonism" that I found with a quick manual scan.

Each of these tags has a "near duplicate" that is identical except that it uses spaces instead of dashes:

  • science-fiction
  • young-adult-fantasy
  • young-adult-sf
  • near-future
  • young-adult
  • post-apocalypse
  • action-adventure
  • mega-engineering
  • into-movie
  • history-of-sf
  • juvenile-sf
  • african-american
  • young-adult-ghost-story
  • time-travel-romance
  • occult-horror
  • african-american-protagonist
  • young-adult-historical-fantasy
  • far-viewer
  • post-apocalyptic
  • post-holocaust
  • Young-adult-post-apocalypse
  • movie-novelization
  • science-fiction-romance
  • young-adult-paranormal
  • high-fantasy
  • sci-fi
  • shape-shifting
  • young-adult-thriller
  • young-adult-alternate-history
  • tongue-in-cheek
  • African-Americans
  • political-science-fiction
  • alien-point-of-view
  • body-switching
  • techno-thriller
  • Pre-WWII
  • shape-shifters
  • civil-rights
  • cultural-identity
  • out-of-body-experience
  • Pre-apocalypse
  • single-parent-families
  • second-person
  • X-rays
  • near-death-experience
  • South-America
  • Middle-East-inspired-fantasy

If you're looking at ISFDB database, this query can be used to find them: select count(*), replace(tag_name, " ", "-") as flat_name from tags group by flat_name having count(*) > 1; Variations of this query can be used to find tags that only differ in capitalization, or plural versus singular, or ones that use apostrophes that aren't needed. --Colink 23:06, 2 January 2022 (EST)

Griff; Fearn's Griff pseudonym was used for a cheap 50's novel; other Griff was used by an artist in the 2000's. --Username 12:36, 4 January 2022 (EST)

The Very Best of Barry N. Malzberg - table of contents corrections


I have the paper copy of "The Very Best of Barry N. Malzberg", 2013, Nonstop Press. (1499157)

I have made a comparison of the TOC and the actual stories in the paper version (in my possession today, checked out of the library) vs the current ISFDB entrees. The current ISFDB paper and ebook versions TOC listed essentially agree, and they are both missing stories and have 1 story in the wrong place/order/page number. If I am not clear, the corrections needed here are essentially the same for both the paper and ebook versions.

Bluesman is listed as the primary verifier for the paper version (none listed for the ebook). The Bluesman Discussion page states that Bluesman is inactive and that I should post about this here.

I am ready to make the edits (1 edit, a number of imports of stories that are missing but are otherwise in ISFDB, and one new entry for the Acknowledgements (i.e., copyright/source info) after I have approval.

Thanks for your help. Dave888 20:15, 6 January 2022 (EST)

We don't index the Acknowledgements as a general rule so that will be just in the notes :) Make sure that the story that is on the wrong page actually is on the wrong page (we go by the book, not its contents page) although a discrepancy should be in the notes. If you are sure that you have the same book and not a later edition/printing of it which added more stories (note that OCLC says "32 stories" so you may want to reconcile that and their list to ours while you are writing notes), go ahead and correct it, adding a moderator note explaining what you are doing and why. Annie 20:34, 6 January 2022 (EST)
1) Thanks for the reminder on the Acknowledgements. I'll handle that in the notes.
2) For the story on the wrong page ("The Lady Louisiana Toy", it appears that the page number entered was a typo. The number entered is "196", and the actual number is "296", both on the TOC and on the page of the book. This also puts it as the last story, which matches the ebook order. So, the ebook and paper TOC matches the corresponding locations in the book when corrected.
3) Regarding the copy I have, it sure appears to be the same edition noted for the tp. It has the same ISBN. It has the same "First Edition, 2013" with no number line. It has the same number of pages and the same price and cover. Checking a few places, so far all of the separate ebook version (Nook, Kindle) that I checked have the same TOC that matches as the paper version I have. In his review comments for Locus, Paul di Filippo's 2013 review notes "some three dozen stories", and mentions one of the stories ("Leviticus: In The Ark") that is in my copy's TOC and not the existing TOC. Taken together, it is likely that his ARC contained the same TOC at 37 and not 33 stories. I concur that the OCLC entry notes 32 stories, but looking at the actual list they have the same 37 stories as my paper copy, in the same order. So, it appears that the summary entry there for 32 stories is incorrect, although they have the correct TOC. What kind of moderator note would I need to use? Would noting that the OCLC summary total is is incorrect be sufficient?
Thanks.Dave888 00:15, 7 January 2022 (EST)
I'd say something like this in the Notes of the publication: "As of 2022-01-07, the OCLC record mentions that there are 32 stories but they list all 37 in the record details." (or words to that effect - feel free to rewrite) thus both dating the note AND explaining what the discrepancy is. If the record is ever updated, our note can also be updated and so on but if we don't notice, we have a record with a date. As for the moderator note - "Working off a copy of the book; to verify after all updates" (if you had not verified yet - some people don't want to verify until they know that all the info is correct because things happen...) is usually sufficient. :) Annie 15:45, 7 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks. That all sounds good. I'll check in if I get confused, and you or someone else will see the edits for approval.Dave888 16:59, 7 January 2022 (EST)

Two related questions on the ebook version. 1) I see a dual ISBN number, " 978-1-933065-55-7 [1-933065-55-9]". Why are there two? Is this really for two different ebook versions, say the Kindle and the Nook? 2) Checking various sources, I don't find either of the existing ISBN numbers are correct for this book. I assume I should update it? Thanks.Dave888 00:08, 10 January 2022 (EST)

That's ONE ISBN only -- in its ISBN10 and its ISBN13 formats. Our ISBN field can contain only one ISBN and we always show both versions when they exist (aka all 978 ISBNs always have both - just look at the paperback as well).
Careful with updating - make sure that it was not there back in 2013 either - this was the ISBN of the epub most likely at the time. Removing ISBNs from old records because the current versions, especially because Kindle/Amazon don't carry them anymore is a very bad idea. If you have the kindle version, mention in the notes that the ISBN is not printed in the book if that's the case - but let's not destroy old data :) Annie 11:23, 10 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks for helping me with these ISBN nuances. I do wonder what source the original ebook ISBN numbers came from; I did not find it. The current ebook versions at Amazon and B&N list the same pair of "new" or current ebook ISBN numbers, neither of which match the original here, in addition to the ISBN for the paper version which does match. I'll eventually add the two ISBNs that are in the ebook to the Notes. It appears one is for the Kindle and the other for the Nook at this time. I'll hold off on this aspect a bit to ensure I've got it, and to give you time to let me know if I don't.Dave888 11:54, 10 January 2022 (EST)
The note tells you was the source. In 2014, Amazon still had the eISBNs - they stopped recording and using them in 2019 or thereabouts (making my life miserable for new books) :)
What two ISBNs? You listed just one above and it belonged to both eBooks editions at the time of the book addition (or at least it belonged to the Kindle version - if the publisher uses different ISBNs per format, then we record the ebooks separately). If the book is reissued with a new ISBN, then we need a new publication for that. :) Annie 12:11, 10 January 2022 (EST)
I cannot honestly tell if the current ebooks (same info) I see on Amazon and B&N are a new ISBN or not, as I was never able to find the original information noted. The ISBNs are definitely different than the original one on this ebook, although the book contents appear to be identical otherwise. 1) the "original" ebook ISBN listed here for the 2013-02-28 ebook is "978-1-933065-55-7 [1-933065-55-9]". 2) the current versions I find on the Amazon version are "kindle ISBN 978-1-933065-50-2" and "epub ISBN 978-1-933065-8". For the B&N version, I see a very similar but not identical (the kindle ISBN is different) "Kindle ISBN 978-1-933065-55-7" and "epub ISBN 978-1-933065-58-8". Looking back, I see that I was incorrect earlier about the ISBN info being the same listed on both ebooks. My apologies, and I will still appreciate your guidance on how to handle this.Dave888 12:25, 10 January 2022 (EST)
In 2013, the kindle version carried an ISBN 978-1-933065-55-7. If the current version in Amazon shows a different ISBN, then it is a reissue. :) Annie 17:04, 11 January 2022 (EST)
Not to be too dense here, but there appear to be two ebooks today with different ISBN than the original Amazon ebook. Does that really mean that I need to create new editions for those two ebooks? Sorry for being slow on this.Dave888 18:17, 12 January 2022 (EST)
Nah, you are doing fine - you are just overthinking it a bit. Unless the same book carried both ISBNs at the same time (Russian books often do that as they have multiple publishers and each of them adds their own ISBN on the same physical book), they are different books for us regardless of their format(s) and we want to record each ISBN separately. So we add them as separate records, each with their own ISBN, ASIN/BN number if available, notes and so on. The same way you would add them if they are paper books - these just happen to be ebooks. If the ISBN is the same (or there isn't one and the formats are the same book essentially), we lump them in one record unless it is a known reissue (so all formats stay together if the ISBN was shared/missing and no differences are known); if they are different ISBNs, we add each on their own. There are a few children's publishers that use different ISBNs for their MOBI, ePub and PDF versions so they get 3 records as well (in theory everyone was supposed to do that - use separate ISBN per format; in practice most publishers don't thus our usual policy). Hope that makes more sense? Annie 18:24, 12 January 2022 (EST)
Thanks for helping me get there. I think I have it now. Definitely new editions for the new ISBN ebooks. I'll take care of that soon.Dave888 12:21, 13 January 2022 (EST)

Clear Queue

I'm wondering if anyone's going to accept the 8 remaining edits in my queue; I'm not sending an e-mail to a mod for something so blatantly obvious, especially since the last time I contacted him on his board he was rude, so if you don't want to approve them they're just going to sit there. I'm tired of most of my edits not being approved except in little spurts throughout the day when some random mod has a few minutes of spare time, and then most of my edits get approved at night by the same mod who runs through dozens of them in a few minutes just to clear the backlog. --Username 09:17, 8 January 2022 (EST)

A few minutes is more like an hour or more and your not the only submitter their are about a dozen more. Anyways happy to plow through them.Kraang 23:00, 10 January 2022 (EST)
No offense, but unlike a lot of other editors here I actually double-check all my edits and make sure everything's spelled properly (by the way, you misspelled "your" and "their") and check them again after they're approved to make sure I didn't make any mistakes or didn't forget to add info, which sometimes I did. So it's kind of insulting when most of them sit there, sometimes for a day or two (with the usual excuses from mods about holidays even when the holidays are long over), and then you approve almost all of them in a very short space of time. It leads me to believe that you're not actually checking any of them for accuracy but simply fulfilling a quota, and the very rare occasions (twice, I believe) when you actually rejected my edits you were wrong and the rejections were un-rejected. I believe you only started approving my edits a few months ago after I added a cover image to a German anthology which you had worked on, so it's good that you feel like paying it forward, but I put a lot of effort into my edits and expect the same from whoever approves them. It's all moot, anyway, because the trend on ISFDB these days clearly is e-books and the like, with the mountain of missing/wrong info on older print books being mostly ignored. I've edited here pretty much every day for over a year now and still never have trouble finding plenty of edits to make, and this site was opened to public editors in 2006, so that should tell you something about the abandonment of the physical in favor of the virtual. I've planned to leave here a couple of times now with unforeseen circumstances getting in my way, so hopefully I will succeed shortly; when my edits suddenly stop for a while, that will be a sign. --Username 09:19, 11 January 2022 (EST)
Never mind, I just cancelled all of them. --Username 10:35, 9 January 2022 (EST)
Please remember that ALL edits are approved by moderators "when some random mod has a few minutes of spare time". This isn't our job, and we get to them when we have spare time to spend on ISFDB. I'm sorry you find that frustrating, but the whole site is run by volunteers, so you'll need to find a way to deal with it. It sounds harsh, but that's the way it is with volunteer projects. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:26, 10 January 2022 (EST)

Clarkesworld Magazine

Annie and Rtrace -- I'm looking to add new information for Clarkesworld but want to confirm some issues that you guys are having to deal with when you moderate my entries. Here's my current assumptions: (1) Title should be entered as "Clarkesworld, Month Year"; (2) The issue number goes in the Notes field; (3) Even though Sean Wallace and Kate Baker are mentioned in the masthead, we're just assigning editorship to Neil Clarke; (4) Even though Clarkesworld is published every month in a print, pdf, and ebook (both EPUB and MOBI) editions, for the purpose of the database we're putting it in as ebook. I think that's everything that I've been doing inconsistently. If there's something else you see, let me know. -- Gengelcox 13:10, 12 January 2022 (EST)

Actually, we want all 3 editions: Print, webzine and ebook (PDF, epub and mobi as one record unless there is a difference in contents) - 3 records per month :) However... there is a problem to be untangled first. We have two series: the ebooks and the paperbacks. These need merging and a bit of fixing but there is a problem in how the editors had been credited on some issues so it is not exactly trivial.
So yes for the title ("Clarkesworld, Month Year"), yes for the issue number (in the notes), the date will be YYYY-MM-00 only. If the three editors are credited, we credit all 3 IMO - see the links above - we had been a bit all over the place with that.
So if you want to add our missing issues, work in the series that now holds the ebooks - but feel free to add all three versions (add in one, import in the other 2 for the contents). I will see what I can do about bringing the ones from the print version series into the other one and we will probably need to add the missing webzines now that they are fully eligible as well. But one step at a time. Let me know if something does not make sense. Annie 13:21, 12 January 2022 (EST)
After edit conflict. I generally agree with Annie with the exception of the editors listed in the name field. Clarke is listed on their website as "Editor-in-Chief", with Wallace as "Editor" and Baker as "Non-Fiction Editor". My understanding is that when there is a hierarchy, we list only the main editor and do not list sub-editors. That being said, it's fine to list the other two in the notes. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:34, 12 January 2022 (EST)
When the magazine was up for nomination a few years ago, all 3 were listed as editors - I think this is where the 3 names being used came from. I am fine either way as long as we keep it consistent :) Annie 13:36, 12 January 2022 (EST)
That could arise in two ways. Either all three editors happened to be listed on the EDITOR record when the award was added; or if it was long enough ago, the award record was created with whoever was listed in the nomination. I don't think awards is a good way to look at this (See last year's Hugo nomination for Strange Horizons). I could have sworn this was in the help pages, but it doesn't appear to be there. There are a few discussions in R&S with the latest that I could find here. I don't know if that's a consensus, but the gist of the discussion would mean that we would definitely list Clark, with Wallace debatable. Listing a non-fiction editor would seem to be out by that discussion. Since it's been 8 years since this was discussed, perhaps it's time to bring it up again. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:53, 13 January 2022 (EST)
I just added two issues. I thought I had already added November 2021, and my browser seemed to confirm it by auto-filling the fields, but I double checked and couldn't find evidence of it in the current database, either approved or pending. Strange. In any case, I'm getting a message that says Unconfirmed for "Clarkesworld" in the Title Series field. Should I be leaving that blank? -- Gengelcox 14:15, 12 January 2022 (EST)
If you look at the links I posted, the series is actually called "Clarkesworld Magazine", not just "Clarkesworld". :) We will fix that when these are approved but for the future, always a good idea to see how we may have called the series.
I don't see an errored out submission either so maybe you closed the browser before submitting last time? I've done that a time or 6... Annie 14:24, 12 January 2022 (EST)
Doh! Of course (for both issues). Thanks! -- Gengelcox 14:26, 12 January 2022 (EST)

R. Levy; This should actually be this, --Username 16:06, 12 January 2022 (EST)

Fixed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2022 (EST)

Dating publications

The help for entering the date of publications explicitly says what to use: For books, to identify the publication date, try to find a statement (often on the verso of the title page) that says something like "Published in June 2001". This seems to be pretty clear, but in this argument a moderator has used an interpretation that contradicts the written rules, and is not in line with the latest outcome of a discussion on that topic. The end of that thread enclosed the agreement that a statement in a book should overrule an Amazon date, and I don't see that this has been outruled anywhere afterwards. Stonecreek 01:56, 13 January 2022 (EST)

One of my early difficulties in entering publications was matching a book with no publication date to existing publications of the same title. After failing to find a match in title summary list from the undated (0000-00-00) publications, I would have to search all the dated ones, as people would 'research' a date and use that. At the time I felt that such 'researched' values were misleading, even if the Notes pointed out where the data came from. But having no alternative to offer beyond creating multiple dates (e.g. publication as printed, publication as derived - possibly multiple, copyright - original and renewed) and the bulk of my books entered, I've left the topic alone. But it seems to me that two (?) exceptions to the "document what is in the publication" rule cause more problems (discussion, work, confusion, etc.) than anticipated when they were made. (The other exception being publisher). ../Doug H 08:28, 13 January 2022 (EST)
The help page text is showing one place to look for a date. It does not tell you that this is the only way to determine the date (if it was, we’d have a LOT more 0000-00-00 and YYYY-00-00 books). We allow that field to be filled in based on secondary sources - as long as that they are documented. The interpretation that the sentence means that this is the only way to determine the date ergo we need to ignore all other sources is just weird.
In addition - not keeping the day portion when it is verifiable is losing data which we can have and can be used for research and for differentiating sometimes. That had not been the practice the DB had used in years - we use complete dates for books. Reverting to “month only” makes no sense. Annie 10:41, 13 January 2022 (EST)
PS: More background for the decision above - the date change performed and being reversed by me was not in a single publication as the initial post here implies - all October 2020dates were annihilated with No note added anywhere (ebooks, audio books, audio CD, both US and UK hardcovers). Annie 10:50, 13 January 2022 (EST)
I believe there are a number of issues here:
  • Librarians and bibliographers generally record both the "stated" and the "actual" data values when known. The latter are given in brackets, e.g. "Cambridge [Cambridgeshire"] for the place of publication. We do the same for authors and titles: we capture both the "stated" value and the actual value using our "alternate name"/"variant title" mechanism. Unfortunately, the software doesn't support this type of functionality for other fields like dates, publishers, etc, so we are forced to choose between each field's "stated" and "actual"/"researched" values, at least until the software can be changed to let us record both values.
  • Template:PublicationFields:Date says:
    1. [top of the page] Dates are in the form YYYY-MM-DD, where month and day are filled in if known, otherwise they have the value 00.
    2. [second bullet] For books, to identify the publication date, try to find a statement (often on the verso of the title page) that says something like "Published in June 2001"; the copyright date is often misleading, since works can be reprinted.
    3. [last bullet] Books with a January publication date may often be bought in the closing weeks of the prior year; they will show the later year's copyright date, even though that year has not yet started. In these cases, the convention is to use the official publication date rather than to try to identify when a book actually first became available.
  • These three statements are confusing at best and contradictory at worst. The first one tells you to use "day ... if known", but the second one seems to tell you to use the month only. Then the second statement warns you not to rely on the copyright date, but the third statement tells you to use the copyright date even though it's possible for a book to say "Published in December 2020" and have a 2021 copyright date.
  • The issue of using YYYY-MM-00 publication date values taken from copyright pages over more precise YYYY-MM-DD date values from other sources was debated back in 2006-2007 when ISFDB 2.0 was launched. At the time, the majority of editors believed that exact publication dates used by Amazon and other online booksellers were unreliable and did not necessarily represent actual publication dates. This resulted in a convoluted process of capturing the exact (YYYY-MM-DD) pre-publication date from Amazon, using it to generate the "Select Forthcoming Books" list on the front page, then changing the date to a YYYY-MM-00 date printed in the book when the publication was verified.
  • To the best of my recollection, this practice was abandoned in the mid-2010s and we switched to keeping the more precise YYYY-MM-DD date when its source was properly documented in Notes, similar to the way we add and document other types of information -- like cover artist names -- from secondary sources. Unfortunately, I don't recall whether it was done as a result of a formal discussion or as a quiet acknowledgement that the transition to online sales had made full YYYY-MM-DD dates more consistent and reliable across the board.
  • To check the current practice, I have compiled a list of primary-verified publications published in January 2021. Out of 126 pubs, only 30 (14 of them are magazines) have 2021-01-00 dates. The rest have full 2021-01-DD dates.
  • Re: the 2012 Rules and Standards discussion, it ended with MartyD planning to come up with new Help language and post it for further discussion, which, as far as I can tell, never happened.
  • Internally, publishers have always used full YYYY-MM-DD publication dates. The problem was that, in the past, they were rarely made available to the general public unless the book was the kind of bestseller that people lined up to buy on the day it was released (think Harry Potter.) With the proliferation of online sources like Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Goodreads, etc, publication dates are now readily available in the vast majority of cases.
  • Based on the above, I think it's clear that we need to have a Rules and Standards discussion. At the very least, we need to clean up Template:PublicationFields:Date and eliminate internal contradictions. Ahasuerus 10:55, 13 January 2022 (EST)
Apologies for butting into a moderator discussion, but as the person who kicked off the original talk page conversation about this (not linked in the initial comment for this item), and who inadvertently poured fuel on the fire by digging out the 2012 R&S discussion (that is linked above), a comment. (Some of this looks like it's already been pre-empted by Annie & Ahasuerus whilst I was editing, but I'm too lazy to remove any duplication).
On closer reading of that 2012 R&S conversation, the very first sentence invalidates it as being relevant to the edits that kicked all this off. It states (my emphasis): "If a book has a stated publication date, e.g., "First printing: April, 2010", and it has a known-from-the-publisher actual publication that that is different, e.g., "March 30, 2010", which date should be used in the "Publication date" field?" i.e. that discussion was based on scenarios where the month-and-year in the primary source contradicts the day-month-year from secondary sources.
The edits to (the title and multiple pubs of) The Ministry for the Future, were to change the dates from 2020-10-06 (or 2020-10-08 for the UK hc) to 2020-10-00. None of those yyyy-mm-dd dates (some of which originated from multiple sources, not just Amazon) contradict the yyyy-mm information on the copyright page these edits were based on, unlike the example I quoted from the R&S discussion. To my mind, there is negative value generated by making an edit like 2020-10-06->2020-10-00; some examples of how day-of-month information might be useful are given in my first comment in the discussion page I linked above. In cases similar to that hypothetical example where the entered yyyy-mm-dd value is in contradiction to the month/year value in the primary source, then it's perfectly reasonable to use the latter, but then this should be explicitly mentioned in the pub note, surely?
(This is before we get into separate issues outside the subject of this specific wiki item, such as the edits being done without updating the pub notes to say that the data was changed based on a source other the ones already mentioned in the note, and that those original sources had a different value from what had been made in the later edit, etc.) ErsatzCulture 11:13, 13 January 2022 (EST)
My understanding of the previous discussions (2006/7 & 2012) is that the general agreement was to not use Amazon (or other vendors) dates, if there is a statement in the publication made. The help is quite clear on that, though the statement made after first bullet of the help to use month and day 'if known' can lead to puzzlement. The 2012 discussion made it clear that secondary sources may be used, but they should be dependable, in particular "that a statement in a book should overrule an Amazon date". Christian Stonecreek 12:51, 13 January 2022 (EST)
I always use the in-publication date. I also use the Amazon date if it's more precise and agrees with the in-publication date. For example, if a publication has "October 2021" as the date on the copyright page, and Amazon has "October 14, 2021", I'll use the more precise Amazon date. If the Amazon date was "September 27, 2021" instead (which happens all the time), I would use only the month and year from the publication and note the discrepancy in the publication notes. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:08, 13 January 2022 (EST)
Yep, my understanding of both the rules and our practice as well. Use the printed date if it belongs to your printing but if more details are known to complete the date, use them if they do not contradict the primary source information (and always document your sources). Annie 19:13, 13 January 2022 (EST)
I am not sure what you find puzzling in the "where month and day are filled in if known" statement or why you believe that this part of the help page somehow does not apply and can be just ignored and disregarded. The day of these publication is known - so it can be in the field as per the help page text (and our current practice supports that). The bullet point after that provides assistance on where to look for the information in a book (but does not list the only place for that information or restrict other means of finding the data - not all books have the information on this page) and the third one is a clarification on resolving contradictions. Although I do agree with Ahasuerus that we need to clean up the language on these 2 bullet points. The 2012 discussion was resolving an issue with contradictions again - when primary and secondary dates contradict themselves - and not stating that the field can never be updated based on secondary sources.
You also keep ignoring the fact that the dates of the modern books are also fully verifyable on the publisher sites, Goodreads and other online platforms these days, not only on a vendor site (if you chose to still ignore and Amazon UK as valid data sources for English language new books in their respective countries (especially when that data is fully corroborated)). Deleting information from our records because you chose not to trust the source as listed and you would rather delete the information than either try to verify it yourself or ask the editors who had worked on it to assist, is even worse than applying an obsolete rule which contradicts the current practice IMO. Annie 19:13, 13 January 2022 (EST)
It is the other way round: if a current practice is against a rule, then the practice has to change (or the rule has to be discussed: that's what we are doing now). It is not okay for one moderator to declare a rule as obsolete. I do concede though that I should have looked at the publishers' sites. Christian Stonecreek 01:58, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Please note that of the 3 moderators who have posted so far, all agree with the current interpretation of the rules, so it's not just a single moderator going against the consensus.
Having said that, the scenario that Nihonjoe mentioned above -- a book published on 2021-09-27 with an "October 2021" statement on the copyright page -- is fairly common and leaves us in an inherently difficult position. If we enter "2021-09-27" as the Date value, we very visibly contradict what's stated in the book and violate the "principle of least astonishment". If we enter "2021-10-00" and move the exact date to Notes, we lose granularity and accuracy, especially when it comes to searching and data mining. There is really no good way of solving this conundrum as long as we have only one publication field.
The most obvious solution would be to create a new field for "Stated Publication Date" with the understanding that the current "Publication Date" would be used for "Actual Publication Date" values. This change would require updating:
  • 5 edit forms -- NewPub, EditPub, AddPub, ClonePub, Import/Export -- and related post-submission pages
  • "Publication table" shared by many Web pages
  • Publication Display pages
  • Forthcoming Books pages
  • Advanced Publication Search
  • the Web API
and probably a few other Web pages, but nothing insurmountable.
It would help with the difficulty that Doug H mentioned earlier and may also serve as a prototype for other, more involved, projects which will separate what's "stated" in the pub from our "normalized" values, e.g. publisher names. Ahasuerus 10:26, 14 January 2022 (EST)
This would be a nice & appreciated solution for the conflict. Christian Stonecreek 10:45, 14 January 2022 (EST)
In case I miss the discussion of the implementation of such a solution, a few of observations.
  1. It would be nice to incorporate all changes separating "stated" from "normalized" values. It would also likely make it such a mess to discuss and implement that it wouldn't get done, so I'd 'vote' to use it as a learning experience for future changes.
  2. It would be nice to know the 'source' for exact dates, which means another field or a Notes standard.
  3. In the event of conflict, we should document both dates and the reason for picking one, either in fields or by a Note standard.
  4. Since the fields serve different purposes and seeing both on summary listings is wasting screen real estate, I'd suggest either allowing one to pick the field either on the display or in one's profile.
  5. Since it will generally be a case of one or the other, the preference would be which to show when they conflict and whether to show the value, possibly flagged, regardless.
  6. Multiplicity of values (for disagreeing sources) throws a wrench into all the above...
/Doug H 12:57, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Re: (1), i.e. adding "stated" fields for other values, there is a certain amount of history there. For example, there is an outstanding request to add support for multiple imprints and multiple publishers per publication. That gets complicated real quick. A "stated date" field would be much easier to do.
Re: (2) and (3), i.e. adding a new field for date source(s), I think a separate field would be excessive. All other values are currently sourced in the Note field and I suspect that it's as good as it's going to get.
Re: (4) and (5), i.e. letting users decide which field to display in the standard "Publication table", my concern is that it would result in different seeing very different views of the data. That can get confusing.
Ahasuerus 18:40, 14 January 2022 (EST)
On (4) and (5), show both dates in a bubble on hover over the current date field - that way one can look at them from the table and not need to go inside to see what is what. I think we nee do retain real publication date as the date field in the tables (because that's better for sorting as well) - but the stated one can go in the tooltip. Now... if we can find a way to push there the printing information as well, that would solve the final issue in finding what book you are really holding on multi-printed books (what Doug is also trying to solve I think) but that's a different pony. Or maybe not - it is related to dating. Adding one more field "Printing/edition information" won't add too much effort compared to adding one. And we don't need to define what is in it strictly - just free text so it shows up on the tooltip for the dates in the publication table and people can fill it with whatever feels relevant for that specific book. Annie 18:50, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Printing numbers are a fairly big can of worms because we want both the ability to sort by the printing number AND the ability to tell what kind of "1st", "2nd", etc printing it is. The latest (and hopefully final) iteration of the proposal is documented in FR 794, "Add 'Printing number' and "Printing # Details" fields to pub records":
  • Add 'Printing number' and "Printing # Details" fields to publication records. The first field should be strictly numeric, allowing values like "1", "3" or "27". It will be displayed as a new colum in the he standard Publication table. It will be used for sorting publications that have the same publication date and publisher within t.
  • The second field will allow arbitrary value like "stated fourth Ace printing but actually at least the 6th printing because Ace reset its printing numbers at some point". The value, if present, will be displayed in a mouse-over bubble next to the numeric Printing Number value. (See for further discussion.)
Ahasuerus 11:13, 15 January 2022 (EST)
I remember that. And that’s irrelevant to what I am saying above. I don’t want to make it absolute. I want to allow something to be visible when you are looking at the list of publications for a title without the need to open 11 0000-00-00 books to find out if we happen to have the printing I am holding. Assisting - not defining. Yes - all that stuff above is awesome to have but we never will most likely. So trying to assist editors and make the DB a bit more user friendly may not be a very bad second idea. Just saying. Anyway - let’s drop this for now and deal with the dates - or we will never get anything done. Sorry for bringing it up. Annie 12:58, 15 January 2022 (EST)

(unindent) Apologies to have dropped the ball after that 2012 discussion. What was proposed there, and what I believe was agreed to, is:

  • The publication's statement is the base date unless that statement is known/demonstrated to be for some other printing.
  • Missing date information (whole date or date details) may be supplied from other sources, which must be documented. Unreliable sources may be used if independent corroboration can be found.
  • Where secondary source information is used, the publication's statement (or lack thereof) should be recorded in the notes.
  • Disagreements between the publication's statement and other sources should be documented in the notes.

There was also a bunch of detail around the hierarchy preference for secondary sources. Unless someone thinks I should not, I can recover the ball and propose a wording change encompassing all of that. I believe current practice is usually in line with this. --MartyD 10:22, 15 January 2022 (EST)

Yep - thanks, Marty - although we also need to discuss some of these - unreliable in 2012 and unreliable in 2022 are two different things if someone has been paying attention. :) But getting a proposed language so we can work based on it is a good idea. Annie 12:58, 15 January 2022 (EST)

(Unindent)Re. Ahasuerus' grandparent comment "Add 'Printing number' and "Printing # Details" fields to publication records. The first field should be strictly numeric, allowing values like "1", "3" or "27", could this maybe be slightly relaxed for formats such as ebook? A few ebooks list a version number on their copyright page, which isn't (usually?) an integer, but probably is sortable, and so it would be nice to be able to store this in the printing "number" field rather than the free-text details field. This could be useful in cases where an cover image has been updated, but the ISBN has stayed the same. (Although I do have the sneaking suspicion that covers may well get updated without the version number being incremented, which would make this observation/request a bit moot.)

A couple of examples: decimal format, date format. FWIW I've just downloaded the latter on a different device, and it does indeed have a later/higher version value to go with the different cover image.

I don't know if other version formats are in use, and I appreciate there's probably not a (MySQL or Python) data type that covers integers and decimals and dates, so please take this as more of a comment than a formal request for any hypothetical implementation. ErsatzCulture 11:57, 15 January 2022 (EST)

I have seen ebooks with odd-looking printing designations like "1.2" and even "A". In addition, print-on-demand books occasionally use printing designations which incorporate dates, but can also include other characters. My current thinking is that they are not really "printing numbers" as we understand them, but the industry is changing and perhaps the concept will evolve in the coming years. Until the dust settles, I would be hesitant to add the kind of extra software complexity that would be needed to handle these designation in the same field. Ahasuerus 18:19, 16 January 2022 (EST)

To close the loop on the help text, and to further my attempt to set a cross-posting record: The official Template:PublicationFields:Date has been updated with the proposed text. I hope it will be helpful. --MartyD 12:43, 12 February 2022 (EST)

Notes to moderators

I was wondering what "a" means in the case of the following self-approved edits [2], [3], [4] and [5]. As all those publications are PVed by multiple contributors, "a" seems to me quite a bit too light a justification. As I can't easily dig one book between a few tens of thousands to check what and why have been done, I suppose that I'll have to unverify those titles and I resent this. AlainLeBris 05:50, 14 January 2022 (EST)

When editing a primary-verified publication, editors are forced to enter at least one letter in the "Note to Moderator" field. My best guess is that Kraang thought that the edits were obvious and self-explanatory, so they didn't require an explanation. Let me ask him to stop by. Ahasuerus 10:32, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Title and Transliterated title were reversed on two pubs in another "et" was spelled "at" and the last "Bonhomet" was spelled with two mm's. Found these in the cleanup report. Obvious minor input errors with a simple fix. Do seem to rub a lot of people the wrong way since I returnedClear Queue.Kraang 11:39, 14 January 2022 (EST)
Once approved, the "old" value is not visible anymore - which makes these a lot less obvious when one checks them. Sometimes looking via some of the old edits can help find what changed but it is easier if the note assists. So even if it looks obvious, "values swapped", "et -> at" or something like which describes the change and helps anyone finding this later understand what happened and why is a better idea than just bypassing the mandatory moderator note software check with a random symbol. :) Annie 11:57, 14 January 2022 (EST)

Different statuses for the two collections of authors

In the light of the fact that the two allowed melting pots assemble many authors of diverse languages: shouldn't 'uncredited' (here an example) and 'unknown' have the same status, i. e. have no language attached? Stonecreek 06:34, 15 January 2022 (EST)

I don't think it is possible to edit an author to remove the language. Author records start out with no language when first added from a publication, but any edit to the author record adds one. "null" is not an option in the language pull down list. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:26, 15 January 2022 (EST)
Yeah, but I seem to remember that 'uncredited' once was the same way (or was it established when we had no language assignment around, but 'unknown' should have been around then also).
Also, 'uncredited' is virtually uneditable, 'unknown' maybe should have the same status. Stonecreek 08:23, 15 January 2022 (EST)
The difference between uncredited and unknown is not language. It is that uncredited has so many records the software prohibits viewing the author record. In the database, uncredited has a language of English, you just can't see that in the display. The software could probably be relatively easily changed to not display the language field on the unknown author record. By the way, you really should be putting topics like this on the Community Portal. Moderators opinions are not the only ones that count when talking rules / standards / how the software works. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2022 (EST)
I have copied this discussion to the Community Portal and will respond there. Ahasuerus 13:36, 15 January 2022 (EST)

Draft date help rewording available

Hi mods. Please see User:MartyD/ProposedDateHelp for the first draft of proposed date help rewording. I'm afraid it's a little TLDR, so any pruning help very much appreciated. I'll incorporate any comments received in the next few days and then publish on R&S and Community Portal. Thanks. --MartyD 11:38, 18 January 2022 (EST)

Affected Record

Somebody just made an edit for a Robert Hale book I made edits for months ago,, and I thought it was odd that the original 2013 edit has that info under Affected Record instead of the book title. Don't know if that needs fixing by anyone. --Username 20:24, 20 January 2022 (EST)

YBHS Story Dates; I fixed a ton of dates for the Year's Best Horror Stories series a while ago, and today I started on the remaining volumes. Is the procedure for the Sallee story linked above to change the retitling to the date of the YBHS reprinting or make it the same date as the original? I already fixed the date of original title to the anthology it appeared in. Sallee explains why he retitled it either in YBHS or the later collection it appeared in, but online sites that have that text seem to all be spyware sites I don't want to enter. --Username 13:46, 21 January 2022 (EST)

Unverifying publications

Just a FYI, as Stonecreek, using his/her moderator attributes has decided to change the author credits on some of my PVed publications regardless of my opposition to this move, I'm unverifying all the Perry Rhodan that I've entered and will not enter any more from now on. For all questions about this publications, now just ask him/her or any PV left.AlainLeBris 13:32, 22 January 2022 (EST)

I am trying to understand the scope and the nature of the issue here. Checking Wiki history, I see the following discussion starting on 2022-01-16:
One (or two) additions are worth mentioning, I think: I asked Alain to bring his view of adding '(in error)' up somewhere - at best in the thread on the Community Portal - and I only changed the publication to align the credit with the title (and add two links). Stonecreek 06:34, 23 January 2022 (EST)
I am not sure if this covers everything, so I am going to ask the listed editors to comment. Ahasuerus 16:07, 22 January 2022 (EST)
Yes, that about sums it up, Ahasuerus. I asked about needed changes to have the French credits for a 'Clark Darlton' that has in most cases nothing to do with the real Clark Darlton. The author seems to be credited in each and every volume published in French because of merits as founder of the series (and mostly erroneously so).
I had taken action after two positive responses by moderators on the community portal. I have also changed the credit for 'Clark Darlton', added missing content and some notes for this, which also was primary verified by Alain (it seems that in each and every volume of the French series of translations as edited by Jean-Michel Archaimbault there's content missing).
I can see no reason for you, Alain, to unverify the publications. In fact, I would appreciate your help to have the data right. Christian Stonecreek 00:17, 23 January 2022 (EST)
I totally agree with Christian here. Changing erroneous credits does go along with the common practice and rules on ISFDB, which trump any individual practice or rule. This does not affect the data in any way, since the system automatically produces the “as by …” credit as well as the authentic one. I see no reason why Alain should unverify any pub of this series. Linguist 04:29, 23 January 2022 (EST).
I can't find any other discussions on the subject. Since I don't own any of the French Perry Rhodan's, I can't say much about crediting authors. "Clark Darlton (in error)" looks logical on titles he didn't write. What Christian calls phase 2 are the 2005 and later titles in this sub-series. Since these are (according to the pub notes) translations of German originals (see here for an example), they should be varianted to the German original, not to a fictional French original. --Willem 04:53, 23 January 2022 (EST)

(unindent) Thanks for chiming in! It sounds like we have general consensus re: what we want these records to look like. What I am pondering is what kind of process we want to put in place for handling similar types of situations going forward.

The "self-approver" system was implemented relatively recently, in April 2021. At this time we have only one self-approver, but it's likely that we will be have more editors with self-approver privileges in the future. Inevitably, there will be cases when an editor with self-approver privileges disagrees with an editor without them, sometimes re: primary-verified publications. Normally, it's up to the reviewing moderator(s) to decide what to do and then to communicate the decision to the primary verifier(s), but what should the etiquette be when self-approvers are involved? The only thing that Help says about self-approvers at this time is (in Help:Screen:BureaucratMenu):

  • Manage Self-Approvers. Lets a bureaucrat enter the name of an ISFDB editor and select whether the editor is a self-approver, i.e. able to approve his or her own submissions. Also lists all current self-approvers.

In this particular case the self-approver reached informal consensus with 2 moderators before making changes, but the primary verifier wasn't notified about the decision by a moderator. I think we need to spell out what self-approvers are expected to do when there is a disagreement with a primary verifier, something like:

  • Let a moderator communicate the decision to the primary verifier before making changes

If nothing else, the list of Moderator Qualifications includes good communication skills, which self-approvers are not expected to possess to the same extent.

Thoughts? Ahasuerus 18:46, 24 January 2022 (EST)

I would argue a self-approving moderator should adhere to the exact same rules and requirements as a full moderator. After all, a self-approving moderator has virtually the same level of power to edit the contents of the database, so have to adhere to the same standards as a moderator regarding data accuracy and rules adherence, and being able to communicate clearly with other moderators and editors plays an important part in that (not to speak of being collaborative, open-minded, consensus-seeker (i.e. not being a cavalier seul),... which are also important skills for any moderator to possess). The only thing a self-approving moderator cannot do, is approve or reject someone else's submissions - which can be extended to something in the sense of "don't edit/alter someone else's edits without express permission, or seek approval from moderators". Which is roughly identical to what you are proposing above :) Regards, MagicUnk 06:43, 25 January 2022 (EST)
Keep in mind that there are a number of other things that moderators can do that self-approvers are unable to do: "ignore" records in cleanup reports, merge authors/publishers, remove secondary verifications, remove tags, etc. For this reason I would call self-approvers "self-approving editors" as opposed to "self-approving moderators". Ahasuerus 13:40, 25 January 2022 (EST)
True, but the important element here is the ability to self-approve, hence change any date you like, however you like - so, at least in that respect, we want to hold the self-approving moderators (or editors, if you will) to the same high standards as full moderators have to adhere to. Regards, MagicUnk 09:03, 27 January 2022 (EST)
What it boils down to is that there is no "self-approving moderators" (because approving is part of what a moderator is) - "self-approver" is not a restricted version of a moderator who just cannot approve the submissions of others; it is really an elevated version of an editor, allowing that editor to approve their own work but not giving access to the rest of the moderators' tools or have any expectations in sharing the moderators' responsibilities.
I like the language proposed above. Annie 14:32, 25 January 2022 (EST)
I agree. I also just wanted to comment that it looks to me like everyone involved tried to do the "right" thing, and I think it's unfortunate that bad feelings resulted. It's good to figure out what might be done differently to avoid that the next time. --MartyD 15:39, 25 January 2022 (EST)
I think that at least a part of it was pure communication breakdown - the usage of (in error) was never explained in regards of how its usage helps our DB (the removal of the books from the incorrect author bibliography, the ability to see them where they belong, the ability to connect them to their originals an so on - and yes, it is partially because of how the DB is designed and it does require some weird displays sometimes - but they need to be explained when needed, not just brushed over and considered normal because people know them). Instead there was an explanation on why the credit is in error technically -- but not why it is important for the DB for this to be differentiated somehow. Add to that the change to the data happened after only two days of waiting time (despite our FAQ advising to wait for a week) and I can see where part of the frustration came from. I agree that everyone tried to do the right thing but it feels a bit heavy-handed and rushed.
In addition, there is a bit of a semantics (and/or language) issue that had been bugging me for awhile in the (in error) authors and it also played a role here I think - we use (in error) for two separate things:
  • Real errors (printing mistakes, mis-attributed covers and so on)
  • Conscious decisions by a publisher/editor to use someone else's name - as a house name in this case, as a way to sell more copies for a book "based on" the work of someone (usually in translation and in interesting times - aka Eastern Europe in the 90s for example) and so on.
The latter is not really in anyone's error and I can see why an editor would not want to have that showing up on a book - it is not factually correct. Add to that the fact that (in error) is not really codified in the help page and the usage can be... misinterpreted. I am not sure what we can use? (house name)? (editor choice)? (incorrect attribution)? None of those rings quite right but I hope they illustrated what I mean. Annie 18:46, 25 January 2022 (EST)
I am thinking that this is similar to the issues presented by other ghostwritten works. For example, Virginia Andrews wrote fewer than 10 books before she died in 1986, but Andrew Neiderman has published dozens of books as "Virginia Andrews" and/or as "V. C. Andrews" since her death.
At one point we created FR 346, "Add support for ghostwriters", to address this problem at the software level. Unfortunately, it's been 9 years and I still can't think of a good way to handle it. Ahasuerus 10:09, 26 January 2022 (EST)

Author William Walling has died

Author Reference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raygo4th (talkcontribs) .

Updated, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:23, 23 January 2022 (EST)
I took a look at his page and many of the novels and stories are out of order re: dates. Is that wrong? --Username 08:56, 15 February 2022 (EST)
The link above is to his "Alphabetical Bibliography" page. The Summary Bibliography page displays titles chronologically. Ahasuerus 10:57, 15 February 2022 (EST)
I see; 1 positive is when I looked at his record again I thought the obit notice might be "Ana" instead of "Anna" but turns out it's actually "Barbara" so I fixed that. --Username 11:27, 15 February 2022 (EST)

German Dollars?

Mods added info link after prices recently; this page,, has it after DM prices but not after whatever those dollar sign looking prices are. Mentioning in case that needs fixing. --Username 23:10, 26 January 2022 (EST)

Could you please link the Web page that you are referring to? Ahasuerus 23:28, 26 January 2022 (EST)
Hi! That's no Dollar sign ('$'), it's just an 'S' (for Austrian Schillings). I know it looks somewhat puzzling, but the publisher is situated in Austria and sells his publications there and in Germany (like most publishers located in Germany do), the sources for the data unfortunately list prices differently). Christian Stonecreek 01:59, 27 January 2022 (EST)
A note in each of the publications explaining the currency is probably a good idea - saying that it is Austrian shillings. Or on the series level - explaining the shifting currency of the series. Or both really. It is a somewhat uncommon currency around the DB after all and not everyone will make the connection to Austria. :)Annie 02:04, 27 January 2022 (EST)
We don't use "S" for any other currencies; we don't even use lowercase "s" for UK shillings. Why don't we add "S" as our official "Austrian Schillings" abbreviation to Help:List of currency symbols? We could then update the software to display mouseover help for "S" currency values. Ahasuerus 12:58, 27 January 2022 (EST)
But what about Singapore dollars? See here: --Username 13:06, 27 January 2022 (EST)
There's nothing using S$ yet. That would help differentiate between $, C$, A$, and so on. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:16, 27 January 2022 (EST)
Help:List of currency symbols already lists "S$" as "Singapore dollars" -- see the "$" row -- although I am yet to update the mouse-over help to accommodate it and a number of other dollar-based currency signs.
"S" followed by a space would be a different currency abbreviation. Alternatively, we could use "öS" ("Österreich Schilling"), which was another officially used "Austrian Schilling" symbol. Ahasuerus 13:53, 27 January 2022 (EST)
Ah, I missed it since I was looking for it in the leftmost column (like A$ and C$). Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:05, 27 January 2022 (EST)
Adding S for the Austrian shillings sounds like a good idea indeed. Annie 10:09, 28 January 2022 (EST)
It is! I do expect some more publications to pop up with (only) this currency. After all there are / were some smaller publishers that seem to have restricted themselves to their home country (not to mention the vital fanzine scene of Austria). I remember that the currency in the old times was called 'Alpine Dollars' tongue-in-cheek, maybe because the 'S' symbol was in fact thought to be a Dollar sign. Christian Stonecreek 10:37, 28 January 2022 (EST)
That's what I was thinking as well - we don't really have an Austrian editor so we had not had anyone adding the Austrian books and fanzines - so they had only popped up occasionally from the German side now and again. But Austria is not Germany so there are books out there with the Shilling as the leading currency (even if most probably also have a DM price). Annie 10:42, 28 January 2022 (EST)
The software has been updated to support Austrian schillings, Singapore dollars and a number of other recognized currencies -- see the Community Portal announcement for details. Ahasuerus 17:24, 29 January 2022 (EST)

Self approval status -- process

I would support all of the nominees above (and MLB and Ofearna too), but have a few questions. Is this a moderator only process, or should nominations be on the community portal like moderator nominations, and don't we need something like Moderator Qualifications for self approvers? --Willem 04:11, 27 January 2022 (EST)

That's a very good question. We presumably need to create a "Self-Approver Qualifications and Process" page. I also agree that related discussions should take place on the Community Portal to give non-moderators a chance to raise any issues that they may be aware of. Ahasuerus 13:55, 27 January 2022 (EST)
While the discussion for the process should in CP (better late than never I guess), I am not sure if the nominations should be. Self-approvers get only one new ability - they can self-approve. The only people that have any idea how "clean" their submissions are (do they need follow-ups by someone else, do they complete long chains of edits, do the editor often forget to fix things thus requiring a cleanup, do they communicate properly with PVs, do they follow the entry standards and so on), are the moderators who handle their submissions. Annie 14:18, 27 January 2022 (EST)
The same can be said for the moderator flag in the past though. Those are the same criteria on which the bulk of the moderator decision was made. As can be seen by the unverifying discussion further up the page, self-approvers can cause as much drama as moderators. The community should also have the opportunity to weigh in on self-approvers. It is possible a non-moderator could have had interactions with an editor that might have bearing on the editor's fitness to be even be a self-approver. While one would hope that would have been seen by a moderator, even moderators go absent for periods. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2022 (EST)
There is that. I was thinking more about the fact that moderators are expected to actually deal with other editors directly in a different ways when working on their submissions (or submissions changing data they had PVd) unlike self-approvers whose direct interactions do not change by the status technically. But it is somewhat of a false separation I suspect although an editor and an asleep moderator can cause exactly the same type of drama anyway. :) Most editors are not too shy to post here either - but either way works. Annie 15:00, 27 January 2022 (EST)
OK, I have moved the three sections dealing with the recent applications for self-approver status to the Community Portal. Ahasuerus 17:13, 27 January 2022 (EST)
I thought this page might make for interesting reading. ../Doug H 10:35, 24 February 2022 (EST)

Serials without Standard Parenthetical Disambiguators January 28

The following titles comply with standards and may be safely removed

  • Equinox Mirror - 14 titles
  • Floozman in Space - 38 titles
  • Legacy of the Fallen Stars - 5 titles
  • Living Standards - 13 titles
  • Oikos Nannion - 27 titles
  • Space Girl Blues - 21 titles
  • The Chronicle of Belthaeous - 59 titles
  • The Perils of Dr. Laura Whitfield - 4 titles
  • Two Blind Men and a Fool - 54 titles
  • Winter Ship - 21 titles

Thanks in advance, John Scifibones 16:12, 28 January 2022 (EST)

Done. Can you look at the first two entries here. Are they really "Party" and not just "Part"? Annie 16:27, 28 January 2022 (EST)
Clearly not, fixed John Scifibones!

Stalker : pique-nique au bord du chemin

The problem that I adressed to one of the verifiers here more than a week ago still remains: the credit goes to Arcadi Strougatski, whereas the cover, OCLC and Amazon have Arkadi Strougatski. Moreover, judging from the notes regarding the copyright for the translations of essays assigned for the year 2013 and the page count as stated in my verified publication, it seems that there's also missing some interesting content. Likely both primary verifiers just clicked to pv the publication that was added previously.

(And also the price seems to be erroneously entered: it's the one listed at Amazon, but as far as I understand the French policy, the price is in fact variable and is only given by a price category, mostly on the back of a book). Stonecreek 10:06, 29 January 2022 (EST)

Hello Christian. I can only be sure about the pub I have verified, which is indeed credited to Arcadi and Boris Strougatski. This being said, when Gallimard / Folio SF took over part of Denoël / Présence du Futur's stock, they reprinted some of that stock, but sometimes revised (and improved) the credits, which is obviously the case here. My feeling is that this pub was initially added from this original title, but not correctly updated, as can be seen from later reprints. Then came C1, who never updated previous data when he was PV1, and PV2 followed suit. So despite those two PVs, I think the pub can be safely regarded as unverified, and the credit should go to Arkadi. But to be on the safe side, I happen to know the second translator / reviser of the Folio SF edition, Viktoriya Lajoye (she is the wife of a former student of mine, the latter being a fellow member of miscellaneous regional organisms and societies; you can see it's the same photo, split asunder by myself). So I'll drop her a line, and see what she has to say about the matter. Concerning the price, it is possible for a French book to be priced in francs (or euros) at a certain time, then given a price category. I'll also ask her about that, as she probably owns the first Folio edition she revised. This might take some time, though… :o) Linguist 12:29, 2 February 2022 (EST).
Thanks, Dominique! That sounds like the perfect solution. Do you mind asking her about the possible additional content, too (the essays by Le Guin & Boris Strougatsky)? Christian Stonecreek 05:58, 3 February 2022 (EST)
I have already :o) ! Linguist 06:33, 3 February 2022 (EST).

The Doom Brigade

Hi, I have a question. I found some, what I thought was interesting information about the cover art for the 1996 edition of The Doom Brigade.(Publication Record # 38560) The cover artists are listed as Larry Elmore and Tony Szczudlo. The information I found was that in the Original painting by Elmore, the figures were in a winter scene. Since it took place in the Summer, the figures were imposed in a new summer scene by Tony Szczudlo, explaining the two artist. My submission was rejected by Kraang with the reason "Note added to cover artists title". I'm not sure I understand. The note I want to add only pertains to this record, not the general title. The other versions in the general title have covers by Keith Parkinson. aardvark7 16:13, 30 January 2022 (EST)

See the the cover title record where Krang added the info. He was saying that this belonged on the cover title record and not in the pub notes. That cover title record is specific to that version of the cover art. I agree that is the best place (instead of the pub notes) as it is info about the cover. I would suggest updating the note to link to the original artwork's title record as which one is the original is not clear currently. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (EST)
OK I didn't realize there was another layer deep. I don't know if I can find the link again but will check. I do have a copies of the original cover art and of the final art. They are wrap-around styles. Any interest in those?? and if so which record would they be uploaded to? aardvark7 10:59, 31 January 2022 (EST)

Waiting for primary verifier

I would like to make some changes to the print version of Galaxy's Edge, July 2020 which will also affect the ebook edition. I posted a message on the ebook PV's talk page eight days ago but have not received a response. First, is it necessary to check with the verifier of the ebook if I am updating the print edition (not verified)? Seven items in the ebook will be changed by my changing them for the print edition. And are these types of changes considered major or minor (4 titles need to be merged, 1 author needs to be merged, and 2 titles need to be changed)? Daffodil11 19:44, 30 January 2022 (EST)

Merging identical titles which were missed when the magazines were added (or connecting unconnected reviews) is just housekeeping - no notification needed. The two changes of titles would usually require a notification and would be considered non-minor but as they are done to actually bring the magazine to compliance (aka the change is because of conventions and not because of what the magazines say), they are minor - they should have been changed when the the magazine titles were changed but someone missed them. I'd still notify the PVs on these - but they need changing :) Go ahead and make the updates. Annie 12:34, 31 January 2022 (EST)
I've done most of these, but there are two that present additional problems: Under Merging Authors Help it states that "...the ability to preform Author Merges is only available to ISFDB moderators..." and I am supposed to post a request here to merge author ZZ Claybourne with author Z. Z. Claybourne. Daffodil11 12:55, 1 February 2022 (EST)
You can fix that by editing the title as well -- no need to merge the authors if there is only one title and no details in the author page - you can just fix the author here and you are all set. We can merge the authors if you prefer here but heads up for the second possible option. :) Annie 16:32, 1 February 2022 (EST)
The other problem is a note that the ebook verifier placed in the ebook edition notes field, "'The Dictator and the Butterfly' is mispelled "The Dictator and teh Butterfly" on the story's first page." My understanding of the related Help section is that the title should have been entered with the typo and made into a variant? If that is so, then I should not merge the titles. The title should be edited to reflect the typo instead. And at this point, does this change go from minor to a major change requiring a check with the ebook verifier? I would also have to somehow separate the ebook and tp edition listings for this title because there is no typo in the printed edition of the magazine (I have not looked up or thought this last part out yet). Daffodil11 12:55, 1 February 2022 (EST)
If there is no typo in the print version, and there -is- a typo in the ebook version, then these two titles are to be entered as in the book, and varianted to each other. Also, confirmation is required from the PV of the ebook in this case. Pete is regularly checking, but some patience required :) Regards, MagicUnk 13:56, 1 February 2022 (EST)

A Question

I was approached by a moderator about be promoted to that of being a self-approving editor. I was also informed to come to this page and float the idea. So, after sleeping on it, I thought I would ask. All you can do is say no. MLB 01:11, 1 February 2022 (EST)

The process changed a little bit in the last couple of days so post here with title "Self-approver status: MLB" or something along these lines and it will kick off the process of the agree/disgree posts. Or I can kick start the thread. Let me know :) Annie 16:27, 1 February 2022 (EST)
I might be taken more seriously if you did. Tired of my...ah...eccentric submissions? MLB 06:55, 2 February 2022 (EST)
Shaking head - not really but here you go. I will actually miss working on your submissions - but the whole point of me being always after you to improve things and so on was exactly this :) Annie 12:45, 2 February 2022 (EST)

Duplicate publication record

We have two Primary Verified records for the same publication. Potter's Field 7: Tales from Unmarked Graves created 2022-01-31 10:58:40 and Potters Field 7 created later that day, 2022-01-31 23:23:30. I don't see another format which one of these can be converted to. Since both are PV'd, a moderator needs to handle this. John Scifibones 21:52, 4 February 2022 (EST)

You could try and ask user talk:morganmike or user talk:Elizabeth Hardy to switch their verification. Regards, MagicUnk 07:37, 6 February 2022 (EST)
I'll take care of it. John Scifibones 10:44, 6 February 2022 (EST)
MagicUnk. You asked me to take care of this and I agreed. I have posted questions on each of the editors talk pages as you suggested Elizabeth Hardy and Morganmike. So far, Morganmike has confirmed the title "per the title page as 'Potters Field 7" (no apostrophe). You subsequently posted the folowing on Elizabeth Hardy's talk page, "Potter's Field - check the back cover on Amazon :)". Why? The back cover 'Potter's' and front cover 'Potters' are irrelevant. Here is the text from the help page "Books. For a book, use the title page to get the title. This is typically the page with the copyright information on the back. Don't use the title on the cover, spine, or page running heads".
While waiting for one of the PV's to be transferred, I started merging the duplicate content titles. I discovered two with minor differences. I have asked Morganmike to clarify. I'll merge those after he answers. I am planning on making 'Potter Field' the Series and "Potters Field 7" the merged title. Both pubs will be made identical. As soon as either of the PV's is moved, I will delete the other pub after removing the contents. Let me know of any objections, modifications or if you agree.
I saw your question regarding publishers on the help page. Hiraeth is the successor to Alban Lake. (Spring 2020). How they differ, I can't say. This should have never happened, the second moderator should have rejected the submission and directed the editor to edit and PV the existing publication. John Scifibones 19:14, 8 February 2022 (EST)
If it's Potters field on the title page, then yes, that should be the title (and with a note clarifying the difference with what's written on the back). As to the transfer of PV - I guess if Morganmike is more responsive, he could move his PV to Elizabeth Hardy's record, and then update any discrepancies he notices. Regards, MagicUnk 08:08, 9 February 2022 (EST)
After I finish making the necessary changes, would you mind looking it over and recommending improvements? Thanks, John Scifibones 08:27, 9 February 2022 (EST)

Terry Bisson / Planet of Mystery

Whilst editing and PVing Planet of Mystery I noticed that it has been SVd to Locus1. This is incorrect. The same applies to this version. The SV (Bluesman) is inactive. Could a moderator please amend the Locus1 SVs to "N/A". Thank you. Teallach 13:09, 6 February 2022 (EST)

The CD ROM version of the index covers through 2008, so it is possible these verifications are accurate. I'll try asking on the ISFDB:Verification_requests page and see if anyone has access to that and can confirm or deny. --MartyD 13:48, 7 February 2022 (EST)
Thanks. Subsequent to writing my original note, I have discovered that it is ISFDb policy to allow for the possible future expansion of online reference sources. Therefore, assuming these two Planet of Mystery chapbooks do not show up on the Locus CD-ROM in 2008, it may be more suitable to change the Locus1 SV attributes to "Not Verified" instead of "N/A". Teallach 16:38, 7 February 2022 (EST)

W.C. Morrow Image; FantLab has 2 images of Morrow, the 1 that was on ISFDB which was uploaded from Commons and the 1 I just replaced it with, which is an actual photo and not a drawing. I don't know if mods now have to remove all that legalese stuff about public domain and all that or if it goes away automatically. --Username 10:50, 7 February 2022 (EST)

It still needs a license template. As he died in 1923, the photo would be in the public domain so the template still applies. However, you should have changed the description to match what you uploaded. If you change the umage, it is your responsibility to update the description / license as applicable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2022 (EST)

Out of Order; I just made that edit, didn't see it on my list, it's down near the bottom instead of the top, that's unusual, might be something mods need to know about. --Username 19:36, 8 February 2022 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think I know what's going on. It's a rarely encountered sorting issue and shouldn't affect anything else. I should be able to fix the software tomorrow. Ahasuerus 22:41, 8 February 2022 (EST)
Fixed. Ahasuerus 12:11, 9 February 2022 (EST)

Trumps; I did many edits for Dennis Wheatley's Sphere series of occult works by other authors today, and Greater Trumps was the only 1 that didn't have a cover (I added info on prices the last time I worked on these Sphere books a long time ago but didn't upload the cover back then for some reason). Oddly, no ISFDB-friendly site seems to have an image, so I uploaded it from some odd Wheatley site that kept opening new windows every time I clicked on a link. The image is a little small but very sharp and clean; however, I got a message that the Wiki already had a cover, and as you can see another editor uploaded something and then reverted it (twice). So if anyone cares they may want to clean that up. --Username 22:04, 12 February 2022 (EST)

Ruddickn; I fixed/added stuff for a book PV'd by this editor, who hasn't done anything since 2017, so 1 of those "no longer active" notes may be in order. --Username 08:50, 15 February 2022 (EST)


I saw a book with price as "none"; there are 47 such books on ISFDB. Is that a legit price entry? --Username 08:15, 16 February 2022 (EST)

I think free publications are usually entered with a "$0", "£0", etc price, e.g. see these Advanced Publication Search results and this 2011 discussion. I don't recall it being documented in Help, though. Ahasuerus 12:58, 16 February 2022 (EST)
[6]; I don't think most of these are free; many were entered by the same few editors a long time ago who apparently thought that was the way you entered the price if you couldn't find it in the book. --Username 13:11, 16 February 2022 (EST)
If it's not free, then price field should be left blank. Feel free to submit updates & remove the 'None'. Cheers MagicUnk 13:37, 16 February 2022 (EST)
Yup. I noticed only one eligible "$0" price on the linked list: ConFiction: The 48th World Science Fiction Convention, which says "No printed price; free to convention attendees". Ahasuerus 13:39, 16 February 2022 (EST)
Re: the sarcastic message above, obviously I'm not going to do 40+ edits for something so inconsequential; the reason I entered this on the moderator board is because I was thinking maybe there was a batch fix or something similar which only mods are able to do which could change all "none" prices to whatever they're supposed to be, like the way only mods can change a publisher's name for all books by that publisher. If there isn't such a fix then the hell with it; let the mods, many of whom are still around, fix the prices one by one that they never should have approved in the first place. Cheers --Username 18:23, 16 February 2022 (EST)

Amazon image link?

I can't copy an image link from a book with the look inside anymore but still can from one without that link. Has anyone else had this happen. Just started tonight.Kraang 22:05, 17 February 2022 (EST)

Unless you specify browser and OS, it will be very hard to even start helping :) Did you just update a browser or something? Firefox's previous update on Windows had some issues with my usual way (which is to drag the picture to the address bar - it flatly refused) - but the latest update fixed it. Annie 22:09, 17 February 2022 (EST)
Using Windows 10 Edge browser and had there usual systems update today. I'll log back in using Chrome and see what happens.Kraang 22:39, 17 February 2022 (EST)
I'm fine using Chrome must have been the update that screwed something up. Thanks never thought of the browser as the problem.Kraang 22:46, 17 February 2022 (EST)
Always my first suspect when something like that happens. With Edge, try to reboot - the thing is so tied with Windows that sometimes it gets a bit... wonky after updates (which is why I tend not to use it) :) Annie 22:51, 17 February 2022 (EST)

2 Vikings,; Was doing some edits for non-genre Andre Norton books and these 2 Viking publishers are probably the same, so mods may want to merge and combine notes. --Username 19:31, 18 February 2022 (EST)

OCLC has Island of the Lost as Viking Press, and not Viking Books. Comment says 'Viking Books ...not to be confused with Viking Press', so might be another error(?) Probably best to keep them separate and update Viking Books to Viking Press, and update the comment accordingly... MagicUnk 06:20, 22 February 2022 (EST)

Career Moves of the Gods (cover)

Need a moderator to delete the initial image for here. I subsequently loaded the correct size image. Thanks, John Scifibones 16:31, 21 February 2022 (EST)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2022 (EST)

Space Relations Covers; Philfreund just asked 2 people about changing the subtitle for this book, but my 2 edits have been waiting since Feb. 4. It seems someone entered the Millington edition using the Charterhouse cover while the Charterhouse edition had the Millington cover. I uploaded the right Millington cover and an improved 1 because the 1 here and elsewhere online, like Wikipedia, is the same awfully photographed one, so I found 1 that actually looks like the real cover; the Charterhouse cover here was a bad sideways photo so I found 1 on Amazon that was straight. --Username 08:53, 22 February 2022 (EST)

Someone did as I asked; thank you. --Username 12:33, 27 February 2022 (EST)

Author merge (or split?) request

Greetings. This is a rather complicated request, hence me resorting to the moderator noticeboard. Lee Lightner (Author Record #40411) is the pen name of two authors working in tandem:

  • Harry Heckel (Author Record #219629)
  • Jeff Smith


This should be sorted somehow since some of the earlier works attributed to Harry Heckel and Jeff Smith (in tandem) have been republished under the author name "Lee Lightner".

For example, the short story "Engage the Enemy" (Title Record #1653415), published in Inferno magazine #45, is the same as the short story "Engage the Enemy" (Title Record #2737379) published in the omnibus Sagas of the Space Wolves. These titles should also be merged, or at least linked together somehow.

Addendum: "Engage the Enemy" (Title Record #1653415) is attributed to Jeff Smith (Author Record #28215); the author of the Bone comics; this is a different person.

Best regards, --Ir'revrykal 07:29, 25 February 2022 (EST)

Engage the Enemy now has a different Jeff Smith as an author. And I connected the joint pseudonym. Let me know if all looks correct now. Annie 12:48, 25 February 2022 (EST)
That looks good. Thank you. --Ir'revrykal 12:57, 25 February 2022 (EST)
Anytime. If you would like more information about what I did (and why), let me know :) Annie 13:01, 25 February 2022 (EST)
I took a look at the "Recent Edits" log and got the general gist, but it would definitely be instructive to hear exactly what you did—that way I might be able to do something similar without moderator assistance in the future. :) --Ir'revrykal 13:32, 25 February 2022 (EST)
So - we had a couple of interlocking issues on top of each other here:
  • Two Jeff Smiths (probably more than 2 looking at his page but at least two). For that, I edited the title record of the story and added (I) in the name of the author. This is how we differentiate same named authors. Once that was done, edit the author to add a language and any other details you know about that author.
  • The joint pseudonym: Make the pseudonym an alternate name for BOTH its authors. The menu for that is on the left side of the page when you are in the author who is to become a pseudonym/alternate name. You follow the same process for single author pseudonyms and author forms as well - you just connect them to only one other author. If you see anyone discussing canonical form of an author name, that is the one where all pseudonyms are connected to -- and where all the works by them will show up - regardless of what name they published under. That last happens manually, as explained in the next section.
  • Now that we have a pseudonym, all of their works need to show up on the actual author(s) pages - alternate names cannot carry titles. For the one that was published before (the story) under the 2 names, I just connected the reprint as a variant (after fixing the type of the reprint). Menu is on the left (Make Variant) when you are in the reprint title page. For the ones we did not have an older record for, we make an empty parent - same page where you connect existing ones, just use Option 2 to create a new title instead, only changing the author names to tell it where to go. That is required any time we have an alternate name/pseudonym. :)
Let me know if something does not make sense. :) Annie 13:43, 25 February 2022 (EST)
Thank you, that is clear and very much appreciated. --Ir'revrykal 14:18, 25 February 2022 (EST)

Author Image Problem; I added a book cover from to Mitchison's author image which included a big photo of her face; just approved but was broken, so I subbed a rare one that's sideways on Amazon but OK on Open Library; when I entered edit the previous image is just fine. Why it's broken in the record but OK in the edit is a question maybe someone can answer. --Username 19:53, 1 March 2022 (EST)

Let me take a look... Ahasuerus 00:27, 2 March 2022 (EST)
I see what's going on. This is the first SFE-hosted author image -- as opposed to a SFE-hosted cover scan -- that we link to and the software isn't set up to handle it. I plan to update it later today. Ahasuerus 12:10, 2 March 2022 (EST)
Fixed. Thanks for identifying the problem. Ahasuerus 15:47, 2 March 2022 (EST)
OK. There are many Amazon images of that same cover, so why I decided to add it from SF Encyclopedia is unknown. However, in doing so I accidentally uncovered a flaw in the software that's now fixed. Hooray for stupidity! --Username 19:27, 2 March 2022 (EST)

Image Deletion

The wrong size image was initially uploaded here. Please delete, correct image is in place. Thanks John Scifibones 19:24, 8 March 2022 (EST)

Done Annie 19:43, 8 March 2022 (EST)

Image Deletion

Please delete the old image here. Thanks Henna 11:03, 9 March 2022 (EST)

Done Annie 13:44, 9 March 2022 (EST)

Steve Duffy corrections

(I am a disaster at entering, so I will ask a moderator to make these these changes. Thanks!) for the Steve Duffy entry, 2 issues: 1.The 2011 ebook verions of his collection The Night Comes On adds 4 stories (placed at the end of the ebook, after the original TOC): On the Dunes The Lady of the Flowers Widdershins the Barrow Round Off the Tracks

the first 2 of these are already in ISFDB, the last 2 are original to the ebook version

2. There is a second Steve Duffy, who is from Australia and publishes mostly in AntipodeanSF, I can't find much about him, but the short bios in at least 3 antipodeanSF issues make it clear he is Australian. the following should be moved to Steve Duffy (2): The collection 14 Hours to Save the Earth 3 stories all beginning with A Tale of Tyl Feann I didn't find any other Australian Steve Duffy stories listed with the UK Steve Duffy

Thank you Roger

I had been wondering about that Australian collection. He is from somewhere down under indeed - but it may not be Australia proper so I won't add that to the notes.
The 4 additional stories - any idea if they are before or after the "Notes on the stories" essay and if the essay was updated to add notes for these 4 stories as well? Annie 17:23, 11 March 2022 (EST)
for the Steve Duffy The Night Comes on Ebook, there the 4 additional stories following the original stories, then the original "Notes on the Stories", then a "Postscipt to the 2011 electronic edition" is added to the end of Notes on the Stories —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogerSSS (talkcontribs) .
(Moving the note here where it belongs) - OK, I will move them behind it. Annie 18:12, 11 March 2022 (EST)
The Night Comes On - all fixed I think. Annie 18:14, 11 March 2022 (EST)

random corrections

And a few more random corrections/comments: Rjurik Davidson The Deep is a Warhammer story, should be listed with the other Warhammer story in his listing Terry Dowling The Five Sisters is a Dan Truswell series story Dave Hutchinson in the Catacombs Saints entry the Note should begin "This is an excerpt" not "The is an excerpt" Sarah Monette The Haunting of Dr. Claudius Winterson is a Kyle Murchison Booth series story Garth Nix, Cut Me Another Quill, Mister Fitz is a Sir Hereward and Mister Fitz series story (The story title is a strong hint for this) Don Tumasonis the story Sejanus' Daughter in the anthology Strange Tales, Volume 11 (edited by Rosalie Parker) was published under the psuedonym Hilbourne Carlone, should be listed on the Tumasonis page

here is a link to the Tartarus Strange Tales II page, the second paragraph has the Carlone name with Don Tumasonis noted in parentheses, this seems to be an open pseudonym:

thanks again Roger

The Deep is fixed.
The Five Sisters is fixed.
Catacomb Saints fixed
The Haunting of Dr. Claudius Winterson is fixed
Cut Me Another Quill, Mister Fitz is fixed.
Sejanus' Daughter - fixed.
Except for the last one, the rest were pretty straight forward so maybe you can try to fix such in the future? :) Thanks for noting these.
PS: It will be very helpful if you add links to your requests - it will make fixing these faster and less prone to errors. :) Annie 17:37, 11 March 2022 (EST)

Blades of the Tiger by Chris Pierson

I have found another version of this book printed in 2005 with the same ISBN but with a different cover. It shows up in Goodreads ( and I have found a number of copies of it for sale on ebay as well as the version in the database, so both covers seem valid. Goodreads shows a different page count, 384 vs 410. Goodreads also does not show an ISBN for this cover, but the various sellers show both versions having ISBN 9780786935697 and a 384 page count. The new cover is basically the same as the Audible version that I have just added. Should I go ahead and add this new cover version?? aardvark7 17:41, 11 March 2022 (EST)

Yes - with all of these notes and explanations added to the publication notes. If it is discovered later that it is not needed, we can always delete but it does seem like there are two versions out there - so we want it. :) Annie 18:16, 11 March 2022 (EST)

Winds of Change hardback

I asked for PV approval for making changes to Winds of Change on January 8 here and received no response so I am going ahead and making the changes. A second PV did respond here but referred me to the non-responsive PV. I will PV after the changes are approved. Phil 07:00, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Approved. A month to two months is long enough to wait and the updates looked more than fine.Kraang 10:40, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Sherwood Smith pub changes

I asked for PV approval for making changes to The Fox and King's Shield on January 21 here and received no response so I am going ahead and making the changes. I will PV after the changes are approved. Phil 07:52, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Approved.Kraang 10:40, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Violette Malan pub changes

I asked for PV approval for making changes to The Sleeping God and The Soldier King on February 2 here and received no response so I am going ahead and making the changes. I will PV after the changes are approved. Phil 08:31, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Approved.Kraang 10:40, 12 March 2022 (EST)

Multilingual Publications

The following publications can be flagged as okay

  • Bewildering Stories - 10 Issues
  • Goblin Fruit, Autumn 2009
  • Polu Texni - 23 Issues
  • Samovar, 27 December 2021
  • Star*Line - 3 Issues
  • The Magazine of Speculative Poetry - 2 Issues

Thanks, John Scifibones 13:29, 13 March 2022 (EDT)

All but the "Polu Texni" ones are done. Why would these need to have the language of interior art set differently from that of the magazine and the poem they illustrate? And where are these titles and languages to the images come from -- I don't see them on the site and there is no explanation in the notes of the publication or the interior art.
If the art is used/found elsewhere, the policy is to variant to an original name, not to use a title (and language) the publication never used. In all cases, these need a LOT more notes. Annie 17:39, 13 March 2022 (EDT)
The art credits are shown in different ways, depending on the post.
I have just documented what's on the website. John Scifibones 19:03, 13 March 2022 (EDT)
I just reviewed all 23 since I haven't looked at them for a couple months. Three issues did not explicitly state the credit as above. By opening the artwork in another tab, the credit shows in the webpage link. I can add a note or remove the artwork for these three. What do you think is the better alternative? John Scifibones 19:37, 13 March 2022 (EDT)
I clicked on a couple randomly and did not see the titles anywhere :) Let me look at them again. Annie 13:27, 16 March 2022 (EDT)

Canterbury; I did some edits for Michael Sisson's anthologies, replacing a PB cover and adding prices, adding HC Masque of the Red Death cover, and most importantly finding an eBay listing for the very rare Canterbury Press American edition of In the Dead of Night. Turns out they just printed the same book and only changed publisher and price; looks exactly the same otherwise. But when I tried to upload new cover to the Wiki it didn't give me the usual warning about replacing 1 that's already there. Seems "Bluesman", long-gone now, uploaded a too-big cover. I tried reverting but now both editions are showing the same old cover. So when 1 of you gets around to those edits I'd like the Canterbury cover reinstated; I don't know if there's 2 of the same image now after I reverted or if Bluesman's cover needs to be deleted or what. EDIT: Mod forced the publisher name change I submitted (Canterbury Press changed to The Canterbury Press) but address I entered was deleted by that, so I've re-entered it. Covers on Wiki still need fixing; both uploaded hardcover images seem to be on the same page. I uploaded Canterbury cover with spine showing so that should be the cover for that edition, and will upload new Gibbs cover assuming there's one with the spine showing; I see now that 1 of the Panther covers with the skeleton hand looks bad and could use a replacement, too. --Username 01:06, 19 March 2022 (EDT)

Harme-Oat(e)s; PDF on does indeed spell Butterworth and Jones' story Oates and the character in the story is Oates, but typing Harme-Oates Effect and 1975 into Google only brings up that PDF and ISFDB. has many issues of Science Fiction Monthly but not February 1975, and there doesn't seem to be much info online. 3 PV for the 1975 issue, 2 active and 1 very much not, and SpaceCowboyBooks PV their own publication, so if any of them are reading this and can verify what the title in 1975 was they can be merged, or if different made a variant. --Username 12:55, 23 March 2022 (EDT)

Blunder link with some CGI target at

Probably[*] I have forgotten how in ISFDB Notes fields to link a target at --when the latter is "cgi with arg" if you know what I mean.


  • Several ISFDB publisher names contain "Readers Union" (search report).

ISFDB database

[*]some gross oversight may be more probable. --Pwendt|talk 23:51, 25 March 2022 (EDT)

I approved both edits last night & was to tired to figure out the HTML problem, so looked at it this morning and fixed it[8]. I believe this is what you wanted. Was missing ">" before "search report".11:05, 26 March 2022 (EDT)
Oh, my, yes, a gross hybrid of wiki and database code. Thanks! --Pwendt|talk 18:59, 26 March 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion

The wrong size image was initially uploaded here. Please delete, correct image is in place. Thanks John Scifibones 10:45, 27 March 2022 (EDT)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2022 (EDT)
Thank you.
I noticed this one a couple weeks ago. John Scifibones 13:27, 27 March 2022 (EDT)
Duplicates deleted. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2022 (EDT)

Aldiss / The Dark Light Years

I am editing / PVing Aldiss's The Dark Light Years. The only existing PV is inactive, so this is to advise that I will change the author's name from "Brian W. Aldiss" to "Brian Aldiss" as per title page. Teallach 17:58, 27 March 2022 (EDT)

Approved. The content record also needed to be updated so I imported the correct variant and removed the "Brian W. Aldiss" version. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2022 (EDT)
Thank you! You have saved me the trouble of submitting these edits myself. Teallach 13:19, 29 March 2022 (EDT)


Regarding this illustrator. The French wikipedia entry has her birth name as Jacqueline Barse. Is that something that can be added to her page or no ? --Mavmaramis 12:45, 30 March 2022 (EDT)

I would be careful adding that because (as far as I can tell) there's no source for that information. If you can find a solid source for that information, you could certainly add it here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:01, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
Source is the French wkikpedia article linked so they much have got that information from somewhere. I've done an edit but if you feel the wiki isn't sufficient evidence then feel free to reject. --Mavmaramis 13:03, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
I found this reference, which seems to be good. I'd suggest adding it as another page with information about her. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:06, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
I just approved your edit, then added the link I gave above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 13:08, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
Just been sent this soucre with her legal name from my Twitter contact. Feel free to add that one as well. Thanks. --Mavmaramis 13:36, 30 March 2022 (EDT)
Added. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:04, 30 March 2022 (EDT)

Clute/Nicholls and "First Edition"

The edition of a book stated by Clute/Nicholls is not necessarily the first edition. As stated on page xxxiii of this print edition and also here in SFE4, their policy is as follows:
'When titles are published in two countries within a few weeks of one another we "follow the flag" and treat first publication as being in the author's country of residence.'
I am bringing this to your attention because I have come across a few ISFDb pub record notes containing statements like:
"Clute/Nichols (sic) has the UK edition as the first"
(or words to that effect) which is not a correct interpretation of what Clute/Nicholls is saying.
Clearly each case should be considered on its individual merits; for example there is no problem if editions in different countries are published years apart. However, when I am editing or PVing a publication record containing such a statement I would like to delete it where appropriate. May I have permission to do this please?
The above quote is from: Edmund Cooper's Deadly Image
Here is an example from a publication that I will be editing / PVing in the near future: Aldiss's Helliconia Winter Teallach 18:41, 3 April 2022 (EDT)

Aldiss / Frankenstein Unbound

I am editing / PVing Aldiss's Frankenstein Unbound. The only existing PV is inactive, so this is to advise that I will add the publication month from a secondary source and add notes. Teallach 17:03, 4 April 2022 (EDT)

Merger needed

Moderator Can you please merge the records for Robin F. Rowland with Robin Rowland (preferred) I haven't used the Robin F. Rowland byline since the 1980s. Thanks RR

Done (in fact I did what was possible: since we catalogue titles with the name they were published with, I established a pseudonym relationship). Stonecreek 06:20, 5 April 2022 (EDT)

Aldiss / Greybeard

I am editing / PVing 4 different publications of Aldiss / Greybeard, all of which have either no PV or no active PVs. So this is to advise that I will fill out the publication dates from secondary sources and add extensive pub notes comparing the abridgements / expansions / textual revisions between these publications. Teallach 16:41, 6 April 2022 (EDT)

Make sure you add notes on the provenance of the dates. :) Annie 22:18, 6 April 2022 (EDT)

Edna Worthley Underwood canonical name

Edna W. Underwood 137753 should be "Edna Worthley Underwood". Is it appropriate to request that here rather than propose it for discussion at Community Portal? The case is routine given evidence at hand:

We are unlikely to cover any works other than the 10 short stories (her only known shortfiction), which have been collected in two different 9-story collections 1911/12 and 2010/20. --I conclude from Wikipedia and SFE biographies.

"Edna W." is her name at SFE3 and at Tartarus Press, A Guide to Supernatural Fiction [9] but we have no publication genuinely by "Edna W."
The 1911 title page Edna Worthley Underwood [10] credits her by fullname, as does the one known earlier publication in a magazine, The Smart Set 1910-01 p119 [11].
Although "W." is used on front covers (three viewed) of the 2010/20 Tartarus Press collection, there is no "W." on the 2020 title page [12]. (The 2010 edition, not so viewed, shares front cover and publisher.) --Pwendt|talk 16:46, 10 April 2022 (EDT)

I agree that the canonical name should be changed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 12:19, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion 2022-04-12

Please delete the old image here. Thanks Henna 11:06, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Done Annie 11:30, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Cover of Semiosis

I have been on the Albin Michel and Goodreads website and even, the cover that is shown for record 728411 is for the Kindle version. Both Albin Michel and Goodreads show the tp cover as different (no red area) I would like to switch cover and add the Kindle version but don't want to step on toes. aardvark7 12:03, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Semiosis. The red area is a removable half-dust jacket/semi-cover/band/not sure how these things are called which is often added to paper books (but not always shown on the publisher sites or other images). If you want to change the cover to show the cover under it, go ahead. Annie 12:29, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Gene March, The Shakwa (1979)

This weekend I started multiple updates to incorporate two previously unknown pseudonym relations both complicated by publications in translation, and simplified by the pseudonymous authors having no other works. Here is one.

Realnames of joint authors [from SFE]: Patrick Dearen and (new at ISFDB) Al Kinney, Jr.

Our two pseudonymous authors as of last week, when the American was parent to the Greek:

116871 Gene March (currently with one stray publication) --has only the one 1979 paperback original publication
238967 Τζην Μαρτς (Tzin Marts --presumably adapted from "Gene March") --has only the one 1980 Greek language publication

Am I right that 2 Alternate Name and 2 Variant work submissions are needed?

•• separately, Gene March and Τζην Μαρτς both joint pseudonyms of Dearen & Kinney
•• separately, 1979 and 1980 novels both as variants of new 1979 NOVEL by Dearen & Kinney T3019461

I created the 1979 parent novel by making the 1980 Greek a variant --which broke its existing Variant relation automatically, I understand. Was there a more efficient place to start?

I don't recall how to make March a joint pseudonym. Nor Τζην Μαρτς --who needs that, too, if i understand the present state of affairs. --Pwendt|talk 19:04, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Make March a pseudonym of BOTH Patrick Dearen and Al Kinney, Jr. :) Same for the Greek name (and remove the Μαρτς->March relationship if still there). And the way you went was fine. Add a note somewhere (note on the March author record will be probably the best place) on the provenance of the pseudonym though. Annie 19:11, 12 April 2022 (EDT)
Ah, so 6 Alt/Variant submisssions rather than 4?
I infer that Author tags are derived from Title tags, so they will migrate from one Author view to another when all the Alt Name and Variant work relations are done. --Pwendt|talk 23:19, 12 April 2022 (EDT)

Accidental upload replacement cover

I uploaded a cover for this before realizing I had a later edition. Could a mod revert that one back to the previous one. I'll re-upload the same image to the correct edition. Thanks. --Mavmaramis 09:43, 15 April 2022 (EDT)

You should be able to revert here and just ask someone to delete the old one in such cases but I did it for you and deleted your image. Annie 11:16, 15 April 2022 (EDT)

Electric Spec

Electric Spec is a quarterly webzine, yet we date it with the specific day of publication. While our standards allow for this, we usually use only the month and year. I plan on adding any missing issues, content, covers, etc. Plus make any changes necessary to comply with current standards. Do we want to continue using the full date or change to month & year only? I prefer the change. Opinions? John Scifibones 11:27, 16 April 2022 (EDT)

Looking at their website, the full date should be used. Per our standards, the volume and issue number should not be part of the title field when a date is present, though they can be reflected in the notes. (see this template 3rd and last bullets). It appears that the August 31, 2021 is the only issue that has been entered correctly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:51, 16 April 2022 (EDT)
Agree on the volume & issue number, that was the source for my remark re standards. John Scifibones 12:01, 16 April 2022 (EDT)
Got it. Regarding the full date vs just month and year, I can see how that help could be read as "<title>, <month in full> <year in full>". I would speculate that the help phrase "The month should be given in full and then the year in full" may intended to prevent abbreviating either the month or the year rather than stating the day of month cannot be entered. In practice we have used some leeway regarding format of dates. There are certainly many examples where the day of month is included, especially if the publication schedule is more frequent than monthly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:43, 17 April 2022 (EDT)
I am using the day, as instructed, with Electric Spec.
When dating periodicals, I certainly agree that a full date is sometimes necessary for disambiguation purposes. For example:
I don't think the day adds anything useful for monthly and larger intervals. I feel sure that I have been advised not to use specific days in those situations, however, I don't remember by whom. Do you think it's worth moving this to Rules & Standards, Even if only to clarify the help section? John Scifibones 12:28, 17 April 2022 (EDT)
You could start an R&S discussion if you'd like. I don't know if it will attract more comments there than it did here. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:36, 17 April 2022 (EDT)
You're problably right. Thanks for your feedback. John Scifibones 13:54, 17 April 2022 (EDT)

Russwothe; Editor has an errant message on front page of his board; hasn't been here since 2013, so probably needs 1 of those "no longer active" headers. --Username 12:20, 18 April 2022 (EDT)

Image Deletion 2022-04-20

Please delete the old images here. Thanks Henna 10:24, 20 April 2022 (EDT)

Done Annie 12:11, 20 April 2022 (EDT)

How do I add a story to my ISFDB record?

Hello, a new story of mine, "Slow-time Station" was published by Theme of Absence magazine, on Apr. 15, 2022. It is at:

The same magazine also published an interview with me, about my science fiction writing, at:

I would really appreciate any help you can give me in getting these added to my record on ISFDB.

Thank you very much, Andrew Fraknoi (email: )

Hi. Stories get listed by adding records for the publications in which they appear. So for this example, we would create a record for the April 2022 Theme of Absence and then record each story published as content records within that publication. It looks like they publish weekly but then group what they've published monthly, so we'd probably treat this as having monthly issues, with the current month's issue incomplete until after the end of the month. I see we have one record for Theme of Absence (looks like it is for December 2020), but it doesn't quite conform to how a magazine issue ought to be recorded. I am going to check with the verifier of that. It looks like this Theme of Absence is eligible for inclusion in the ISFDB, so we should be able to create a record for this month's issue with the story and interview in it. --MartyD 08:11, 21 April 2022 (EDT)

How do I navigate the import content ban on chapbook titles?

I spent over an hour importing contents of the Paula Guran anthology titled Far Out: Recent Queer Science Fiction and Fantasy (2021). One of the titles, a short story by Nino Cipri, titled "The Shape of My Name," a short story, was issued as a chapbook. The system would not accept it. The entry was grayed out meaning I could not change it, & I had to give up the submission. I also had to reconstruct the early entries because the website was taken off-line for maintenance. It is frustrating to put all that work into a submission & then not have it work. Mike 10:40, 26 April 2022 (EDT)

Mike, I suspect you were trying to import the CHAPBOOK container by mistake. You want to import the actual short story.
You will find the correct title in the contents section of the CHAPBOOK John Scifibones 11:14, 26 April 2022 (EDT) P.S. I answered your question even though I am not a moderator. Ask questions like this on the Help Desk so that anyone online can help you. John Scifibones 11:25, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
You were a great help to me, John. I was able to redo the submission & the system accepted it.Mike 14:21, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
Answering questions -- especially thoughtfully, clearly, and correctly -- on the Moderator Noticeboard is a good way to get yourself drafted nominated for moderatorhoodship. :-) --MartyD 16:47, 26 April 2022 (EDT)

SFE Author Articles to ignore

Re cleanup report "SFE Author Articles without a matching SFE URL in ISFDB Author Records"

Here are some SFE Author Articles to ignore as out of scope here. All are in the Music category at SFE. They may be writers of songs with sf or sf-related lyrics; no more than that. I have read all of the SFE entries, none of which notes a sideline in sf criticism or prose fiction.

  • Corea, Chick
  • Gabriel, Peter
  • Haley, Bill > Bill Haley and His Comets
  • Hendrix, Jimi
  • Idol, Billy
  • John, Elton
  • Kantner, Paul
  • Legendary Stardust Cowboy, The
  • Martian, The
  • Nervous Norvus
  • Scientist [music]
  • Vangelis
  • Cope, Julian = UK singer-songwriter, formerly lead singer of The Teardrop Explodes
  • Daugherty, Michael = US experimental classical composer
  • Dissevelt, Tom = Dutch instrumentalist and composer
  • Fripp, Robert = UK, best known for founding King Crimson
  • Froese, Edgar = German, most famous as part of Tangerine Dream
  • Grainer, Ron = Australian-born composer [film soundtracks] and musician, resident in the UK from the 1950s. Grainer's most enduring work is the theme to the BBC TV series Doctor Who
  • Hammill, Peter = UK composer and musician, best known as the lead singer of Van der Graaf Generator
  • Holst, Gustav = b 1874; UK composer of Latvian and Swedish extraction
  • Jarre, Jean Michel = French composer and performer
  • Matiushin, Mikhail = b 1861; Russian Futurist artist and composer.
  • Meek, Joe = UK music producer and composer
  • Namlook, Pete = German composer and performer of instrumental electronica
  • Oldfield, Mike = English composer and performer, ... usually vocal-free
  • Rutherford, Mike = UK musician, best known as guitarist of the group Genesis
  • Salonen, Esa-Pekka = Finnish classical musician and composer
  • Sharp, Elliott = US avant-garde classical composer
  • Stockhausen, Karlheinz = German, Avant-garde classical composer
  • Subotnick, Morton = US electronic avant-garde composer

I am not sure that writers of the lyrics for opera (librettists) are out of scope at ISFDB. None is listed here. --Pwendt|talk 13:24, 28 April 2022 (EDT)

For the song-writers and librettists - if the songs/libretto get published as text (in the way we define being published) and they are speculative, they will be eligible thus making the author eligible - they are just poetry after all and speculative poetry is permitted. Same rules as with drama essentially - printed drama (And on paper or in ebooks or in audio when it is read and not performed (a bit murky for drama...))) is permitted. :) Annie 14:12, 28 April 2022 (EDT)
Thanks. Therefore, these 30 SFE entries do need another look. I guess that 25 are out of scope, but the list is merely a rich (or poor from another perspective) vein of out-of-scope ore. --Pwendt|talk 15:08, 29 April 2022 (EDT)
Here's my take on this list:
  • Corea, Chick - Composed only the music, no lyrics, so we can ignore him
  • Gabriel, Peter - Some SF lyrics, so we could likely add anything like that that we can find
  • Haley, Bill > Bill Haley and His Comets - Seems to have written at least a couple SF songs with lyrics
  • Hendrix, Jimi - Based some works off SF stories, so likely can be kept on the list if we can find things to add
  • Idol, Billy - Has an SF album, Cyberpunk
  • John, Elton - Has a few SF songs
  • Kantner, Paul - Had an album nominated for a Hugo (apparently the only album to ever be nominated), also founded Jefferson Starship, which had a number of SF-related songs
  • Legendary Stardust Cowboy, The - A number of SF songs
  • Martian, The - Maybe. If any of his SF songs have lyrics, they could likely be included
  • Nervous Norvus - Has several SF songs
  • Scientist [music] - If any of his songs include lyrics, we could include them.
  • Vangelis - Do any of his songs have lyrics? I know some of the Blade Runner tracks sample dialogue from the film. If any of them do include SF lyrics, they could likely be included.
  • Cope, Julian = UK singer-songwriter, formerly lead singer of The Teardrop Explodes - Has several SF songs
  • Daugherty, Michael = US experimental classical composer - Mostly (all?) instrumental. If he has any SF lyrics, they could be included.
  • Dissevelt, Tom = Dutch instrumentalist and composer - Mostly (all?) instrumental. If he has any SF lyrics, they could be included.
  • Fripp, Robert = UK, best known for founding King Crimson - Maybe? Some of the lyrics apparently reference SF works by PK Dick.
  • Froese, Edgar = German, most famous as part of Tangerine Dream - All instrumental as far as I know, so probably not eligible.
  • Grainer, Ron = Australian-born composer [film soundtracks] and musician, resident in the UK from the 1950s. Grainer's most enduring work is the theme to the BBC TV series Doctor Who - Likely not eligible as all of his SF works are instrumental only (as far as I can tell).
  • Hammill, Peter = UK composer and musician, best known as the lead singer of Van der Graaf Generator - His works could likely be included if we can find print versions that include the lyrics.
  • Holst, Gustav = b 1874; UK composer of Latvian and Swedish extraction - All instrumental, I think.
  • Jarre, Jean Michel = French composer and performer - Maybe all instrumental. Composed electronica and related, so may not have any lyrics.
  • Matiushin, Mikhail = b 1861; Russian Futurist artist and composer. - Maybe. If he wrote the lyrics/narrative to the operas he wrote, then yes.
  • Meek, Joe = UK music producer and composer - Maybe, if the songs have lyrics.
  • Namlook, Pete = German composer and performer of instrumental electronica - If the songs have lyrics.
  • Oldfield, Mike = English composer and performer, ... usually vocal-free - Almost all instrumental, so may not have much to include.
  • Rutherford, Mike = UK musician, best known as guitarist of the group Genesis - Has at least one album that qualifies.
  • Salonen, Esa-Pekka = Finnish classical musician and composer - Has several albums that have SF lyrics.
  • Sharp, Elliott = US avant-garde classical composer - Most (all?) instrumental
  • Stockhausen, Karlheinz = German, Avant-garde classical composer - Most (all?) instrumental
  • Subotnick, Morton = US electronic avant-garde composer -All instrumental
That's my take on them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:04, 29 April 2022 (EDT)