ISFDB:Research Assistance/Archive 07

This is an archive page for the Research Assistance page. Please do not edit the contents. To start a new discussion, please click here.
This archive includes discussions from January 2015 - October 2015.

Unlike earlier archives, this page will contain requests/issues which have not been resolved. Please do not respond to requests on this page or add new requests to this page. If you're able to respond to any of these requests/issues, please post it on the talk page of the editor who made the original request. If the editor is no longer active, you can post a response on the ISFDB:Community Portal.

Archive Quick Links
Archives of old Research Assistance.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11

Expanded archive listing

A Short, Sharp Shock

Can anyone compare the "novel" version of this Kim Stanley Robinson work with the short fiction entry? If there really is a difference between the two, the awards should point to the short version, and at least the Tor double should have the novella instead of the novel. --Willem H. 08:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

After a quick check between the Ziesing HC and the 11-1990 IASFM, the texts seem to me strictly similar, except for one sentence omitted in the magazine at the very beginning of chapter 4 ("And the only happiness is action."). Hauck 12:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You should ask Albinoflea. He's the KSR expert on the ISFDB. The work appears to be less than 40K words (it was nominated for a Hugo in the novella category), so those five book publications will have to be converted to CHAPTERBOOK with a SHORTFICTION content record which should then be merged with the current one. That note in the current SHORTFICTION record about it being an abridgment or excerpt is incorrect. One shouldn't compare the page count of stories in magazines with that of book publications. Apples and oranges... Mhhutchins 18:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I'll draw his attention here. The conversion to type CHAPTERBOOK is logical if the two are the same. --Willem H. 19:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I haven't entirely determined all of the permutations of this story yet, but I can say this much at least:

1) The IASFM version is shorter; there are 24 sections/chapters in the magazine version, and 30 in the Ziesing HC, which correspond to 16-20 and 27 in the Ziesing HC. There are some other continuity changes through the text to account for these missing chapters, but if you're reading them in parallel you have a bit to do before you encounter the major differences. So, technically the magazine version is abridged, by 20% if you go strictly on chapter count.

2) The Tor Double version has 30 chapters, as does the Bantam Spectra version and the version in the UK collection Down and Out in the Year 2000. The magazine version appears to be unique in its shorter nature, although I have not been able to verify the German and Italian translations, and it is very possible that these are derived from the magazine version, but as these are not in the DB as of yet that is a bridge we can cross later.

3) I recently scanned the entirety of the Ziesing HC and after OCR it comes to just shy of 36,200 words. So, as suggested, even at its longest it does not qualify for novel status.

4) There are other small differences between the Ziesing text and the other 30-chapter versions which as far as I have been able to ascertain are limited to corrections of typographical errors that slipped through the first publication.

So, to sum up, there are two versions, but whether they qualify as different enough to maintain different entries in ISFDB I will leave up to the moderators; however, the length of the unabridged work is not of novel length, so we will need to convert the books to chapterbooks as Michael suggests. I'm happy to create a title note(s) which explain what I know once we get things straightened out. Albinoflea 04:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I merged the titles (see here) and created the chapterbooks. Please add the title notes you think necessary. --Willem H. 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that all of the reviews associated with this title are now attached to the SHORTFICTION title for the novella rather than for the CHAPBOOK title; presumably this is incorrect and is a leftover detail from the clean-up that began in this thread, but just wanted to check before I started moving stuff around. Albinoflea 19:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Hugo Winners, Volumes One and Two

I am in the process of verifying this pub. I believe I should have the same publication because my book does have gutter code "M51" on page 849. I noticed that in my copy of the book on page 264 there is an essay by Asimov titled "Postscript". This does not appear in the pub record. Could anyone of the other 4 verifiers please doublecheck their copy? Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 22:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

On a side-note: I don't understand this pub note "The appendix is listed as "Hugo Awards" in the table of contents and as "Hugo Awards 1962-1970" in the body of the book." This is not true, at least for my book: There are two appendices, one for each of the two collections in the omnibus, and both appear with the correct title in their respective table of contents. Any comments? Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 22:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm so late in responding, but your comments fit my copy (N40 gutter code) as well as yours. I suspect that the incorrect pub note was based on an observation of the TOC for the first volume and the appendix of the second volume. Bob 22:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just returned from a 6 month break, and finding your response triggered me to actively direct the other verifiers to this request. My proposition, if the others agree, is to 1) add the essay to the pub; and 2) remove the incorrect pub note. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herzbube (talk • contribs) 06:53, 14 June 2015.

I have gutter code N27 (July 1972 or July 1983). My copy has the "Postscript" essay on page 264. I missed that when setting up the original record as it's not in the table of contents.

Patrick, does your copy list the "Postscript" essay in the table of contents? I suspect it's not in your copy's TOC and that we should add the essay to the ISPDB contents and to add a pub-note with

An essay titled "Postscript" by Isaac Asimov appears page [264] and 265. This essay is not listed table of contents on page [ix].

The pub-note about the Hugo awards needs to be fixed. It's something I did as part of comparison process of the TOC to the body of the publication but I copy/pasted from the wrong source when writing the note. My N27 copy has:

Page [ix] is the Contents page and has "APPENDIX: The Hugo Awards 266
Page [266] has "APPENDIX" in the upper-right corner and "THE HUGO AWARDS" centered over the text.
Page [271] is the Contents page for part II and has "APPENDIX: Hugo Awards 1962–70 847
Page [847] has "APPENDIX" in the upper-right corner and "HUGO AWARDS 1962–1970

My original note was

The appendix is listed as "Hugo Awards" in the table of contents and as "Hugo Awards 1962-1970" in the body of the book.

This should have been:

The appendix is listed as "Hugo Awards 1962-70" in the table of contents and as "Hugo Awards 1962-1970" in the body of the book.

In hindsight, I should have also noted which TOC had the discrepancy and propose that we revise the note to have:

The appendix is listed as "Hugo Awards 1962-70" in the table of contents on page [271] and as "Hugo Awards 1962-1970" in the body of the book.

Patrick, while you wrote that both appear with the correct title in the TOC can you double check that you have "...-70" on page [271] and "...-1970" on page [847]? The only difference is they shortened up the title a little by removing the "19". --Marc Kupper|talk 19:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My copy (gutter code "O12") agrees with Marc. If we add a note about the postscript, it should also include the introduction (not on the TOC on page [ix]). --Willem 19:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. If we add the postscript essay then the pub-note could be "The "Introduction" on pages [x] to xiv and the "Postscript" essay on pages [264] and 265, both by Isaac Asimov, are not listed in the publication's table of contents on page [ix]." FWIW, I'm fine with adding the postscript to the ISFDB contents as we already have a title record at Postscript (The Hugo Winners). I don't think we need a VT as the essay title is "Postscript" in all English language editions and "(The Hugo Winners)" or "(The Hugo Winners, Volume 1)" suffix is ISFDB specific. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Marc: As you suspect, my copy does not list the "Postscript" in the TOC. All the other facts that you state about your book are true as well for my copy, including the shortened appendix title (I missed that when I made my comparison last year).

@Marc and Willem: I agree with both your suggestions regarding the pub note and the title record to add.

Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 18:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) I have updated the publication to add the notes discussed here and to add the "Postscript" essay to the ISFDB contents. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Painting of a Domed City

This is not technically a ISFDB question, but I'm hoping someone here might have some insight to lend.

A colleague recently received a gift of an original painting of a domed city "by a famous SF artist"; the person who was gifting the painting said it was given to his parents directly by the artist, but that he didn't have any other information. I don't have the experience to infer who painted it from the style or the signature.

Here are links to a reasonably high-resolution scan of the painting as well as a more detailed photo of the signature.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Albinoflea 21:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Sorry, I don't recognize the signature. I hope someone else will be able to help. Mhhutchins 22:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. It doesn't ring a bell on style, either. Stonecreek 03:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, rings no bells. Any idea when this was painted? --Willem H. 09:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Albinoflea 15:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't recognize it, either. Was it painted on glass? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it was painted on cardboard. Albinoflea 14:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...Tineye didn't find anything. You can look through the Google Image results, but I didn't see anything after a quick glance. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... that's where I started. I'm pretty sure at this point that it's a one-off. Albinoflea 12:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ausgezählt by K. H. Scheer / Roger Kersten

Would anyone happen to know whether Ausgezählt by K. H. Scheer is non-genre? It's the only supposedly "genre" title in the Roger Kersten series. Ahasuerus 18:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This book states that all of the novels in the series are crime novels, so I have changed the title to non-genre. Stonecreek 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Artist Signature "Vanpala"

In Galaxy, October 1950, no artist credits were given, but the artwork was generally signed. The story "Later Than You Think" illustration was by an artist whose signature looks like "Vanpala" to me. This artist is not in the data base, nor are a number of variations (Vaupala, Vanpola, Vonpola, Vonpala). Is anyone familiar with this artist or someone with a signature I could confuse with "Vanpala"? Bob 22:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this scan will help: Mhhutchins 00:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking through various pages which list illustrators for Galaxy around then, the closest I've come is someone credited only as "Vidmer". The image doesn't really look like a "Vidmer", though. I haven't looked through all the pages, but you're welcome to look at them, too. There are over 70 pages of them, though not all are for Galaxy magazine (most of them, though). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the highest resolution image I could find. Maybe it will be of use? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Five Star (UK)

I have a number of books published by them but this page doesn't tell me anything else. I checked my copies and they all say "published ....by PBS Limited, Victoria Mills, Pollard Street, Manchester." Is that information worth adding to the wiki page - and should the publisher be changed to Five Star / PBS Limited. ? --Mavmaramis 06:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You can add the info but, IMHO, the publisher (for simplicity's sake) should stay as it is. Hauck 08:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Super Science Stories - Artist Signature

Can anyone help identify the signature on this interior artwork:

It illustrates "Cham of the Hills" by Charles R. Tanner in the UK edition of Super Science Stories for September, 1952 (issue No.10). This is a partial reprint of the August, 1942 US edition, so I would assume the same artwork was also in that edition.

It is very difficult to decipher due to all the stippling surrounding it, but it looks like it could be Stholl (there is an entry for Stholl in the database, but he seems to have been active in the early 70s, so this looks too old for him).

I also don't know whether what looks like an L on the left is part of the signature or just part of the background image.

Any help from people with reference books would be much appreciated. Wobber 12:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Most likely Leo Morey. According to this site there were two illustrations, the second has a more readable signature. --Willem 14:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Willem. If I squint really hard, I can see how this would read Leo Morey. My copy of SSS only has the first illustration - the second one makes it much clearer. Problem solved. Wobber 14:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian Green Mars

Does anyone perchance recognize the artist whose work is featured on the cover of this Bulgarian translation of Green Mars published by БАРД in 1997? Thanks, Albinoflea 03:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Legends

The book Legends http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?29401 is credited to Geoff Taylor and Josh Kirby for some of the unverified books, but only to Geoff Taylor for the verified ones. Also the ones with Kirby have two cover entries. As this does not look like Kirby at all I'd like to know, if the Kirby entries can be removed. If Kirby was really involved at least they should be converted into one cover entry. One of the German parts is by Kirby, but yet uncredited. Also this pub is by Kirby: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?928716. --Stoecker 12:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The source for the double credits is Locus1. It is considered a reliable one and while subject to errors as any human-created source, the records should reflect the data from that source until a primary verifier comes along. I will combine the cover art records into one. Mhhutchins 17:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is interpreted wrong. There are Legend pubs covers by Geoff Taylor and Legend pubs by Josh Kirby, but not one by both. I think someone mixed the "OR" into an "AND". --Stoecker 18:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Also Geoff's webpage does not tell anything about a collaboration with Kirby: http://www.geofftaylor-artist.com/galleries/cover-art/art/legends --Stoecker 18:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you believe the Locus1 data is wrong, please contact the maintainers of that database and inform them. Until then, Locus1 remains our source for the data, and will until the publications are primary verified (by you, if you're so inclined to obtain the publications.) Mhhutchins 21:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see that all of this discussion is moot, since an moderator has accepted your submission to change the credit without providing a source for the data in the publication record. I give up. Mhhutchins 21:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please fix the publication record that you submitted an edit against. That record is still showing a verification against the Locus 1 database, and it is still showing a note that the data came from the locus database. A Cover title note is insufficient. If you are going to deviate on a publication then you must note your suspicions of incorrect data on the publication involved. - Thanks Kevin 22:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we do have a primary verified publication of the cover art, which credits only Taylor. Christian Stonecreek 03:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I am not disputing the data that's been input (shrug). I've got no issue with that. All I ask is that publication record that currently claims to be sourced from Locus, be updated to document the fact that the Locus information is suspect, deemed incorrect, and has been indexed differently than listed in the Locus Database. It would also be nice if a sentence was included that laid out the evidence (Lack of Primary verifications, no other dual credit covers, etc) was also recorded in the publication record for posterity. If data is not properly sourced, then any random editor would be justified submitting a change back to the old data to match Locus. Kevin 12:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Asimov "The Rest of the Robots"

I think this http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?430956 and this http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?11991 actually are the same book, but have different titles entered. One time the "Eight Stories from" is in the title, one time not. Also the contents of the pubs from http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?37675 and http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?25329 are usually identical (with exception of three pubs which have two novels included). Something is wrong here and should be fixed. Either one should be varianted to the other or varianted and the ones with the novels split into a separate title or whatever. But like it is now it is broken. --Stoecker 18:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The way to resolve such conflicts is to post a message on the talk page(s) of the primary verifier(s). In this case, the verifier of this record should be told that there is a near-match to another record (or post a note directing him to this page.) Mhhutchins|talk 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Methuselah's Children - cover art credit

Can anyone give a source for the cover art credit for this edition of Methuselah's Children? I can only find a few scattered credits for David O'Connor for other images on Tumblr etc, but nothing in the way of biog or a website. Thanks, Astrodan 10:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Star Beast -cover artist ID?

Here's another one for art fans - can anyone ID the artist on this 1987 NEL edition of Heinlein's Star Beast? The PV1, Zflip, has pointed out the monogram 'SA 86' on a green leaf at bottom-right of the front cover, but the 'A' on my book at least looks indistinct, and could be a 'K', 'R', or even 'H' or 'M'.

My searches online have come up with Stephen Hickman's website here, which shows similar looking work, and Stephen Martiniere's site, here, although he is possibly too recent. Astrodan 13:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm 99% certain it's not Stephen Hickman, and 100% certain it's not Stephan Martiniere, who has only worked digitally since 2000.

This cover query also came up in 2014, and I did some research then which kind of fizzled out. Before anyone suggests it's Danny Flynn, it isn't: Danny did eight Heinlein covers for NEL but not this one, even though it looks like his style. Danny suggested I ask the art director for NEL at the time, Ian Hughes, who tells me he'd put money on it being Steve Crisp, but he can't state that categorically as they used quite a few artists. I've contacted Steve Crisp and I'm still awaiting a reply. Another strong possibility is Gerry Grace who was certainly illustrating for NEL at the time, although Gerry's work is probably a bit more refined. PeteYoung 20:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Science Fiction Yearbook, Number 4 and Science Fiction Yearbook, Number 5

We have two INTERIORART records currently attributed to Astorita, apparently a misspelling of Astarita. I can't get to my verified copies of Science Fiction Yearbook, Number 4 and Science Fiction Yearbook, Number 5 right now, so I will be asking the other primary verifiers to check their copies to see how the artist is credited. Ahasuerus 01:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In Yearbook #4, there is no printed credit for the author, only the signature on the art. There the 4th character does look like on "o", at least that's how I would read it, but it's easy to see how it could have been an "a". And that signature is absolutely identical to the one posted as the second signature for him on Pulp Artists. (The T's are particularly specific to him.) So I would call it a misspelling in our data entry, i.e. not a pseudonym/variant. Chavey 05:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)