User talk:Don Erikson/Archive 01

Welcome!

Hello, Don Erikson/Archive 01, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Help pages
• What the ISFDB Wiki is for
• ISFDB FAQ
• Help:Screen:EditPub#General contents - Warning and a note on how to update a publication's contents

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ahasuerus 16:16, 11 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Coming of the Horseclans cover artist

Welcome to the ISFDB. Can you verify the name of the cover artist for this edition of The Coming of the Horseclans? Your submission stated "Carl Lungren". Could this possibly be Carl Lundgren? If it's misspelled in the book, we can create a variant and credit it to Lundgren. Thanks for the edits. And again welcome! Mhhutchins 16:14, 11 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Also, you submitted a new pub of A Cat of Silvery Hue, but the ISBN was short (0-451-8836-0). I went ahead and accepted the submission. When you get a chance can you update it with the correct ISBN? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:20, 11 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The correct ISBN for the above title is 0451088360. I've corrected the record. Mhhutchins 18:38, 12 Jun 2007 (CDT)

My mistake. It is Lundgren with a "d". Don Erikson 12:09, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Artist "K"?

You added the cover artist for this pub as just "K". Is that how he/she's credited in the book, or is it your approximation of the signature in the art? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:24, 11 Jun 2007 (CDT)

My fault again. When I type in "k" the macro usually fills in "Ken Kelly". But sometimes doesn't and I missed it this time. I'll watch more carefully in the future. For this cover he isn't credited nor is there a signature, but is obviously Kelly. Should I not be giving credit to unsigned & uncredited artists even though I know who they are? Don Erikson 12:17, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Swords of the Horseclans ISBN

Your submission for this pub included an incorrect ISBN. Please make a correction when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:27, 11 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Found the correct ISBN. Should be 0-451-09988-5. Mhhutchins 18:40, 12 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Another submission with an invalid ISBN here. Please verify whether the number is incorrectly printed on the book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:31, 11 Jun 2007 (CDT)

ISBN should be 0-451-11792-1. Mhhutchins 18:43, 12 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Now that my computer is up & running again I'll be able to more on top of eveybody's requests for info.Don Erikson 12:20, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Wrong ISBNs

Another submission had an incomplete ISBN, which I researched and changed to the correct number. When entering these numbers, pay extra attention. You don't have to enter the dashes between the numbers. The system will provide them automatically. Thanks for the submissions. Mhhutchins 19:18, 11 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Actually, it's ok to enter the dashes and I encourage this.

1. There is less chance of error on the editor's part.
2. If ISFDB's code fails to parse the hyphenated ISBN then the moderator will see an ISBN with hyphens. This is a clue to the moderator that "something is wrong" and to research the submission. If the editor enters an ISBN as an unhyphenated 9 or 11 digit value for example then it's unlikely the moderator would spot this unless they are paying extra attention. Marc Kupper (talk) 14:01, 18 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Good point, Marc. That situation never occurred to me. Mhhutchins 19:43, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Golden Scorpio

I see you want to remove the note about where the Cover-artist credit for Josh Kirby comes from in this pub. Can you confirm that that's because he's credited on the edition itself? Primary verification would trump a secondary source of course, but if it's not there we'd want to keep the note along with the extras you added. Thanks! BLongley 13:02, 14 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I goofed that up somehow, didn't mean to change it. Sorry.Don Erikson 12:25, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

No worries, glad to see you talking here! BLongley 13:50, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Ant(h)ony Alban

Could you please double check that the author's name is listed as "Antony Alban" and not "Anthony Alban" in this publication? Thanks! Ahasuerus 13:40, 14 Jun 2007 (CDT)

After I input the info on the 2nd Alban book I noticed I screwed up. It is "Antony". Don Erikson 12:28, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

No worries, quite a few library catalogs have The Day of the Shield listed as by "Anthony Alban" as well :) Do you happen to have Catharsis Central, apparently published as by "Anthony"? Ahasuerus 18:51, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

My copy of Catharsis Central has "Antony" on the cover, spine and title page. On the copyright page it says "Copyright 1969(c) by Anthony A. Thompson" , That's with an "h".Don Erikson 10:25, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Dark Light Years

Hi Don, you entered the Year as 1964-00-00 this would appear to be the year of the 1st printing. We use the actual printing year if its mentioned. The price would suggest the late 60's or early 70's. Also with the Cat#'s we use the "#" in front of non ISBN#'s. You can reply on this page or my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks :-)Kraang 21:02, 14 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I missed the "3rd printing" slug.Don Erikson 12:33, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Ballantine Teachers' Guide to Science Fiction

I have approved "The Ballantine Teachers' Guide to Science Fiction" and corrected the spelling of the title from "Ballentine" to "Ballantine" as per WorldCat. I also deleted "no price" from the price field and added a note to that effect in the Notes field. Finally, we reserve the NONFICTION type for book length works and we use ESSAY for all other non-fiction entries, so I have changed that as well.

No worries, these are the kinds of minor mistakes that we all make when we start contributing here. Thanks for editing! :) Ahasuerus 18:03, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I see that you have also submitted the second printing of this book. There is an easier way to handle subsequent editions of a title, especially if it contains multiple entries like stories and essays. You just have to wait for the first edition to be approved, then pull it up and use the "Clone" option in the navigation bar. You can then change the price, ISBN or any other fields that are different vis a vis the original publication. That's what I did in this case -- take a look at the results. Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:37, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Enemy Stars

This shows up with a bad check-sum, can you double-check please? BLongley 13:35, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Oops! it's 0-425-03943-9 Don Erikson 15:13, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, fixed now. BLongley 16:15, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Ensign Flandry

I've approved most of your edits, but I'm uncomfortable with the update of the 1979 printing to your suggested third printing. The 1979 one looks about right according to the second picture on this page - if you have the third edition it should look more like the first picture? Unless you know differently, I think we want to clone the pub rather than update it. BLongley 13:48, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Every book I submit is from my collection. So I have the book shown on Amazon. I'm sorry to be so obtuse, but what is your question?

Also I'll reread the Help Page concerning Cloning, I may have misunderstood. Don Erikson 15:22, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Amazon tend to have a page only for each MAJOR reprint/reissue. We at ISFDB want to record EVERY printing.

There's TWO books shown on that image page: one is labelled as the first printing and the other is labelled 3rd printing. (Amazon may not care, but those image-providers clearly do.) The problem with your update is that it would remove our entry for the first printing (which looks a bit incomplete, but isn't actually wrong) to create the good third printing's record. "Cloning" would create the record for the 3rd printing without removing the entry for the 1st. So if somebody actually has the first printing we would still have most of the information here already for them to fill out the extra details. We always like extra good data (thanks for all your good work in that, by the way, not all messages should be complaints!) but removal of data (which you would accidentally do in this case) is something that we're a bit wary of. If you'd updated a "1900 Trade Paperback edition" you'd obviously be correcting REALLY bad data (I'm not joking, we do see some rubbish like that here occasionally). And providing the good data and eliminating some bad data in one edit is a good idea when you have to wait for approvals. But in this case, I think you have enough information to confirm the 3rd printing, and if you're interested, update the 1st printing with some extra info as well - I think we can safely say it's the same cover artist, for instance! BLongley 16:55, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Do go read up on Cloning, or ask for extra explanation if the help isn't clear - sometimes it's easier to clone a good publication to match a bad one, then delete the bad one. But when you have to wait for approvals, this can be a bit frustrating and it makes the Mods wonder what's going on, and therefore even more hesitant to approve things. One thing you might want to look at is leaving a note to the Moderators about your future intentions in the "Notes" field for publications as you submit them - e.g. "I'm updating this to match my publication's details, will clone back to the original after approval" is GREAT when you're adding contents to a collection or anthology and don't want to have to add a dozen entries to BOTH titles individually. Ideally we'd have a "copy contents" shortcut for that already, but we don't, so the Mods do the shortcuts themselves but have to guess the intentions from other editors. BLongley 16:55, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, thanks again for editing! Feel free to ask questions here, or on My talk page, or on the Community portal. We're friendly really, it's just that if it takes an editor a little time to discover the messages being left for him or her the first few can look like a huge set of complaints, when we really just want to advise, thank and educate. :-/ BLongley 16:55, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Don, I should comment here in that this publication update is similar to the one I just commented on below for Peregrine (Star Ways). The item that held up this update is that you want to change the year field from 1979-00-00 to 1980-06-00. I cloned 134321 and added the data from your 3rd printing (Year 1980-06-00, Pages 277, Artist Michael Whelan, Note 3rd printing) creating 201161. I also rejected the original update so that 134321 has the data we know of for this printing. It's quite likely the page count is 277 but I'd rather wait for someone with a copy of this printing to show up and confirm this. There is a plan to add the printing # as a separate field as right now the title record, 5268, shows two similar lines for ISBN 0-441-20724-3 and it's not until you drill down that you would see that one of those records is for the third printing and the other must be the 1st or 2nd printing.

If your third printing has a "First printing" date statement for 1979 (and maybe even gives the month) then you could update 134321 to add to the notes that it is the 1st printing with the source of that data being the copyright page of the 3rd printing. Marc Kupper (talk) 14:48, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I seem to be misunderstanding the use of the clone tool. The Clone Help page says "This is similar in many ways to the edit publication screen, but the existing content records are not editable, except that their page numbers may be set." I read this to mean that I can't change the existing info that I clone. I guess I'm wrong because otherwise the clone tool wouldn't be very useful. Don Erikson 20:34, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

When cloning you are allowed to edit the "meta data" which is the top part of the page. You are also allowed to edit the page numbers in the Content section and to add new Content titles. The only thing you are not allowed to do is to make changes to the exiting Content titles. Marc Kupper (talk) 13:01, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Report on Probability A

I see you've verified this pub, can you just double-check to see if I've added the right cover-artwork? I'm pretty sure my edition is the same as the one you verified. BLongley 14:52, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

It appears to be the correct one. Don Erikson 15:29, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! I do like to check when I make alterations to a verified pub - there's always the possibility that we have two different editions that the text data alone wouldn't distinguish. Feel free to question anything I've verified that looks wrong to you - it's much better to talk than than get into edit-wars. BLongley 17:00, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Flandy of Terra

Judging by the 7th printing of Flandy of Terra, you have found the "Clone" option :) I have the 4th printing of Flandry of Terra on hold since it looks like you used "Add Publication" to create this submission. Do you want to resubmit it using Clone and capture the contents as well as page numbers? Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:51, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

• click* Light bulb goes on. That makes much more sense than what I've been doing. I'll do that in the future.

Don Erikson 10:29, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Best of Poul Anderson

Don for The Best of Poul Anderson this publication [1] you changed Recollecting to Rceollecting. Is this change in the contents page or the chapter title page ix? When making changes to contents in a title its best to use the add title, and then use the remove title in tool bar. By changing the titles in contents it changes all the titles in all associated publications with this title. You can answer here and i'll see it. Thanks for editing! :-)Kraang 20:00, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Just a typo on my part. Don Erikson 10:39, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

No problem set it back to Recollecting Thanks!Kraang 19:18, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Gods Laughed

Don, I have approved The Gods Laughed, but I am not 100% sure about one title change that you made, from "The Soldier from the Stars" to "Soldier from the Stars". The former title was used in the original magazine publication, which Mike Christie verified a while back. Also, Contento lists the story as reprinted with the article. Could you please double check what the first page of the story (233) says? Sometimes there are differences between the table of contents and the body of the book. In that case, we use the latter as our gold standard and add a comment to the Note field explaining that the ToC is in error. I have changed the wording of the title back to the original until we sort it out.

Now, if we confirm that the story was reprinted without the article, then we will establish that the story has appeared under two different titles and they will need to be disentangled. We have a special procedure for this type of cases -- please see our help page that covers it. I will also e-mail Bill Contento so that he could update his site. Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:26, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

It IS "The Soldier from the Stars" on page 233. I didn't even think to check. lesson learned. Don Erikson 09:24, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! Tables of contents and magazine covers have been known to have all kinds of typos and errors, so it's usually prudent to check the stories themselves, although it takes longer. The worst case scenario are stories that are not listed in the ToC at all :(

Robert Erisman was responsible for a moderately famous screwup with a magazine cover once. See this publication - check the Notes field :) Ahasuerus 10:55, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Price change to Peregrine (Star Ways)

Don, you had sent in a publication update to 25884 Peregrine (Star Ways) where among other things you changed the price from $1.95 to $1.50. As it's quite likely Ace has a later printing that was $1.95 you should clone the publication and create a record for $1.50 rather than overwriting the data about the $1.95 edition.

As you had updated a number of fields with some of them, such as the cover artist and date, being data that we can't confirm, sight-unseen, as applying to the $1.95 edition I decided the best way to deal with this was to clone the publication, adding the data you added, to create PRGRNSTRWS1978. I then rejected your original submission and updated the original publication, 25884, to change the binding from tp to pb as that's something that seems safe change sight-unseen.

The general rule is we don't change fields such as the Year, Publisher, ISBN/Catalog #, Price, and Cover Artist on ISFDB publication records but rather clone the record and update the clone to match whatever we are using as the source for the publication. The binding and page count are often from Amazon and are often wrong meaning those usually overwritten. If a publication record has blanks or "00" in the case of the Year field then you can fill those in from your source.

Of course, if you can determine that the data in a publication field is wrong (either a typo or someone failing to follow the general rule on don't change fields) then overwrite it though even here I'll usually add a note to the publication explaining what I'm changing and why on the off chance the previously entered data was based on a valid source. Sometimes I'll have a first printing and see a record that has a price that's a little lower than what's in my copy. In that case I overwrite the price but also add a note as the original price may be what the publisher announced the book at.

The publisher names are fuzzy as we don't have rules on where they should be entered from and how accurately we should copy what's stated in the publication. As you probably have noted, ISFDB records often have the short version of the publisher's name - for example, "DAW" instead of "DAW Books, Inc." Thus while I said above to not change this field it is one that can be updated as long as you are not just hijacking a record and changing it from one publisher to another. Marc Kupper (talk) 14:29, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Star Ways

I'm happy with the update to make the artist "Ed Emshwiller" if you're sure, but we don't want the D-255 "Two Complete Novels" picture on D-268. The Cover Art URL is supposed to be for the publication it actually belongs to, which seems to be this pub here? BLongley

As soon as I submitted this I thought "No wait!" realizing I hadn't checked to make sure it was the right cover. Sorry. Heres the right one

Don Erikson 19:08, 24 Jun 2007 (CDT)

What???? How's that happen? All I did was paste in the the site address. Don Erikson 19:10, 24 Jun 2007 (CDT)

It's the Wiki software trying to be helpful and displaying any links that end with ".jpg" :)Ahasuerus 19:44, 24 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Poul Anderson's Tau Zero

I accepted your submission for this new edition of Anderson's novel, but removed the cover graphic link. (The graphic didn't show up on the summary page.) Also added the publication date. Question if you have a copy of this pub: are you certain that the price is $0.60? Most Lancer editions from 1971 were priced at $0.95. Thanks Mhhutchins 16:33, 24 Jun 2007 (CDT)

To tell you the truth I have no idea how I did this. It's $0.95. Heres the site address for the pic I found: [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Don Erikson (talk • contribs) .

I've added this to 201593 plus also updated 32887 with the Star Ways cover. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:13, 25 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Re: the proposed changes to the Berkley Medallion edition of Tau Zero, the linked image is at [3]. Do we have permission to link to the site owner's images? Some people have very limited monthly bandwidth allowance, so "deep linking" makes them go over the limit and effectively shut down their site for up to a month. Other times there are copyright considerations, so we try to get permissions from site owners before linking to their images. Ahasuerus 11:55, 25 Jun 2007 (CDT)

There's a similar problem with "Time and Stars", one for the same site and one from www.sfreviews.net, so I've held those till I see the response. BLongley 14:02, 25 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I've also replaced the Fantastic Fiction Image you gave for Time Patrolman with the one from Amazon - we CAN use Fantastic Fiction entries if there's nothing on Amazon, but Amazon is always the first preference. Please check to see if it's an acceptable substitute. BLongley 14:14, 25 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I have approved the submission for now. I suspect that we will need to run a search against all URL records at some points and scrub anything that we don't have permission to link to. Ahasuerus 20:20, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I've approved the ones I had on hold too, but moved the URL to notes for now. BLongley 13:21, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Ok. From now on I'll get permission before I link to any images. I did notice that most of the links already being used don't show anything. These are Amazon links that say the image is 1x1 pixels in size, I wouldn't think that would allow for much resolution :). (I think that's the first time I've ever used an emoticon non-ironically). Don Erikson 11:49, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I remove broken links, especially before verifying. There's no telling WHAT will show up there if it becomes useful, so rather than allow a random picture to get attached I'll let someone go search for the right one. BLongley 13:21, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Maybe there could be an ISFDB Flickr site for images, there is already some for book collectors. Don Erikson 11:49, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Some of us have have tried Flickr - e.g. this was my test. But there's a limit on the free accounts of about 200 images, and Marc and I have already exceeded those with our "uploaded to Amazon" covers, whcih is my current preference for now. And with Flickr, technically we have to provide a link back to the containing page as well, not the image. BLongley 13:21, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I was half tempted by this one. They let you upload zip files and access the files individually after that, and no problems with linking to them either. The main problem being that they've always operated in a legal grey area. --Unapersson 14:05, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Winter../ The Queen of Air..

Don i've put this title on hold because its already in the db in the Omnibus section [4]. Is the publications title different than whats in the db? You may want do an edit of this publication instead. Thanks!Kraang 22:03, 27 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I used the "find" feature in Firefox to search the Anderson page & twice did not find the word "winter". I shudda known better! AND I hadn't even noticed the Omnibus section of the biblio, what a dope... Don Erikson 10:46, 28 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Don i updated the omnibus edition [5], have a look and see if its okay. Thanks :-)Kraang 14:03, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Looks good. I was going to add the page numbers for THE QUEEN... but should I just number them as they appear or do I indicate some how that there is two sets of pages.Don Erikson 18:36, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I would put page numbers only on the Queen titles the other novels page count could be put into the notes section. If you put a number in for The Winter... novel it will get mixed in with the other titles.Kraang 20:41, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Battle Circle and Bearing Hourglass(Ballantine Del Rey)

Don, in the Mork & Mindy I changed the "/" to a ":" this is preferred. On Battle Circle when you cloned it you could also have added the page # at the same time. Also if the book has a number line its best to note it like "Stated 2nd printing(per number line) of 1988 Pocket ed.". If you look in the help section under printings this will give you a good overview of how to record them in notes. Also with Ballantine or Ballantine Del Rey books I'm putting in notes were there printed US or Canada. From 1978 to the late 1980's(single price on cover) they issued the books with two different prices. One has a Canadian price and the other a US. The Canadian is always higher. If you look at Jack L. Chalker you will see examples of how I have recorder various types of novels. Thanks for editing!Kraang 19:02, 28 Jun 2007 (CDT)

With the Mork & Mindy I used a "/" because that is how it appears on the spine. On the cover and title page the two part of the title are separated by photos. About Battle Circle, I try not to change anything I don't have a primary source for, especially one I'm cloning from. But I guess in this case it would have made sense. I'll try to remember to us US & Can. for Ballantine prices. Don Erikson 20:35, 28 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Don, you don't need to put US or Canadian beside the price; this space is for price only. If the cover has both prices, just use the US price. I've left an example of the the change I've made to the Ballantine edition. [6]. Thanks!Kraang 20:57, 28 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I also made a change to this [7] Avon 2nd printing in the notes section. This makes it clearer for the moderators when approving edits. If you have any questions you can leave them on my talk page. Thanks!Kraang 21:14, 28 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Leo & Diane Dillion

1) These get entered as separate people, just use the "Add Artist" button. 2) I've assumed it was your typo and changed them back to "Dillon", please let me know if the typo was on the book. BLongley 13:47, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I'll use "add artist' for now on. Sorry it was a typo. Don Erikson 19:42, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

No problem, easy fix - if it's a typo on the BOOK we want to know about it though. If we set up all the typos as variants, we catch them more easily. Thanks for editing! BLongley 19:48, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Just a typoDon Erikson 20:01, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Split Infinity

1) One of your edits updates the 1982 printing to create your December 1985 printing. There appears to be a 1982 edition, e.g. someone is selling one here so we want to keep that. I'll approve the edit and clone it back to the 1982 one. 2) A couple of times you've mentioned a map in notes. These can be entered as "Interiorart" entries. (The other example is Justaposition). BLongley 14:23, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Yes I should have used the clone tool. I try not to change someone else's entry unless it's an obvious mistake. And often not even then. I have to tell myself "Don't assume". I mean I'm already enough of an...aaa...you know. Don Erikson 19:57, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Steppe

I see you found a price for my edition of Steppe - thanks! (I buy a lot of my books second-hand, the new price is often obliterated.) BLongley 14:27, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Belmont/Tower

You are quite right, Belmont and Tower(s) were the same publisher. They used "Belmont", "Tower" and "Belmont Towers" as their imprints at various times. I have changed the Notes field accordingly. Ahasuerus 15:02, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Return to the Planet of the Apes

I see you've been entering these as by "Willian Arrow" rather than "William Arrow" (who we know a little about). Can you double-check if it's "Willian" please? We might need to correct a pseudonym if that's so. BLongley 15:09, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Who in the world thought it was a good idea to put the M & N next to each other on the keyboard? It's William!!! Don Erikson 20:00, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Thought so - fixed. (I do spot that error more easily than most, I think, seeing as it's my name too...) BLongley 05:12, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Interesting - it turns out one of the "William"s is actually a "Don"! What a coincidence, eh? BLongley 05:39, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Act of God

Just a heads-up that I've added the coverart to this pub, can you double check if I've got it right? BLongley 15:25, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT) That's the correct cover.Don Erikson 09:34, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Earth is Room / The End of Eternity

Don two questions. The 1959 Earth is Room Enough is the publisher Panther and the price $0.35? You appear to have all three editions of the Lancer pub The End of Eternity and the 3rd lists the dates for the 1st and 2nd thats good the way you noted it. But the Lancer 1st 1963 #74-818 is priced($0.75) higher than the 3rd 1968 #73-701($0.60). Did you get them mixed up? Heres a list of the dates, prices & Cat#'s

             1st 1963 74-818 $0.75
             2nd 1966 72-107 $0.50
             3rd 1968 73-701 $0.60

Thanks :-)Kraang 21:49, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The 1959 is Bantam, how I did Panther I don't know. It is Bantam A1978, $0.35 The prices for the Lancers are correct. Lancer had "Limited Edition" "Science Fiction Library" series with cover printed on fancy pebbled paper, my guess to justify the premium prices. Ironically these books aged much worse than the regular editions. Don Erikson 09:55, 2 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for clarification, i'll change the Panther to Bantam.Kraang 10:15, 2 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Fantastic Voyage

Don, for Fantastic Voyage #H3177 $0.60 1st printing you set the year as 010-00? I'll approve and change year to 1965-00-00. If this is wrong [8] just submit an updated edit. Thanks!Kraang 10:38, 2 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Foundation and Empire

Don ,i agree the date is in conflict with the notes but my inclination is to leave the notes as they are for future reference. I'll copy your note and make a clone of the original entry and switch in your note. Also i'am keeping track of the Ballantine Del Rey Canada or US printings up to the late 90's when they went to us printings only. I put into note (Printed in Canada) or (Printed in US). Between the late 1970'(Ca1978) and the late 1980's(before dual pricing) they put higher prices on the Canadian printings(most of the time). Some times the US printing would have the Canadian price on it. There was no indication which currency was being used. You have to know the year and what the book should sell for more or less in the US or Canada. If you look at the Jack L. Chalker page you can seen may of my examples of this.Thanks :-)Kraang 14:20, 2 Jul 2007 (CDT)

On second thought i approved your edit and changed the other one. This way its not in your rejects.Kraang 14:46, 2 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I think (as I had a quick peek while the submission was on hold) that someone (Brin1?) copied my 1990 edition to create a 1972 edition? Obviously I don't mind someone cloning my submissions, but when they do I think they should double-check what it says in notes against their pub - especially when you can use them to go off and create a load of other "stub" printings from the information. Often the prior printing history disagrees with other publications, which is why I entered lots of notes in my pub instead. I DO create prior "stub" publications based on later editions, but so far only with infrequently reprinted titles, years apart. That's just my preference - we haven't solved the problems of displaying EVERY printing of a book that's been reprinted 50 times in England, 40 in the USA, 30 in Australia et cetera, so I've left the data in notes till now, so that if I get run over by a bus tomorrow, the data is still here to be used. I just think entering all the stub entries at once will make the pages messy and I'd rather get all MY publications entered before that happens. ;-) BLongley 17:24, 2 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Don - feel free to carry on creating the stubs, it's just MY preference that we don't do that till the active editors have entered their verifiable ones: and Kraang, do feel free to challenge edits - I know my method is going to make it a pain to FIND where the extra info I left actually IS. I know I can find it in the database backups but that's not going to be much of a help to the editors left behind to fill in the final gaps! ;-) BLongley 17:24, 2 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, you two carry on, you're both doing fine. BLongley 17:24, 2 Jul 2007 (CDT)

A publisher called "f"?

I think you may have had finger trouble on this pub? ;-) BLongley 15:08, 4 Jul 2007 (CDT)

What usually happens is I type "f" and the macro shows me all the Publishers that start with "F" in this case Fawcett Crest. I fix it now. Don Erikson 00:19, 5 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Nightfall and Other Stories

Don one of the thing you can do with a title that has been changed(a variant) is use the add title button at the bottom of the contents and put in the correct title or titles. For the titles that are incorrect leave the page # blank. When it has been approved bring up the publication and click on the "Remove titles from this pub" and mark the titles to be removed. This will remove titles from this publication and not effect other publications. Its a two step process. I'll approve this and let you go back and make the changes.Thanks! :-)Kraang 21:40, 5 Jul 2007 (CDT)

You can actually do both steps without waiting for approval, if you can remember which titles need removing without the page note. I tend to use "NA" for page numbers to make it clear what I want to remove later, or what I'd be happy for Mods to remove on my behalf: see here. We haven't adopted a convention yet though, so feel free to mark them any way you feel fits. I personally leave blank page numbers for some items I DON'T intend to remove, e.g. Interiorart entries, so I don't support Marc's suggestion there. But a convention all Mods understand would be good. BLongley 15:20, 6 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Nine Tomorrows

You added 208213 but I'm wondering - was the Catalog # stated as 044901971 or 0-449-01971? One seller listed the book using "Fawcett 1959 0-449-01971-0" though that trailing 0 is not correct as if it was an ISBN it would be 0-449-01971-3 which is not found on the Internet. Could you also please check the printing date? You noted it as July 1967. I have a 16th printing priced at $2.25 that says "First Fawcett Crest printing, November 1969" but yet you have a 4th printing that's dated July 1967? FWIW - the catalog # on my copy is 0-449-24084-3 though it must have been printed before 1980 as there's no bar code. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:31, 6 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I added/verified my copy. Something that may help determine if you have a "different" Fawcett printing than mine is there's an error in the table of contents which has the story All the Troubles of the World listed as All the Troubles in the World in the table of contents though it’s listed with “of” in the body of the book at the head of the story and in the page headers. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:52, 6 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Even though it's hard for me to remember all the back to this morning, I think all I did was to add the cover artist to this listing. I would have entered the number as #M1971 and I would not have said it is a 4th printing because it is not indicated. I try to change others as little as possible, so if the original entry says "49901971" etc. I feel that in the past has been an excepted method of numbering. By the way the number on the spine says "499-01971-095"

In this case you had used clone-publication meaning you were adding a new record. When clone-publication is used unfortunately ISFDB does not log the original source publication nor does it show which fields were changed between the original and clone. Thus all of the date is "new" to the system and I could not tell that #49901971 was from the original record without a bunch of legwork.

I edited the publication you added to and changed the catalog # from to #49901971 to #499-01971-095 as that better reflects what's actually stated in the publication.

I just looked at the Nine Tomorrows title record and see two publications for 044901971. The one dated Jul 1967 is the one you added and you must have cloned NNTMRWS19X2 which is at the top of the list. Hmm, this is a judgment call thing. The new record you added is identical to the original with the exception you added the date and the note "4th printing." In this case I probably would have used edit-publication of the original to fill in the blanks (the date and 4th printing). Later, if it turns out #499-01971-095 was used for another printing someone can clone the record and change the note.

The date of that appears also was entered by some else. Of course I could have some screwed this all up myself...

The original record does not have a date and so I'll assume you entered it as part of the clone-pub.

Should I go back and edit it?

I already did the edit but then decided to then apply your edits to the original publication (NNTMRWS19X2) and deleted the one you had added. This way there's one record for #499-01971-095 and if someone comes along with a different printing they will clone this record. If the publication does not state July-1967 anywhere then please edit NNTMRWS19X2 and remove the date (make it 0000-00-00). I usually add a note that the first printing was on (date) and that this is an undated nth printing.

All three copies I own has "in" on the title page & "of" elsewhere in the book. it probably wasn't seen as a big enough problem to spend the money to fix. Don Erikson 20:47, 6 Jul 2007 (CDT)

That's up to you. I normally do add a note as it will helps explain the source of why some web sites will list the title as All the Troubles of the World (it's on 110 pages per Google). In fact, in this case as Asimov is a well known author and the error seems common I added a variant title record along with a note explaining the source of the variant. That way someone using Google is likely to run across the page and will understand why some Asimov bibliographies or story listings for Nine Tomorrows include the title All the Troubles in the World.

Generally my personal practice has been is when I spot something in a publication that looks like it could result in different interpretations (such as an author name with the middle initial on the cover but not the title page) then I document it so that others doing Internet searches/research will understand the potential sources of error/confusion regarding that publication. Likewise, if I see something that is in error I'll add a note to the affect that "Yes, the publication really does state xyzzy" so that people will understand the source of what looks like wrong data. Marc Kupper (talk) 14:42, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

What I meant when I wrote "it probably wasn't seen as a big enough problem to spend the money to fix." I was speaking of the Publisher. I wasn't implying that minor differences were unimportant.Don Erikson 16:34, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Interior artist

Please remember that rather than adding a note such as "Interior art by Tony Tallarico" that we do this using add-title and addeding an INTERIORART record. This will allow add the publication to the cover artist's bibliography in ISFDB. See these publications where you can see what I did with the publications recently added/updated.

• 52579 Twilight's Kingdoms
• 208381 Tom Swift and His Sky Wheel
• 51908 Tom Swift in the Caves of Nuclear Fire Marc Kupper (talk) 13:41, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Ok I get it now. It was the "Author" pull down for interior art that I wasn't getting. Don Erikson 16:28, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Myth Directions Dates

I have the Seventh Printing of this book with no Printing Date. Are you getting the dates from an outside source, or do the 2nd and 6th Print Runs have Printing Dates in them? CoachPaul 16:51, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Both these printing have specific printing dates that I used. Don Erikson 21:18, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Cover artist for Arc of the Dream

Is the cover artist credited as "Brook Steachman" in the publication? There is a better known artist Broeck Steadman. Could it be the same guy? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:16, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The copyright page says BROOK STEACHMAN. According to Google, the only references to this artist is in relationship to this cover. But looking at the cover I see a signature that says "E.T. Steadman". ????????????? Don Erikson 21:28, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I updated the publication notes to add a comment that both the cover artist name is spelled in the credits as "BROOK STEACHMAN", that there is a signature visible on the cover that says "E.T. Steadman" and most likely these are both Broeck Steadman. His web site, http://mywebpages.comcast.net/steadmans3/, says "See the portfolio of international illustrator and artist Broeck Steadman also known as E.T.Steadman."

The cover artist credit for the publication should remain as Brook Steachman though and I made that a pseudonym of Broeck Steadman. It's not clear if E.T. is his legal name or part of his working name. His son is named Evan Thomas Steadman and so I've e-mailed Broeck about "E.T." Marc Kupper (talk) 10:56, 8 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Both e-mails for Broeck bounced and so "E.T." remains a mystery for now. Marc Kupper (talk) 11:31, 8 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the input!

Just thought I'd say that first... you're not done with the "A"s yet as far as I can see, but you're already one of the most prolific editors we've found recently! I'll let you into a little secret - the Mods don't always agree on what is "right". I expect that as I'm writing this, some other Mod will be writing about how it's not a good idea to update an ISBN in an existing pub. Or updating a publication date to "0000-00-00" from a definite date. Or how you should actually really be noting Author Pseudonyms. So do feel free to join in the discussions on the community portal when something seems wrong. There is a "but" of course: you haven't answered the permissions question yet. ;-) Feel free to just leave it up to me (my inclination is to approve the edits but then remove the image links till we have permissions) but I think you're going to become a good moderator yourself someday, if you can cope with all the questions and start adding some yourself! BLongley 18:35, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)

It's great to be here. I've just finished "A" in pb & tp and now will do the few HB I own. Then "a" anthologies. And then.... I don't know if I can keep up this pace, I don't want to burn out. I own about 20,000 pb and 1,000 HB plus may be 3,000 mags & hundreds of fanzines etc. Even at the brisk I'm going I figure this is going to take me 3 or 4 years. So we'll see. If I disappear for a while, don't worry it's probably piece-of-junk computers semi-monthly death-rattle or maybe I did burn out........oh but what a beautiful light. Don Erikson 12:04, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Wow, an SF collection with almost 25,000 items in it! Mine is only 20,000 and I thought it was a tad excessive! :)

I wouldn't worry too much about the burnout factor, the gafiation/degafiation cycle is pretty much a given in this field. Besides, as more and more editions/printings are added and verified, it makes physical verification easier. I was doing my Leinsters the other day and almost 50% were already in the database. Ahasuerus 12:25, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Goldlust and The Slaves of Lomooro

For both of these you have the comment "Albert Augustus, Jr. is a pseudonym for Charles Nuetzel." Is this something that's stated in the publications? If not, then what's the source of the pseudonym attribution?

The reason I ask is currently we have

• Albert_A._Nuetzell which is a pseudonym for Albert_Nuetzell.
• Albert_Nuetzell - a cover artist.
• Charles_Nuetzel - an author that also uses the name George_Frederic.

Google finds an artist named Alfred Nuetzell also known as Al Nuetzell. http://haldolen.com/alN/Al%20Nuetzell/NUETZEL2.HTML is for Albert/Al which the writer of the page calls "Dad". http://haldolen.com/alN/CoverArt/CoverArt.html shows that Charles Nuetzel must be the author/son and that he was born in 1934. Marc Kupper (talk) 11:03, 8 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I found out about the Augustus Pseudo from a Google search. I actually thought I remembered this and used Google to verify it & of course find out how to spell "Nuetzell". Don Erikson 12:11, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

This site shows Augustus, Albert, Jr. pointing to Charles (Alexander) Nuetzel - is that the one you found? Or here? Or maybe here? BLongley 12:53, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I think Clute lists this pseudonym as well, although I can't check at the moment. OCLC concurs, so it's probably a safe bet. Ahasuerus 13:14, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Yes, Clute confirms the Albert Augustus Jr pseudonym for The Slaves of Lomooro. "Alec River" and "Charles English" are also mentioned for other works. BLongley 13:26, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

ok - the "bad" thing that I see that happened was a comment was added to a publication record that did not indicate that it was based on a secondary source. The assumption is that everything stated in a publication is exactly how it's stated in the publication. If you want to add additional information then it should be clearly noted that the information is from another source (and ideally you also cite the exact source(s) for the additional information. For example, it would have been ok to write "I believe the author Albert Augustus, Jr. is a pseudonym for Charles Nuetzel. ~Don Erikson" and left it at that. You are the source and there's no need to dig up further information unless you happen to have the time/resources. Ideally those comment's would be left on Albert Augustus, Jr.'s bibliographic notes page (Author:Albert_Augustus,_Jr. rather than in the publication notes. You or someone else could then research for sources to confirm or disprove this belief.

I deleted the original publication comments and once this thread peters out we can copy/paste the relevant portions as supporting documentation for the pseudonym attribution to Author:Charles Nuetzel where I've already added some comments. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:31, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Friends Of The Horseclans II

Don, according for the notes "Story title "Kilsister" changed to "Killsister" as per content page and title on story page." But in the Modified Contents you are changing "Killsister" (note the two "l"s) to "Killlsister" (note the three "l"s). Which is correct? CoachPaul 16:33, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I thought I changed that. It's 2 Ls. Don Erikson 20:38, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I went ahead and approved the edit, and then changed the name of the story back to 2 Ls. If I have mis-interpreted what you meant, please change it to whatever it is supposed to be. CoachPaul 20:50, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Seventh Fontana Book of Great Ghost Stories and F. L. Wallace

I have approved The Seventh Fontana Book of Great Ghost Stories, but I had to remove the newly added ANTHOLOGY title from the Publication. When Cloning an Anthology Publication (or Adding a Publication to an existing Anthology), the original Anthology Title is included in the resulting Publication behind the scenes. Ditto with Collection Titles, so adding an extra Title manually results in two identical Anthology (or Collection, as the case may be) Titles in the same Publication. The catch is that our software tries to behave "intuitively" and doesn't display Anthology Titles in associated Publication records' tables of contents, which often leads to even more confusion. We may have to revisit this whole area at some point, probably in the fall, when Al, our programmer, comes back.

Also, removing a bogus Anthology Title from an Anthology Publication is not easy since the software tries to be "fool proof" and doesn't allow you to remove it directly. If you have an extra Anthology Title in an Anthology Publication, you need to change the Title record's type to Novel (or something else) first and only then will you be able to Remove it from the Publication.

Finally, you entered a note in Galactic Empires 2 to the effect that "Floyd L. Wallace is shown as F. L. Wallace". I went ahead and replaced the "Floyd L. Wallace" Title record with an "F. L. Wallace" Title record in this anthology as per Help:How to change a story in a collection. Does it look OK now? Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:02, 12 Jul 2007 (CDT)

It sounds like I'm causing more problems than normal for all hear. I'll try to do better.

The Wallace entry looks right. I'm going to dribble in Anthology entries instead of doing then in large groups. It can take up to 45 minutes to enter the contents and because of computer problems here it could take three tries to get it to work. Frustration abounds. Don Erikson 09:25, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Feel free to enter anthologies in chunks, leaving a note to the moderator such as "Work in progress, more contents to come". You're not the only person that has computer problems, we're quite used to this. I think I took Four days to do this monstrosity for instance, due to all the variants! BLongley 12:17, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Creature Creature

You added The Creature Creature 209661 with the author as Brian Ball.

1. Is that title correct? I know of The Night Creature by Brian_N._Ball. Please check the title on both the front cover, spine, and title page as there's something fishy about this book. Using catalog # M3167 I found two AbeBooks listings for this
   1. Night Creature Of Things Undead Which Rise At Night to Menace the Living by Brian Ball
   2. Night Creature by Brian N. Ball
2. Is the author name stated as Brian Ball on both the cover, spine, and title page? He uses Brian N. Ball much more often.

Note that we enter the version of the title and author name that's on the title page but if the cover is different then ideally that gets documented. I usually also check the spine. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:52, 12 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I looked at the Brian N. Ball page and didn't see it then relooked, then rerelooked and then... and still missed it. Shesh!

On the cover, spine, title page, copyright page and even in ad on the last page it is "Brian Ball" No middle initial. Don Erikson 09:33, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Thank you Don. What's the title? I'm assuming it's not The Creature Creature but it's not clear if it's The Night Creature, Night Creature, or something else. It's a little easier to do with FireFox but I normal use the browser's search function (Ctrl-F) to look for the title on the page and plus hit F3 (continue search) to make sure I know about all the instances of the title as sometimes there's two or more records. In this case it should have been easy as there were no books for Brian_Ball before you added this record which is why I has asked about if the book consistently used "Brian Ball". Marc Kupper (talk) 18:12, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)

This book is "The Night Creature" Don Erikson 09:29, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Disaster Area

I took your note The story "Build-Up" appears under variant title "The Concentration City" in this pub you entered and created the variant relationship. Is this the way you intended it to look? BLongley 12:12, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Yes that's it. It tried to figure out how to do it my self but... I seem to lack that required brain cells. Don Erikson 12:45, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Variants can be a real confusion, I agree. I think in this case you could have cloned a different edition to get the title you wanted, but there were two copies of "The Concentration City" around, only one of which was linked as variant title. BLongley 13:08, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Feel free to just make it clear in your notes what you want the title to be in YOUR book, and when you discover "previously published as..." information we aren't showing already, note that too - it's all useful stuff! For learning how to do it though, it's best to start small, e.g. one title as a variant of another title by exactly the same author, one who has no pseudonyms. I'm happy to explain the steps I take in converting your notes to the version we end up with, but as I say it's best to start with the very simplest edits so this isn't it. But I'd like to get you up to speed before you encounter, say, Julia Gray and Jonathan Wylie. ;-) BLongley 13:08, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Ballard's Terminal Beach

I have a copy of Ballard's "Terminal Beach" no "The", (Berkley Medallion F928 $0.50) that only has nine of the twelve stories that appear in the UK editions. I can't alter a clone version and adding a "new" collection under the same title may cause problems. So what do I do?Don Erikson 12:55, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

You can probably clone one of these rather than one of these? Or if the UK editions are actually more similar to your copy, then clone one of those and put the page numbers for the missing titles as 'NA' or something else that indicates they aren't really in your pub. We can fix it after the cloning with "Remove Titles from this pub" and add any missing titles later. But do have a look at both titles and see which is a better starting point. BLongley 13:15, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Ooooh! I didn't notice a separate entry for this title, I'll go and edit the one you linked to. Thanks for the info. Don Erikson 14:17, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Wind from Nowhere

Price: $1.95? Should this be "Price: £1.95" or is there a US printing I wasn't expecting? BLongley 13:22, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

It is $1.95. A closer look at the copyright page says "Printed in the United States of America by Offset Paperback Mfrs., Inc. Dallas, Pennsylvania" So I guess they had some US editions too.

Interesting... I'm not sure the printing numbers will be accurate here then, though. The 1974 UK editions were specifically NOT for sale in the US or Canada, I think we have separate series here. Is the cover art really identical or is there some minor difference? Ah well, just add lots of notes and we'll sort it out eventually!. BLongley 14:30, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I'll go back and edit the entry I made earlier for "The Drowned World" It was also $1.95. Don Erikson 14:05, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

On further inspection, the copyright page says "Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that..." etc. starts this usual long-winded UK copyright warning.

Does this mean it is for the US market? My guess yes.

I own both the UK and US(?) versions and the covers are identical. Don Erikson 13:17, 14 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Empire of the Sun

What's the reason behind wanting to update this edition to a date of "0000-00-00"? There seem to be several copies for sale here, where they've dated it pretty clearly as 1987. Of course, I can't say WHY, but I'm reluctant to make data here less clear without good reason. BLongley 13:32, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I changed it because there is no indication on the book itself of date of this 3rd printing. Of course the 1987 date could be from an outside source, I guess I should rely on who ever originally entered the info.

Don Erikson 14:12, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I think that's safest. If you DO spot anything that dates it a bit better, let us know. In the mean-time, I'll approve your edit and put it back to the original date, with a note asking any other verifier to explain how it got dated that way. If you do come across others like that, feel free to add notes on the printing about how you've checked the existing data but couldn't confirm that particular field. Someone may be able to clarify it later. BLongley 14:37, 13 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Bibliographic comments for BKTG13068

Those dates often come from Amazon which gets them from the publishers. The dates are accurate but there are two issues with them.

1. Publishers upload the on-sale-by date which is when bookstores can start selling a book. This is often mid-way through the month before the date stated in the publication.
2. At one time the dates were accurate but may not be stated in the publications in the case of reprints. Years later the dates may not be accurate because a publisher may reprint a book with the same ISBN and may or may not change the date. In this case Amazon.com 0671648772 has "Pocket; Reissue edition (December 15, 1987)", Amazon.co.uk 0671648772 says "Pocket Books (Mm); Reissue edition (Nov 1987)", and Amazon.ca 0671648772 has "Pocket Books (Mm); Reissue edition (November 1987)." all of which could account for a 1987 date for the publication. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:11, 17 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Getting back to removing the 1987 - When I do this I usually add a note explaining that the ISFDB record had a date of 1987 but there was no explanation of the source. Thus I document that the date existed for the ISFDB record as I've found that ISFDB data tends to be accurate and it's a matter of figuring out the source of the data. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:14, 17 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Asylum and Circus

Don could you check this pub [9] it came up with a bad sum check for the ISBN. Should it be 0-532-19172-2? Thanks :-)Kraang 21:23, 14 Jul 2007 (CDT)

It says 0-532-19172-7 both on the spine & copyright page. Don Erikson 09:31, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Okay i'll adjust the Cat# field and add into notes about the ISBN# error. Thanks!Kraang 10:48, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I would not make the assumption that it's the checksum that's wrong. For example, if we transpose the 72 near the end to 27 we end up with 0-532-19127-7 which has a correct checksum. My observations are that 0-532- is the correct prefix for Manor in that time period and that 19172 is on the high side for 1977 which seems to run from about 12471 to 19156. 19172 is just out of range but 19127 with the transposed digits fits well.

Another possibility is a single digit error. 0-532- is correct and so working my way down a digit at a time it's

• 0532191727 - Original value where checksum does not match
• 0532291727
• 0532181727
• 0532198727
• 0532191927
• 0532191757
• 0532191722 - None of these found a book but it's possible one of this is the correct ISBN.

In summary - All we can do with this one is to document that the ISBN was printed wrong and to document exactly what's stated in each part of the publication.

Don - An AbeBooks seller has an image at [10]. It looks like it says "(blurry) 19172 * $1.50" at the top but no ISBN. If that's the case I would document this too including whatever the blurry stuff is that can't be read in the photo. It seems to establish that 19172 is correct and that it would be the checksum that's wrong.

I'm copying this thread to the bibliographic notes for the publication at Publication:SLMNDCRCSK1977. Marc Kupper (talk) 14:41, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)

ps: I just updated the pub-notes but also saw that the pub is for $1.95 while the image seems to show a $1.50 edition. Marc Kupper (talk) 14:43, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)

after checking again the numbers for this book are correct. We can only assume it is a publisher's error.The cover price is $1.95. The picture looks like $1.95 to me but I can see how anyone could see it as $1.50. As to the number being high for the year, that's probably because of the error.Don Erikson 09:23, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Zilov Bombs

That "4'-" on this pub is pre-decimal British currency, meaning "4 shillings", and gets entered as "4/-". No other currency symbol needed, you know only the British would have such a silly scheme. ;-) BLongley 10:51, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Planet Seekers

Could you please double check if this book was published as by "R. L. Fanthorpe" (as currently entered in your submission) or as by "Erle Barton" (as OCLC believes)? Thanks! Ahasuerus 12:10, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)

When you do a search for Erle Barton you are sent to the Fanthorpe page. When you "Add Publication" to this title, Fanthorpe appears in the author box. I figured that this was what was suppose to happen.Don Erikson 18:53, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Ah, I see! Thanks, I have approved and massaged the submission so that it displays correctly now.

The underlying problem was that you had no easy way of getting to the pseudonymous ("Erle Barton") title in order to Add a Publication to it. When you pulled up the master Title record (under Fanthorpe ), the pseudonymous Title was displayed, but it wasn't selectable. This was due to a problem with our software that occasionally makes it difficult to get to the right Title record. The only way around it is to pull up the Barton pseudonym page, then click on the "Titles" option in the navigation bar on the left, from where you can finally access the pseudonymous title. Admittedly, it's a pain and should be at the top of our list of things to fix once Al is again available in another 6 weeks or so. Sorry about the confusion! Ahasuerus 21:15, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Night Ride and Other Journeys

Your copy of Night Ride and Other Journeys has pseudonyms listed for some of the stories - is this really the case, or are they really all credited to Charles Beaumont? BLongley 14:55, 19 Jul 2007 (CDT)

That's right I was going to change those. No pseudonyms are mentioned on the contents page or the acknowledgements. Don Erikson 16:04, 19 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Pierre Benoit's L'Atlantide/Atlantida

I approved your submission and then found that we already had this publication on file. Moreover, it had been Verified by Kraang. However, there were 2 problems with the pre-existing publication record: it was linked to the master title, L'Atlantide, instead of the English Variant Title, Atlantida, and there was no source given for the publication date (1964). I have moved the old publication record under Atlantida, so that's fixed now. As far as the source of the 1964 publication date goes, it should be easy to look up in Tuck, Reginald or even Clute/Nicholls (which I can't access at the moment since I am on the road). Do you have them handy, by any chance? If you do, we can add a note to the original Publication record, delete the new record and leave Kraang a note with an explanation of the change. Thanks! Ahasuerus 14:53, 20 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I verified the 1964 date through Tuck. Mhhutchins 15:23, 20 Jul 2007 (CDT)

My guess is that the 1964 date was determined by comparing the date of other Ace books. Both F-280 & F-285 were from 1964. Clute/Nicholls doesn't mention a date. Don Erikson 15:29, 20 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, folks, I have added a note to the Verified Publication, left a note for Kraang and zapped the second publication record. Ahasuerus 15:47, 20 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Binder Titles actually listed by Earl and Otto

I have approved them but just want to make sure whether the titles were published as by Eando Binder or whether or not Earl and Otto are specfically credited?--swfritter 10:53, 22 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I made sure to check for either Eando or Otto. I don't seem to have any Earl separately, so far.Don Erikson 18:42, 22 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Wiz Book

I consulted OCLC and they list The Wiz Book: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as an alternate title, so I made it into one. Hopefully, it will help our users find their book on Baum's Summary page. Ahasuerus 18:12, 23 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Quincunx of Time

Re: the 1973 Dell edition of The Quincunx of Time, the Publication record currently states that "Cover artist is uncredited and signature is not visible on cover." Since you have submitted Paul Lehr as the cover artist, could you please clarify where you found the attribution? Did the original verifier (User:Kraang) miss the signature/attribution or was the artist identified in a secondary source? Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:50, 23 Jul 2007 (CDT)

First let me put on my asbestos underwear.... I attributed this cover to Lehr because ...well... it is obviously done by Lehr. There are some artists that are so distinctive that you know who they are. I don't attribute a cover artist without being 100% sure. When in doubt I leave it out.

Artist like Lehr ,Frazetta, Gaughan, Schoeherr. Jeff Jones, Dean Ellis, John Berkey etc. have such distinct styles that they're uniquely their own. Should an artist not get credit for unattributed work? Don Erikson 12:21, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I agree they should - but unless you leave a note as to why you've added something that's not verifiable on the publication, people will challenge it. Just as people challenge publication dates, etc... ;-) BLongley 17:25, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

If you're that good at identifying artists, fine, just say YOU recognise the artist. I'm not that good - I can spot a Josh Kirby cover from the 80s or 90s easily, but very few others. Vallejo, maybe. If I want to verify a Publication that has extra information that I can't support, I'll just add a note saying which bits I couldn't confirm. Notes, notes, and MORE notes seems to be the way to go for now! BLongley 17:25, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Some artists are so distinctive that other artists copy them.--swfritter 18:40, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

There's John Berkey's imitator Attila Hejja (or how ever he spells his name this week), but he signs his work prominently and hasn't Berkey's sense of color and free brush work. The worst I find are the copiers of Chris Foss which there are many. Complicated by Foss's normal lack of signatures and British publishers unwillingness to credit cover artist.

Yes, that happens. :-/ This pub at least had the artist say who he was TRYING to copy. Dismal failure, IMO, but better we know who tried to copy who. One pub that bugged me tonight - I've seen that art before, but I was thinking "Album Cover" rather than "Book Cover". Any ideas? BLongley 19:09, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Is this the book your thinking of http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/mammothenc.htm Don Erikson 21:22, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

No, I'd not seen that book before. That picture has been used in several places, I'm sure, I just can't think where I saw the FULL, original version. Do you know who the artist is? BLongley 04:46, 27 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Ah, found it! It's from Cultosaurus Erectus by Blue Oyster Cult, and is by Richard Clifton-Dey. BLongley 06:11, 27 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I knew if seen this art before. Being I was a huge BOC fan at one time (I was there for the recording of their live double-album (best concert ever! 6 encors!))Don Erikson 10:24, 27 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I only ever saw BOC live once, around 1985. There's only been about four years of my life when gigs were easy to get to, that was one of them. I saw Hawkwind that year too - now THERE'S a band that you expect to appear here at the ISFDB quite often! BLongley 13:13, 27 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Sorry about having this submission on hold for so long. I have approved/massaged it and hopefully the end result looks reasonable. Ahasuerus 01:42, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)

The Airmont edition of The Duplicated Man

Don, you would like to change the publication date of the first printing of the Airmont edition of The Duplicated Man from 1964-10-00 to 0000-00-00. This Publication record was verified by User:Scott Latham back in April, so I am hesitant to remove the date. I checked the OCLC catalog and they also believe that the Airmont edition was published in 1964. Could you please double check your copy to see if the date is perhaps printed in some obscure place? Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:59, 23 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I changed it because the $.040 (and I assume earlier edition) also had the 1964-10-00 date. So later printing dates become unknown. Don Erikson 12:31, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I'm always wary of changing dates apart from adding a month to a publication that only had a year before. I REALLY don't like changing a definite date to 0000-00-00 (unknown) - the date was presumably there for a reason, even if the explanation hasn't been left in notes. And I Double-Really don't like changes to verified pubs without explanation - if I was to accept such a change, I'd at least like to see a note added about why the change was made. BLongley 17:13, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Of course, the whole issue of "0000-00-00" is up for debate - feel free to come and give your views here for instance. I feel that if all a pub has is a First Printing Date and a Printing Number, then we should use BOTH those rather than lose the First Printing date by making the publication '0000-00-00'. I try and leave notes about all prior printings in each pub I enter so that we can connect them all eventually - printing numbers often carry on over several imprints of the same publisher, so we couldn't necessarily sort out, for instance, 20 printings across Grafton/Granada/Panther if we don't know what the original starting point is. BLongley 17:13, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, enough grumbling from me - I'm happy accepting NEW Pubs with a 0000-00-00, as I see you have in the queue, but if there's ANY sort of publishing date on them I'd like to see that in the notes at least, even if you prefer NOT to put an exact but probably not correct date in the Date field itself. BLongley 17:13, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I see your point. I will strive to note date info. You can't have to much information.

Don Erikson 10:08, 27 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I don't think we have the $0.40 printing in the database at the moment. If you happen to have a copy, could you please enter it and then we could add a comment to the $0.60 one? TIA! Ahasuerus 01:37, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Blish's Seedling Stars

Your submission for this new edition looked somewhat odd in that the 7th printing reverted to the catalog number of the first. Perhaps you were cloning from the first edition and didn't update the catalog number?

Metadata Column Proposed Values Title The Seedling Stars Authors James Blish Tag - Year 0000-00-00 Publisher Signet Pages 158 Binding pb PubType COLLECTION Isbn #S1622 Price $1.25 Artists - Image - Note 7th printing as per number line. Submitted by: Don Erikson

Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:06, 26 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it was a cloning mishap, I guess. I resubmitted the entry.Don Erikson 10:04, 27 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Astronaut

I approved your addition of The Astronaut but then changed the ISBN from 0-446-75521-X to 0-446-76521-X. You may want to double check your publication to see if it says 0-446-76521-X as my source was via scanning Abebooks listings when I noticed the checksum was wrong. Marc Kupper (talk) 16:17, 28 Jul 2007 (CDT)

You're right I got it wrong. The fix is correct.Don Erikson 17:21, 28 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Bond's The Other World

I accepted your submission of this title, but changed the price, removing the pound sign. In pre-decimal British prices the 2/6 referred to shillings and pence. So just enter prices from the 1950/60s UK editions as "2/6" or "3/6", etc. Mhhutchins 10:44, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Citing cecondary sources

Hi Don, sometimes you add notes that contain secondary sources such as

• Solo Kill - Cover art uncredited but may be Paul Alexander.
• As on a Darkling Plain - Cover art uncredited but is Dean Ellis.

These notes are useful but could you also cite the source of the secondary data? It's ok if the source is "personal recollection", "personal judgment based on the publisher, style of painting, etc.", or "is credited as name on Locus", etc. This will do two things. 1) It makes it clearer the data is secondary and not something stated in the publication. 2) If it turns out the information is wrong, or is disputed, then knowing, or being able to consult/correct the original secondary source(s) is useful.

Also, it seems that if you know firmly that Dean Ellis did the cover for As on a Darkling Plain then you might as well credit him on the Artist1 line. We'd leave the field blank if we did not have a reliable secondary source. Marc Kupper (talk) 13:18, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT)

You are right. I am not being clear about cover artist info. I've been collecting for neigh on this last thirty years and have two art degrees, I sometimes think in my arrogance that my personal judgment is enough. From now on I'll more clearly preface my claims something like "personal judgment based on the publisher, style of painting, etc." as you suggested. Don Erikson 09:55, 30 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Clone for other edition

Hi Don - I know this one is not covered in the ISFDB help pages but I saw a publication update for As on a Darkling Plain where you

• Changed the year from 1991-00-00 to 0000-00-00
• Added the note 2nd printing as per number line.

In this case I approved your update but then decided to change the date to 1991-06-15 plus added a note about the source of this secondary information. What had caught my attention was the loss of information (the 1991-00-00) from ISFDB. If I had not been able to locate a source for "1991" I would have added a publication note that the ISFDB record used to state "1991-00-00". My thinking here is that nearly all of the information in ISFDB is accurate but that we don't know the sources for it. Rather than just deleting/overwriting the data I usually try to either locate a secondary source that substantiates the data or at least make a note of it before overwriting/deleting it.

The only data I routinely overwrite without bothering to research sources or to document the original value is the page count as that number is often wildly wrong right from the source (the publishers). Marc Kupper (talk) 13:54, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Dueling Machine

re, your addition of The Dueling Machine with the note "Because of nonstandard system of indicating printing, it isn't clear if this a first or second printing. If it is a 1st then the date is 1973-01-00. If a 2nd then the date is unknown."

I would go ahead with dating the publication 1973-01-00 and leave your note in there. I am curious as to what the non-standard system is.

BTW, is your cover painting the same as [11]? That's my Berkley edition cover but it's also a Ken Barr artwork. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:50, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT)

On the copyright page has a regular "First printing, January, 1973", but above on the page it says:

Second printing Third printing

...down to...

Tenth printing

 A sort of early version of the number line. Some publishers leave the 1st printing slug and remove the first number on the number line. Others never use a 1st in a number line and rely on the "First printing"

slug. So it is unclear to me which printing this is.

The art for the covers of the Ace & Berkley are the same.

Thank you Don - I updated the notes for my publication to note the cover painting is the same as the earlier Ace edition and also updated the record for your Signet The Dueling Machine to note the number line details. I took a look at Abebooks to see if I could spot an early Signet edition that was not Q5328 and thus perhaps the 1st printing. I was unable to locate one. Quite a few sellers called their copy a "Tenth Printing" and so that non-standard "number line" really throws people for a spin. DAW did it that way too though only for a couple of months before they switched to the number line format that we are more familiar with. I suspect you have a second printing but let's see if someone shows up with a copy that starts out "First Printing." That's one of the reasons I listed the entire "number line" in the publication notes as then someone with a "First Printing" should notice and hopefully just clone the record for your copy. Marc Kupper (talk) 12:28, 30 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Don - One other question about your Signet edition. Is there any evidence of the ISBN 0-451-05328-1, perhaps on the copyright page? See Amazon.com 0451053281 which also has images with the person who uploaded the 3rd image calling it a "10th printing" but I can't quite read the text-line on the right edge to see if this cover is the 95 cent version. Marc Kupper (talk) 12:45, 30 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Using a little graphic magic I looked at that 3rd image and it is the $0.95 edition. I remember back in the olden times when I thought all those early DAWs were 10th printings. But I figured out that couldn't be right. Don Erikson 14:20, 30 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Thank you Don. BTW - as you seem to have a copy you might as well verify The Dueling Machine. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:20, 30 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Prometheans

Hi Don: I approved your update to this edition but the Amazon coverart link doesn't work. There IS a Customer Image at amazon though, here, would that be the correct one?
I'm afraid a lot of these broken Amazon links are around - personally, if I'm editing a publication from a primary source and encounter such I look for the right image, and replace it if I find one: or delete that field if there's no usable image. The risk with the LZZZZZZZ.jpg URLs is that someday Amazon MAY put something there, and it won't necessarily be what you had in your hands when you did the edit! BLongley 13:34, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

That is the correct cover. Don Erikson 13:42, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the quick response! Do you want to do the edit or shall I? BLongley 13:57, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Verily I have thusly verified.Don Erikson 16:48, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

The Starcrossed by Ben Bova

I went ahead and approved your edit of the 1984 version of this book, but before I did so I cloned it. Unless that you know for a fact that there was no copies of the book at $2.75 it should be cloned and not edited, with the new price, CoverArt attribution, and new notes added to the clone. However doing a straight clone first, and then editing in the new information to one of the clones is acceptable too. Just make a note in the "notes" section of the pub so the Mods know what is going on. CoachPaul 16:24, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Good catch. I know better than to do anything that would cause the loss of information. Don Erikson 16:49, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Catchworld

I approved the new listing of this pub, but the ISBN that you entered has 11 digits not 10, and I can't figure out which is the extra digit. Please double check and fix it. Thanks! CoachPaul 16:35, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Sorry. Had one too many twos, I made the edit. Don Erikson 16:50, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Andromeda Gun by John Boyd

If you're going to put a personal judgment into the notes column, you need to separate what is yours from what was originally there, and then put who you are. If not, whoever read the notes would have thought that the person who Verified the pub, Kraang in this case, was the one who had left the note. Also it is customary and polite to notify someone else before making any changes to a pub that they have Verified. CoachPaul 16:44, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Right, there have been cases when one editor would verify a Publication record, then another editor would come along, assume (incorrectly) that his printing was the same as the verified one and add more notes based on his copy. Not that I would ever do a thing like that myself! (crosses fingers behind the back :-)

After a few near misses, it became rather obvious that any time you updated a verified Publication record, the safe thing to do was to leave a Wiki note for the verifier and ask him to check that the added data matches his copy. It's not a 100% guarantee since you can't see each other's copies (especially the cover art), but it helps avoid 90% of potential collisions. Ahasuerus 17:36, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Good point. I will remember (I hope) to do so. Is it OK to add a personal judgment to a non-verified entry without "signing" it? Are just initials ok? Don Erikson 20:27, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I tend to sign everything that is personal judgment, unless I have Verified the pub, in which case my name is already linked to it. This way if someone disagrees with me, they know who to discuss the matter with. CoachPaul 00:35, 3 Aug 2007 (CDT)

John Boyd's Barnard's Planet

If you're entering from the actual book, can you check to see if 0-425-03239-6 is the ISBN for this edition? That's the number on OCLC. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:46, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I missed the, in this case, the SBN on the copyright page. I've corrected the entry. Don Erikson 20:26, 2 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Illustrations for Bradbury's Halloween Tree

I accepted your submission of this new edition of Bradbury's story, but changed the title of Mugnaini's illustrations to the title of the novel. This would be what appears on the artist's summary page. Otherwise the title you provided ("illustrations") would not aid someone searching for this specific work. Keep that in mind when adding interior illustrations to future submissions. Thanks for the contribution. Mhhutchins 16:08, 9 Aug 2007 (CDT)

To tell the truth I didn't know what to do. Now I know, makes perfect sense. Don Erikson 12:40, 10 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I can't tell you how many "Oh yeah, so that's the way you do it" moments I've had in the short time I've been working on the database. And I'm still having them! Mhhutchins 15:39, 10 Aug 2007 (CDT)

R is for Rocket

Don can you check this publication 1969-01-00 / #HP4398 / $0.60, you have in notes "14th Printing. Printing date from copyright page of 11th printing." Thanks :-)Kraang 18:02, 13 Aug 2007 (CDT)

It's Typo-tacular! Should be "16th". I'll fix it right ....now! Don Erikson 13:04, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Ok, so maybe Kraang will fix it. That makes more sense. Don Erikson 13:09, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Ok, it's fixed, although the date and the printing number seem wrong. The 1972 Bantam Pathfinder edition is listed as the 11th printing? Was the Pathfinder a new imprint title for the Bantam R is for Rocket? Kraang 20:03, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Dating pubs from Popular Library

I approved your submission of this new pub, but I have a question about the date. Based on your note, you seem to have figured out how to date pubs from Popular Library. I've worked on so many submissions in which the editor used the copyright date, and, knowing they're wrong, I would change the date to 0000-00-00 (unknown). What's the secret? Mhhutchins 18:38, 24 Aug 2007 (CDT)

No big secret. Some PopLib books I've noticed have a date, in this case 1-74, on the last page of text. I've noticed that the date is usually, but not always the month before any date on the the copyright page. But because this date isn't definitive I think the month given isn't reliable enough to use. I don't know how wide spread this dating is used to make it all that useful. Don Erikson 12:21, 25 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Kerning

Just a reminder that we always enter a space between initials, thus "J. K. Potter" as opposed to "J.K. Potter" :) Ahasuerus 19:10, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Re: "Kerning": he's just using a fancy word at you[1], don't worry about it. Unless you're really casting each letter of every submission into metal type before somehow converting such into binary transmissions over this-here inter-web-thingummy, Ahasuerus just means we usually use a space after each "." ;-) I don't get that pernickety [2].

[1] Possibly showing affectation, boasting, flamboyance, flaunting, grandstanding, pomposity, pompousness, pretentiousness, showiness, swaggering, and other doobries. [3]

[2] OK, maybe I do. But it's only FUN! ;-) BLongley 20:14, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)

[3] "Doobries" IS a word, honest. One of my best friend's mates invented it, when his use of "Dongle" got stolen. BLongley 20:14, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I blame Al! He started it! Ahasuerus 21:54, 1 Sep 2007 (CDT)

You missed a space in "H.R. van Dongen" today as well. No real biggy, most people seem to care less about the artists. It just helps if it's already right before I do my "Spacing-Nazi" scans... BLongley 15:44, 6 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Well, so this is where everybody went. I finally found my way back, I thought the talk page was a goner. Ok I'll put a space 'tween initials from now on, didn't remember there a rule. By the way , kerning doesn't apply to spaces between letters and words to delineate them each other. Kerning applies to the spacing between letters (and the spaces between words) usually for style and justification and is independent of punctuation. (Hey! My 25 year old degree in Graphic Arts finally good for something). Don Erikson 10:44, 7 Sep 2007 (CDT)

As Ahasuerus said - "Blame Al!" ;-) I have a suspicion Dissembler is responsible for some of the misspacings too - I find it's the most common reason for Author-merging now. BLongley 13:16, 7 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Like he said...

Thanks for entering this new pub, but remember to place spaces after the periods in authors' names. (L. A. G. Strong and L. P. Hartley). I'll let you make the corrections. If you need help, just ask. I trust that you're familiar with how to merge titles as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:39, 3 Sep 2007 (CDT)

After no response from you, I went ahead and made the changes that should have been done when the submission was accepted. I did the following:

1. Changed "L.P. Hartley" to "L. P. Hartley" (on two records)
2. Changed "L.A.G. Strong" to "L. A. G. Strong"
3. Corrected the title of the Hartley story from "Someone on the Lift" to "Someone in the Lift"
4. Merged these stories with existing records: "Harry", "The Tower", "Ringing the Changes", "The Telephone" and "Someone in the Lift"

I hope this goes through, it is my 3rd attempt. I seem to able to connect here only intermittently. I'll have to brush up on merging before adding new short fiction. Don Erikson 10:11, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Stand on Zanzibar

Just a heads-up that although some of your editions' dates went through OK despite not having the official date format (e.g. "-8-" for month worked instead of "-08-"), "1974-06" didn't and I had to enter the day myself. BLongley 15:30, 6 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Oh, and apparently YOUR user page is a bit difficult to get to due to the current "isfdb.org"/"isfdb.tamu.edu" problems, so don't be too surprised if people aren't talking to you as much (this has taken me four attempts!). Keep up the good work! BLongley 15:30, 6 Sep 2007 (CDT)

By the way, I'm zapping any broken ".01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" Amazon cover-art links I see on the grounds that if they ever DO work, it will be with a random image that can't have been checked. Leaving a working one might be OK, if it's an out-of-print edition, but either doing the zapping yourself or adding a correct, stable one would help us moderators.

Glad to see you're on Brunner at the moment - I'm finding a lot of variants, expansions, rewrites etc in his works, so if you can point out anything like that as you check the books please do add notes. I hate buying the same work two or three times under different titles, but haven't finished my collection of his works by any means yet. He's only a shelf-full so far, but it's half a shelf at the bottom of the last bookcase in the living-room (behind the sofa) and the top left of the first bookcase in the dining-room, so a bit awkward when I do MY checks! BLongley 15:59, 6 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Robert Buckner's "Starfire"

Tuck and Worldcat show the publisher of this title is Permabook. Can you double check? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:56, 10 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Oops! With my less than perfect eyesight I mistook the Permabook anchor logo for Pocket's Gertrude the Kangaroo. Seriously! That gold side strip they share with Pocket didn't help much either. Permabook was a part of Pocket at that time anyway, right? I'll do better in the future (if I could do better in the past things would be oh so much improved). Don Erikson 12:42, 13 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Permabook was the paperback imprint of Doubleday (thus the anchor) until mid-1954 when it was purchased by ... Pocket Books. I believe it was dissolved sometime in the late 60s. I think I'll steal your last line the next time I mess up (see this), as it seems to cover so much territory. Mhhutchins 15:25, 13 Sep 2007 (CDT)

It IS a good line - I might steal it myself! ;-) BLongley 16:38, 13 Sep 2007 (CDT)

New Destinies Volume V

According to Locus1, there never was a Volume V in this series. The issue following Volume IV was mistakenly identified as Volume VI. If your submission was based on the actual book, please double-check. Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:48, 16 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Adding another edtion of a collection or anthology

When you added a new edition of The Second Pacific Book of Science Fiction, there was a way that the contents could have been included without having to retype them all (in this case you didn't add the contents at all.) There was a previous edition with contents. You could have cloned it, and if there had been any differences in the contents, you could have either added or removed the individual content records. Just thought you might not be aware of this option. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:01, 16 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Tales of Terror and Suspense - Dell, 1974

Can you see if this edition of the title has an ISBN of 0-440-98466-1 ? Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:09, 16 Sep 2007 (CDT)

You may have wondered where I've been. yesterday I was released from the hospital after emergeny quadrupal bypass surguryI now have the heart of a man twice my age.(better than being dead I guess. If it hadden't bee fro the diet I was on before I'd prpbably be desd. Eight wweks of recovery and maybe i'll get my job back. I just hope i'll not to sell everthing I own to pay my bills. Even delealing with spellcheck is to tiring righ now. But as time sgoes on maybe I'll be back. Don Erikson 16:47, 3 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Wow! Sorry to hear about the surgery, but at the same time congratulations on dodging the bullet. I had my vacuum tubes replaced last year and things have been smooth ever since. Heck, Hugh B. Cave had an emergency surgery to unclog his arteries when he was in his mid-eighties and he lived well into his nineties, which, I suppose, goes to show that if your problems are identified and addressed before they get out of hand, you have a pretty good chance of shrugging them off these days. Get some rest and read a few books -- I know you have a couple! :) Ahasuerus 17:30, 3 Oct 2007 (CDT)

The Land of Hidden Men (1963)

Welcome back, hope you're feeling somewhat better! BLongley 13:00, 18 Nov 2007 (CST)

I've put your submission on hold for the moment as it may be the same as this edition? Please have a look and let me know. I'm not sure why there's two versions of the title in the database. BLongley 13:00, 18 Nov 2007 (CST)

I am feeling much better, thank you. But I would have been back much earlier if I hadn't had to have more surgery, this time on an unrelated abscess on my lower spine. When it rains...Don Erikson 14:52, 19 Nov 2007 (CST)

I can sympathise from the other side - last time I stayed in hospital it was for a minor abscess, and I came out with unrelated warnings about why I'd be going back there NEXT time. They told me I'd be back with heart troubles, lung cancer, or worse. I showed them though - next time I went back was due to an exploding lasagna dish. They never warned me about that! :-) BLongley 16:24, 19 Nov 2007 (CST)

What happened with The Land of Hidden Men was that I cloned from the listing that came up as an alternative title of Jungle Girl, which has different editions listed. Don Erikson 14:52, 19 Nov 2007 (CST)

I thought it must be something like that. So, what would you like to happen? Let the submission through and let someone else sort it out? I'm not qualified to judge 1963 v 1973 versions, I own neither. If you're not either - let's leave notes and make it someone else's problem! ;-) BLongley 16:24, 19 Nov 2007 (CST)

I left this so long the submission gives:
ERROR: Attempted automerge with missing title: 186581
, so I rejected it. I guess someone’s merged the 1963 and 1973 titles, and now all someone needs to do is delete the duplicates. BLongley 14:01, 2 Dec 2007 (CST)

Lost on Venus

I've held this as my eyesight isn't certain, but I suspect we'd rather clone #49501 to #49502 rather than edit it? We seem to have the first three Ace editions sorted: [12] [13] [14] I know you say yours is second printing, but it looks to be more about 4th printing? (#F-221 , then #49500, #49501, #49502? Even the 1984 versions suggest 49508 and 49509 are later ones in the sequence.) BLongley 14:33, 18 Nov 2007 (CST)

I may have clicked on edit instead of clone by mistake, I'm a little rusty. Determining the printing of multiple printed book can difficult so I try to refrain from claiming certain knowledge of them. Don Erikson 15:32, 19 Nov 2007 (CST)

OK, I'll reject that one and clone it for you instead. No worries, I've made the same mistake many times myself. BLongley 16:29, 19 Nov 2007 (CST)

Myrfa C’an and the Edgestones and Other Stories (Vanity Press)

A vanity press? [15] What gave it away? :-)Kraang 17:53, 20 Nov 2007 (CST)

Lenore Bredeson

Just to let you know that I have approved One Step Beyond and changed all of the authors' names to "Lenore Bredeson". I then entered the names of the playwrights in the Notes field of each record. Unfortunately, the name of the author of the play that "Make Me Not a Witch" was based on was garbled in the submission; could you please look it up and enter it in the Title's Notes field? TIA! Ahasuerus 23:46, 21 Nov 2007 (CST)

ERB's The Rider

I have approved your corrections to the Ace edition of The Rider. However, after poking around some, it would appear that there were at least two Ace printings of this book, one in 1974 with the ISBN (or rather an SBN) of 0-441-72782-4, which cost $1.25, and another one with the ISBN of 0-441-72282-2, so I cloned the record accordingly. I have also added the original 1937 publication and a G&D reprint from OCLC. It never ends, doesn't it? :-) Ahasuerus 21:22, 24 Nov 2007 (CST)

I've two more printings of THE RIDER that I was waiting to clone when the one I added was put up. 441-72280-125 & 0-4410-72282-2-195 on their spines respectively. There's no date for either. I'll input them Sunday sometime. Don Erikson 22:26, 24 Nov 2007 (CST)

Thanks! :) Ahasuerus 22:46, 24 Nov 2007 (CST)

Tanar of Pellucidar

Don can you check the ISBN# on this publication Tanar of Pellucidar [16]. You entered "0-448-1716-7". Thanks.Kraang 18:46, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

Boy did I screw that one up! Not only did a drop a number from the ISBN but I got the title wrong! It's THE CAVE GIRL. And I got the pages number wrong too! Must of cloned wrong entry. Well, it's all fixed now. Don Erikson 20:31, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

The change to the pub. title was fine, but I would have to unmerge that pub. and remerge it with the The Cave Girl title. The only thing you did wrong was to change the title in the content section. This has the effect of changing the main Tanar of Pellucidar title to The Cave Girl. Any search for the Tanar title would not find it. I can still approve your submission and set the title back. I'll also move the pub. to its proper title record. :-)Kraang 21:56, 26 Nov 2007 (CST)

The War Chief

I approved your The War Chief and changed it to Nongenre. Some of the other novels already under Burroughs look like they should probably be there also so if you have those and they are non-sf please fix them as you come to them. Dana Carson 15:02, 29 Nov 2007 (CST)

Jurgen by Cabell

You updated this pub with a note that the pages were trimmed. Are you certain that all of the copies had this shape? If not, we can note that at least one copy had the rounded shape. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:17, 6 Dec 2007 (CST)

I looked this up on abebooks and saw a copy that had the same shape as yours. I'll let the update go through. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:33, 6 Dec 2007 (CST)

Aquarius Mission by Caidin

Your update to this pub removed the date and added the first printing note. Because this is a verified copy (by Dcarson), I have to be more careful about updates. If you have a copy of the book, can you double check? It's strange that a first printing not show a date of publication. Bantam is usually pretty good about that sort of thing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:24, 6 Dec 2007 (CST) The edition that removed the date from was an undated 4th printing. I guess I missed adding the printing number. Don Erikson 18:24, 6 Dec 2007 (CST)

I'll go ahead and reject the submission to update the verified edition (which I assume should be the first printing). Then you can create a new record for the undated 4th printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:11, 7 Dec 2007 (CST)

The Armada Ghost Book and the Fontana books of great horror stories

I have The Armada Ghost Book variant title submission currently on hold since I am not quite sure what the intent was. The proposed variant title/author are the same as the current ones and the only difference is in the Note field which says "This 1978 printing of this book is titled "1ST ARMADA GHOST BOOK".". Is the goal to enter the 1978 edition as "1st Armada Ghost Book", but have the contents cloned from the pre-existing 1967 publication and then make it into a variant title of the 1967 record? If so, I am afraid it will have to be a multi-step process. We will have to Clone the existing publication record first, then unmerge the resulting publication from the current Title record and then make the newly created Title into a variant of the current title. If that's your goal, please let me know and I can do it quickly -- these kinds of multi-step changes are much easier when you can approve your own submissions. Also, there were apparently at least 14 of these "Armada Ghost Books" and we will want to create an anthology series for them once we have this submission sorted out.

I also have the two Fontana Books of Great Horror Stories submissions on hold. Did you mean to clone the existing publications in order to preserve the contents instead of using Add Publication, by any chance? Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:01, 6 Dec 2007 (CST)

My goal was to indicated a variant title of the Armada book but I didn't know how. The instructions for this is to my addled little brain, unclear. So I figured if I someone else a little more savvy might know.

Ah, I see! No worries, I have made the changes that I listed above and the new publication is ready if you want to add the publisher, price, page numbers, etc from your copy. Ahasuerus 19:33, 7 Dec 2007 (CST)

Yes, I cloned the Fontana books to preserve contents and to show that the reprint wasn't different from the original. Should I use Add Publication if the contents are the same. Don Erikson 12:39, 7 Dec 2007 (CST)

Hm, something strange is going on here. There were no contents records in either one of the two Fontana submissions. After I approved the The Fontana Book of Great Horror Stories, the resulting publication record had no contents. All three previously listed editions of this anthology had contents, so if you had used "Clone Publication" on one of them, the submission would have had contents. I suspect that you may have accidentally clicked on "Add Publication to this Title" instead.

In any case, I went back and used Clone on both anthologies and then used the data that you had submitted to populate the publisher/price/etc fields. The resulting publication records -- here for The Fontana Book of Great Horror Stories and here for The 3rd Fontana Book of Great Horror Stories -- are ready to have page numbers added to them. Once we know what the page counts for each story are, we can then change "shortfiction" to more specific story lengths.

Again, thanks for all the submissions! Glad to hear you are feeling better, but don't overextend yourself, post-surgery recovery can take a long time. I should know :-) Ahasuerus 19:33, 7 Dec 2007 (CST)

Erewhon by Samuel Butler

Your verified copy of this book is actually the 1976 printing, not the 1968, which would have a cheaper price. Look at the bottom of page 348 and you'll see "5-76", the date of the book's printing (though not necessarily the month of its release, but close.) Mhhutchins 14:14, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

Unaccompanied Sonata by Card

Thanks for adding this new edition of Card's collection. Keep in mind that when adding a collection or anthology you can clone an existing pub, and the contents will be added to the new edition automatically. This will save someone from having to add the contents to the edition you added, and the content records will be automatically merged with the pre-existing records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:40, 13 Dec 2007 (CST)

Ian Cameron's The Lost Ones and sequel

I think I have finally sorted out The Lost Ones (which you submitted the other day), its sequel and various variant titles and revised editions. Take a look at the result when you get a chance :) Ahasuerus 23:56, 13 Dec 2007 (CST)

1973 Pocket Books edition of R. U. R."

Don, could you please double check the page count of the uncredited "Reader's Supplement" essay in the 1973 Pocket Books edition of R. U. R.? According to OCLC records, the page count was 39 pages in the first (1968) printing done by "Washington Square", but only 24 pages in the second (1973) printing done by Pocket. We currently have both printings listed as "114+39" pages. Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:57, 19 Dec 2007 (CST)

Oh! Good catch. I just cloned the 1st assuming... I'll go fix it now. Don Erikson 18:27, 20 Dec 2007 (CST)

Looks good, thanks! :) Ahasuerus 19:18, 20 Dec 2007 (CST)

The Dark Dimensions / The Rim Gods

I presume you entered this pub from a primary source - if so, can you tell us the page count for each book rather than the total? e.g. "206+200" or whatever. BLongley 13:29, 27 Dec 2007 (CST)

These are not the dos style pubs of the past, but a regular format novel. Some of the covers refer to them as "Ace Double". The Ace Double is a bit miss leading. For now I've left them all this way because. I may go back in the future and change it to just "Ace" with an explanation about whats printed on the covers.Kraang 19:38, 27 Dec 2007 (CST)

Ah, ok: this picture made me think of a dos-a-dos printing but of course that doesn't preclude normal printings too. (And I see Amazon have at least one wrong cover on the publication...) BLongley 06:49, 28 Dec 2007 (CST)

Double Phoenix

You might want to check Double Phoenix again, there was an Anthology/Collection mismatch and I'm not sure if I've adjusted it the way you'd like. BLongley 17:57, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

I considered this some. It was originally listed as a collection. But being two works of fiction by two different authors under a unique title, I decided (unilaterally, I admit)that this is an anthology. Don Erikson 23:44, 29 Dec 2007 (CST)

Great Ghost Stories in Large Print

I approved the addition of Great Ghost Stories in Large Print earlier today and then, as per the Help pages, changed all author names to have a space after initials, e.g. "W.F. Harvey" became "W. F. Harvey". I also changed "Chalres" to "Charles" in Dickens' name, "Empy House" to "Empty House", and "How Fear Departes from the Long Gallery" to "How Fear Departed from the Long Gallery". I then merged the duplicates and set up variant titles as appropriate. Please take a look at the result when you get a chance to see if it looks OK. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:48, 30 Dec 2007 (CST) Ahasuerus 01:48, 30 Dec 2007 (CST)

The (Time)? Travelling Matchmaker: Book 1: Emily Goes to Exeter

Don your submission of these two titles [17] appear to be more historical romance. All the cover images I found list the title as The Travelling Matchmaker: Book 1: Emily Goes to Exeter, without the word Time in it. Also the summaries of the books do not indicate spec. fiction. Thanks :-)Kraang 19:02, 1 Jan 2008 (CST)

Jeez! I can be such an idiot! It's NOT "Time Travelling" It is just "The Travelling Matchmaker". How I came up with "Time" is beyond me. Maybe it was the illo of a watch right next to the title. (OK so it isn't beyond me). I'd say delete both these books. Don Erikson 10:35, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks, I'll delete them.Kraang 19:04, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Actually sounds like it would be an interesting story. You should write it. Dana Carson 20:53, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ballantine's edition of Childhood's End

I see that you would like to clone the pre-existing Ballantine edition of Childhood End. As far as I can tell, the only difference in your cloned version is that you changed the publication date from 1953-08-24 to 1953-09-00. My guess is that Scott Latham, who verified this record and had worked in the publishing business, entered the exact publication date of the "September 1953 edition" based on some unspecified data. Unfortunately, he didn't indicate where the data had come from and he hasn't been seen around the ISFDB for a number of months :( but I think it's a pretty good bet that the edition that you are trying to add is the same as the one that we already have on file. Does it make sense? Ahasuerus 00:41, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

Makes perfect sense. I just use what a book's copyright page says. Not wanting to contradict another entry that could be correct I add a new entry.Don Erikson 13:00, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

Sounds like a good plan to me! I will reject the submission and add a note to the verified edition to the effect that the book itself gives September 1953 as its publication date. Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:32, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)

Stainslaw Fernandes

I've approved a few edits of yours, but you might want to check if "Stainslaw Fernandes" is actually "Stanislaw Fernandes"? Genuine typos need to be recorded, but this might be a copy'n'paste error, so I though I'd check. BLongley 17:53, 8 Jan 2008 (CST)

I thought I caught this before I sent it. It's my typo. Don Erikson 14:28, 9 Jan 2008 (CST)

OK, I'll merge Stainslaw into Stanislaw. You can double-check when you come back and do your VERIFICATION pass! ;-) BLongley 15:18, 9 Jan 2008 (CST)

Expedition to Earth

I rejected one of your Expedition to Earth entries that had no contents, as this is one of the trickier titles in the ISFDB. Apparently that title has been used for two different short stories: "History Lesson" and "Encounter [in the|at] Dawn": if you can spare the time to go check those books even more closely, I'd appreciate it. Our notes are a bit confusing at the moment, and you seem to have several editions, so should be the expert! BLongley 18:13, 8 Jan 2008 (CST)

Problem fixed. One little mistake and it can propagate through a myriad of clones. Hmm... sounds like a story idea....Don Erikson 12:27, 10 Jan 2008 (CST)

Close to Critical by Hal Clement

I'm holding your submission updating this pub until I hear back from the original verifier. Hopefully he'll get back with me soon. I know verifiers can make mistakes, especially if they're cloning from another edition. Maybe he forgot to remove the note on a 2nd printing which he cloned this pub from. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:00, 14 Jan 2008 (CST)

I've not heard anything from the original verifier, so I'm going to approve to submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:32, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Iceworld by Hal Clement

I accepted your submission for a new edition of this title, but had to make a few changes. The ISBN was incorrect, but that was easily changed. The cover link to Amazon didn't work, so I found another image. Can you check to see if this matches your edition? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:26, 14 Jan 2008 (CST)

Looks good.Don Erikson 12:11, 15 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Weathermakers by Ben Bova

I approved your submission adding this pub, but wondered where the catalog number came from. Hardcovers from that time period rarely contained ISBNs, and as you placed a # before it, I have to assume it's a catalog number. But hardcovers (other than book club editions) never contain catalog numbers. Is this perhaps the Library of Congress cataloging number? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:59, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

The number appears on the back of the dust jacket, in a little red box. There is no explanation as to what they actually mean. Don Erikson 19:35, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

According to OCLC, the LOC ID was 68-10078, so "9623851" is presumably something else. Ahasuerus 19:51, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Venus Venture by "Marston Johns"

Your submission adding this new pub showed the author as "R. L. Fanthorpe (as by Marston Johns)", which would create a new author with that exact name. If the book is published as by "Marston Johns", and credited as such on the title page, then that's exactly what should be entered in the author field. After the submission is accepted, we can then create a variant that will link it to Fanthorpe's author summary page. Let me know if Marston Johns is the credited author, and I can accept the submission and change the author. Or I can reject the submission, and you can make a new submission. Either way, let me know which you prefer. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:16, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

I just checked Tuck who confirms that the 1965 US edition from Arcadia was published as by "Marston Johns" (the UK editions were credited to "John E. Muller".) 16:16, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

I figured if I gave all the info someone would know what to do, 'cause I sure didn't. And I know for sure it's Fanthorpe because he signed my copy. (Though he also signed some books of mine he wasn't 100% sure he wrote.)Don Erikson 19:25, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

A sure sign of an author who writes too much! I'll go ahead and approve the submission and make the necessary changes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:06, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

Not only that. The man had the cojones to sell the same book with the same title under two different pennames to two different US publishers in the same year! He deserves some kind of recognition, if not for his writing, at least for his chutzpah. Mhhutchins 21:20, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

Is it uncommon to sell hardcover and paperback rights separately in the US? Or just when under different pseudonyms? BLongley 13:09, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

Hardcover publishers and paperback publishers used to be very different animals in the US. Back in the 1970s, even you had sold all rights (well, "all relevant rights") to a hardcover publisher, he would have had little choice but to turn around and resell them to a paperback publisher because he wouldn't have been in a position to publish your book in paperback anyway. These days, the same publisher may do your book in hardcover and in paperback or he may resell some rights in some markets. There are lots and lots of permutations these days... Ahasuerus 13:20, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ensign Flandry

I've added an image for your verified publication. This is "sight unseen" and the only things used to match the image to your ISFDB record are the Catalog # and price. Marc Kupper (talk) 12:55, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

That's the right cover. Don Erikson 13:30, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)

Earth 2

The cover image for Earth 2 you just submitted does not work. Marc Kupper (talk) 13:58, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

The link to the cover was from the original entry I edited. I find most of the cover links from Amazon no longer work, but some do so I've been leaving them intact. If the cover image doesn't show up with the entry should I assume that the link no longer work and remove it? Don Erikson 13:37, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)

Yes, I generally delete them when I see them. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:17, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Andromeda Strain

The cover image for The Andromeda Strain you just submitted does not work.

   See above. 

One way to test cover image URLs is to go to http://marc.kupper.googlepages.com/isbn and to copy/paste in the ISBN. If the image displays then you can use the URL that's shown just above it. If it says something like "Image " but does not show an image just below this then you should not use that URL. I look into seeing if there's a way the page could detect if there is an image. I know I thought about it but did not want to say "Image not available" as there may be a customer provided image and those always have long strange URLs that seem unrelated to the ISBN or ASIN of the Amazon record. Amazon web services (AWS) also does not give us the list of customer images meaning I'd need to use indirect/sneaky methods to check for customer images. Marc Kupper (talk) 14:11, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

I've bookmarked this page & will use it for covers.Don Erikson 13:48, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)

"First printing" vs. "1st printing as per number line."

When you note "First Printing" for a publication record I assume you mean the book just says "First printing /date/" but does not have a number line or other indication of the printing number? Marc Kupper (talk) 14:00, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

I go by what's on the copyright page. I say " per number line" only if there is a number line. I say "first printing" if it says so OR if it's clear that it is, like when it was the only printing from an obscure publisher. If I feel it isn't definitive I leave it blank.Don Erikson 13:46, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)

Unfortunately, it's not always easy to tell how many printings an obscure publisher printed decades ago -- just the other week I discovered an obscure version of an E. Everette Evans collection that Bill Contento didn't know about -- so it's probably safer to use "stated first printing" when it says so in the book and "assumed first printing" when it's not stated explicitly. Ahasuerus 13:52, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thank you Don. When a first printing is not stated I usually write something like "There is no printing date or number stated in the publication" and then go on to comment on items that could be used to help date the publication from the copyright, price, advertising, etc. If the book's points fit into the same date as the copyright I'll use that date and add it to the notes. The main thing I try to convey though is exactly what is in the publication, and what I looked for but could not find. From that people can make up their own minds on where that publication fits into the grand scheme of things.

Overall, what you are doing is not "wrong" other than I would not note "First Printing" in the ISFDB record if the publication did not state this. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:33, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

Condorman by Crume or Claro?

Your submission for this pub credited Vic Crume as the author. OCLC credits Joe Claro. I know your previous entry (CHOMPS) was by Crume. Was it just a matter of failing to clear the field before entering a new pub? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:24, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

And OCLC credits Herbie Rides Again to Mel Cebulash not Crume. Mhhutchins 18:26, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

The ISBN for The Shaggy D.A. is invalid. OCLC says it should b 0-449-13642-6. Please double-check your pub. Maybe they printed an invalid ISBN in the book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:31, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Ouch! That was one stupid mistake! Condorman IS by Joe Claro. His name is not on the cover or spine and I had shelved it with Clume & assumed. I can't say the same thing for thing goes for Herbie Rides Again. Cebulash's name is on the spine and I still mis-shelved it!!

And "Strike Three" in my triad of terrible typing; The Shaggy D.A. ISBN is as you have it above.

I think, to save my ego, I will blame my medications as they can leave me a bit hypotensive and thus a little whacked out. Ya, that's it, it's societies fault...Don Erikson 22:30, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

I am sure your doctors know what they are doing, but hypotension can be more than mildly irritating and lead to dizziness, loss of concentration, etc., so take it easy -- the books are not going anywhere :) Ahasuerus 22:47, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Clive Cussler and specfict

Hi Don - I have two of your Clive_Cussler publication submissions on hold as I don't think they are specfict.

• Night Probe!
• Deep Six

While Dirk Pitt lives a nice fantasy I'm having a hard time thinking of any of Cussler's works as specfict and am included to delete the entire bibliography unless someone knows of specfict in there. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:06, 31 Jan 2008 (CST)

Actually, I have never read any Cussler, always meant to. So I couldn't say about their SF-ishness. I only edited them because they were already entered.Don Erikson 13:15, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

("Inclined" or "Included" Marc?) I must admit I've never read any Cussler either, and only Fantastic Fiction's inclusion and Amazon's categorisation of some works have persuaded me to work on them here. If the Dirk Pitt series is actually non-genre then I for one won't miss him. (Or the "Dirk Cussler" that would presumably go too?) Has anyone here read the lot? BLongley 13:31, 1 Feb 2008 (CST)

Sorry - "Inclined".

Cussler's stuff is entertaining easy reading. Dirk Pitt is like a James Bond in that he ends up in trouble here and there and bails himself and the girl out every time. Of the ~25 books he's written I've read nine and half of them and so it's not a full survey. The half book is because I'd been on the lookout for Iceberg for a long time - spotted a copy but on reading it found I had the teen/young adult adaptation. I later got the original and read that too. The author, Clive Cussler, lives a pretty interesting life and in many ways the Dirk Pitt/NUMA series are about the author. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cussler

Dirk Cussler is Clive Cussler's son and has joined his father for the past couple books.

Fantastic Fiction covers all adult fiction works (specfict plus westerns, mystery, thrillers, romance, graphic novels, etc.) and so that should not be used as a standard on if something should be included on ISFDB.

I deleted the author Dirk Cussler as I had read that book and know it's not specfict. I'm just wait to see if someone else has read Cussler and can recall any specfict. The bibliography ISFDB has is fairly complete and I don't want to delete it out until it's clear it's all non-genre.

Don - I'll approve and then delete the two publications you were adding. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:40, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

I've deleted Clive_Cussler's works but for some reason the author record did not go away. I checked for publications, awards, etc. One of his books was reviewed. Is that enough? Marc Kupper (talk) 01:46, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Yes, that review is enough to lead to an Author Entry, although it's a pretty useless one as it leads nowhere, not even to the review. That's mostly why I started Authors that exist only due to reviews. That led to a bit of a clean-up of typos and some clarification of where translators and artists were being inappropriately credited. This appears to be one of the cases of a review of a non-genre book. Typically we've left that ONE title entry in place, clearly marked Nongenre. In some cases I'd prefer reviews of items we're not interested to be replaced with an essay instead, so the reviewee doesn't get created, e.g. an Essay called 'Review of Raise the Titanic by Clive Cussler' by Nick Coleman would keep Clive Cussler from being created but keep the reviewer's work recorded in the magazine: but whether we want to go so far for books is open to debate. I'd certainly like such a solution for reviews of TV Shows and Soundtracks, for instance, though. BLongley 07:37, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Making it an essay seems like a reasonable idea. For now I added a nongenre title entry which will also help to flag the author as nongenre. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:13, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Intruder

Can you double-check the ISBN here please? It's showing a bad checksum. BLongley 13:55, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

And artist "William Maughian" - might it be "William Maughan"? BLongley 17:15, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Just fixed the ISBN and cover artist.Don Erikson 21:28, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Flight of the Bat

Correct cover? BLongley 14:00, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

That is the right cover.Don Erikson 21:20, 2 Feb 2008 (CST)

Biro

I see you just entered this pub with a Cover artist of "Biro" - I suspect that this may in fact be by Keith Birdsong, who has a very thin signature that is often clipped short at the edge of a cover. If you've got a magnifying glass, can you please have another look? If I'm right it's probably going to be very faint, and possibly partly concealed by other text. I must have looked at 30 or 40 of his covers before finally noticing a clear signature and when I went back over a few I could find parts of it on others. BLongley 14:14, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

I've uploaded a magnified scan of the signature on my edition here. I suspect something similar is on yours, but it may be obscured or clipped - mine is right at the very edge of the cover and mere shelfwear has started eating it away. BLongley 15:19, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

The name "Biro" was already part of the entry when I edited it. My copy is trimmed so you only see "Bir", I assumed who ever did the original entry knew something I didn't. Don Erikson 19:19, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

If you "assume" then please leave a note to that affect. If you are unable to verify with certainty something that's in a record then add a note explaining that the prior to verification the record contained "Biro" but that only "Bir" is visible on your copy and that it assumed that the source of this data is correct/accurate.

The idea is that someone looking at the record later will know what's physically stated and what is educated guesswork with regard to the publications. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:50, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

To be fair to Don, he HASN'T verified it. I only noticed it was his edit because I approved it. BLongley 13:17, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

Imzadi

The cover for the Imzadi you entered looks suspicious - if my eyes don't deceive me, it contains an offer for Imzadi II, which wasn't released till several years later. Are you sure that's the right one for a first printing? The artwork looks right, just not the text: and I thought I had a first paperback printing! (As well as a third...) BLongley 14:30, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

The copyright page of my copy says it is a 1st printing as per a number line, and printed July 1993. The cover shown with this entry was cloned from another entry but is correct for this edition. The $3.99 price led me to believe this was a first, but with the Imzadi II offer on cover may mean that this was a a later specially priced promotional edition. I just now looked on the inside back cover and there is an ad for all the Star Trek books from 1998! I will go back and re-edit this entry.Don Erikson 19:29, 3 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks! Sometimes I think Pocket Books are out to deliberately confuse... I acquired a big box of them recently and had to redo dozens of covers here as they where showing or missing little extras like the special price sticker here, or announcements of a short story competition, or the inclusion of a chapter of the serial novel "Starfleet: Year One". Or big changes like changing a background from green to bright red, or replacing Tuvok with an unrecognisable white character. I guess it helps distinguish printings when they forget to change the number-line as well... BLongley 13:14, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

Rork!

There's a bad checksum showing here - this isn't uncommon with Manor Books, but can you please double check? BLongley 14:43, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

The number I gave is the one on the book.Don Erikson 18:09, 4 Feb 2008 (CST)

OK, I've added it to the Bad ISBN list and added a note. I've just fixed one of my Manor books where it turned out the 'Good' ISBN was on the spine, only the Copyright page stated the one with a bad checksum (but I've noted that). BLongley 13:51, 5 Feb 2008 (CST)

There's also a discussion about what to do with such that could do with some more views expressed or suggestions made if we're ever going to reach a consensus - at the moment the undecided outweigh those in favour of the original proposal, although there's no particular support for an alternative proposal. BLongley 13:51, 5 Feb 2008 (CST)

Queen Victorica's Revenge

Surely Queen Victoria's Revenge? BLongley 15:03, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

It sure is! I just added a new publication and didn't notice the typo in the existing entry. And here I am trying to more exacting and vigilent.Don Erikson 11:18, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)

Buttons not working

I see you're making comments like "Add Author button not working" - have you got Javascript turned off in your browser by any chance? BLongley 12:18, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

I just installed the Firefox add-on NoScript to keep youTube from grinding my antique PC to a halt every time one shows up on a page. Now I'll just disable it when needed.Don Erikson 16:44, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

Ah, OK: I've not tried "NoScript" as I know I do need JavaScript on several sites. Maybe it's configurable to allow scripts on certain sites? I know I can do that with "AdBlock" - a Firefox extension I DO use! BLongley 17:47, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

While I have not used www.noscript.net it looks like it supports trusted sites. Just allow JavaScript for http://isfdb.org (you might need to use http://www.isfdb.org. You should then be ok until people start inserting YouTube video windows onto this site. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:13, 10 Feb 2008 (CST)

Did it and it works, cool.Don Erikson 00:34, 10 Feb 2008 (CST)

The Mountains at the Bottom of the World

I have approved The Mountains at the Bottom of the World, but the ISBN was showing an invalid checksum, so I checked OCLC, found a record which appeared to match your edition, and added/corrected missing data. Could you please compare the results with what you have? Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:07, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

And there was I thinking you didn't have an opinion on what to do with bad ISBNs.... BLongley 15:56, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Oh, I still don't, I just figured that "0" and "9" are so close to each other on the keyboard that it was likely a typo :) Ahasuerus 16:11, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

It was a typo, the check number is 9. All else looks good.Don Erikson 18:23, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:24, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Publication year of Sphere

Your new pub submission for Sphere lists a 1976 printing year for a NOVEL published in 1987 - suspicious! Is that a typo for an earlier year or is there a different error? WimLewis 16:05, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

The gutter code "R" in this case refers to 1987. They reused some of the letters. The letters "R" & "G" were both used in 1976.Kraang 17:28, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Here's a useful site [18]:-)Kraang 17:30, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

That makes sense. I've put it through and edited the years to 1987. WimLewis 20:17, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

De Camp's Tritonian Ring

Can you double-check the catalog number of this edition? Tuck shows it as "53-618". Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:31, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

It's another typo from me. It is 53-618. Don Erikson 21:15, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Sweden 1999-Occupied Country

I have approved Sweden 1999-Occupied Country and added the original 1976 Swedish edition, but I see that the checksum for the ISBN of the 1977 US edition is bad. Could you please double check? Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:03, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

No typo this time, it is a bad checksum.

Thanks, I will add a note :) Ahasuerus 22:09, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Using subsequent editions to enter data for earlier editions

OK, here's a philosophical question that's been gnawing at me for a while. I've been only entering info from primary sources, but many PBs have info about a HC or other previous editions. Should I be also making entries for these? Is the info from copyright page accurate enough? Don Erikson 21:23, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

Copyright pages generally contain two types of information: copyright data and printing/edition data. Copyright data tends to be quite unreliable for a number of reasons. Sometimes copyright is asserted months before the book actually appears, so its date may not match the month/year of the publication date of the first edition. For subsequent editions, the copyright date is even less reliable because it reflects either the date of the original copyright or the last date when the copyright was renewed -- which can be at any point in time. Sometimes the copyright date is the only readily available date, especially when the book is old (pre-1930), but if you use it as a "publication date" in the ISFDB sense, please make a note of it in Notes.

The other kind of data that can be found on copyright pages is actually quite valuable, sometimes indispensable. Many publishers specify the year but not the month when they print hardcover books, so this information can be difficult to establish after the fact unless you bought it the day when it came out and made a note in your diary :) However, subsequent paperback reprints will often say things like "First edition Atheneum October 1969. First paperback edition Dell August 1974" on the copyright page. In these cases the paperback reprint is one of our best sources of information about the original hardcover edition. Moreover, many paperback publishers will not state when the current printing was printed, but will list a complete history of all previous printings on the copyright page. Thus the last printing becomes a source of information about all previous printings. A little weird, but we'll take bibliographic information wherever we can find it :)

Again, if you use this "after the fact" information to create or modify records in the ISFDB, please state your source in the Notes field. That way when somebody with an actual copy of that edition/printing comes along, he will know where the data came from. Without this information, he will be scratching his head and trying to figure out why the ISFDB has information about his edition which is not found in his copy. Does this make sense? Ahasuerus 22:09, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

I do update prior editions when the paperback has useful info. I even create "stubs" for missing first printings from the information, but as these have no price or page numbers, and often no ISBN, I don't tend to do it for any bar the first edition (it makes our Entropy Statistics look worse for a start!) - but first printing dates are of especial bibliographic interest so I try and capture those. I do tend to leave notes about ALL prior printings mentioned in the notes for my primary verified copy: they can be used as a check for other printings as they arrive. (Or to check whether the printing histories are accurate - I find they usually are.) But 20 or 30 stubs just makes a page look messy and we haven't got any display code to reduce the publication list to an 'edition' list yet, so I'll only enter multiple stubs if they're VERY well spaced apart. BLongley 13:15, 15 Feb 2008 (CST)

Murder on the Menu

In your submission of this anthology, you have the story "Gideon and the Chestnut Vendor" as by "J. J. Marric (John Creasey)". What is the author's name on the title page of the story itself? That's the name we should use in the database for this story's title record. Then we can create a variant if the other name is a pseudonym. As it now stands, the author for this story's title record will be "J. J. Marric (John Creasey)", exactly how you entered it. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:17, 29 Feb 2008 (CST)

That's how it appears both on the contents page and the first page of the story. "J. J. Marric (John Creasey)"., parentheses and all.

OCLC (record 10683249) says the stated name is "J. J. Marric", but I am also slightly worried about the anthology as a whole. Most of the stories are apparently mysteries with no SF content and our support for non-genre short fiction is quite poor. I guess we could make a note at the Title level... Ahasuerus 23:04, 29 Feb 2008 (CST)

I'm going to accept this pub, but will add a note about its associational status in the database. I see that you note that "The only story not entered here is "The Deadly Egg" (1980) by Jamwillem van de Wetering." That should be added as well. Once the submission is accepted you can update it. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:12, 3 Mar 2008 (CST)

Invaders of Earth

Just an FYI that I have approved this submission, then removed the stories that were missing from the abridged paperback edition. I also set up the "Donald Wollheim" story as a variant title for "Donald A. Wollheim". Finally, I unmerged this Publication from the master "Invaders of Earth" title, renamed the newly created title to "Invaders of Earth (abridged)" and made it into a variant title of the complete edition. I am afraid we will have to jump through similar hoops with most other Conklin anthologies since they were usually abridged when they appeared in paperback. I have a couple of your Conklin submissions on hold and will process them later tonight. Thanks! :) Ahasuerus 17:08, 6 Mar 2008 (CST)

P.S. I have given similar treatment to Science Fiction Thinking Machines (1954) and its abridged version, Selections from Science Fiction Thinking Machines (1955). We already had a verified publication record for the August 1955 Bantam reprint, so I verified that your data was identical and deleted the extra record. Just to be on the safe side, could you please verify that the title page has the words "Selections from"? Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:34, 6 Mar 2008 (CST)

The title page does say "Selections from", the cover says in blurb sized type not meant to be part of title "Here are 12 astonishing and prophetic stories selected from" then the title.Don Erikson 20:49, 6 Mar 2008 (CST)

Thanks for checking! We use the title page if there are discrepancies, but I have added a comment to this Publication's Note field about the way the cover is arranged. You can never be too careful :) The rest of the submissions have been also approved. Ahasuerus 00:14, 7 Mar 2008 (CST)

Magicats!

You submitted a new edition of this anthology but it had no contents. The database has the first edition which contains the contents. Cloning would have been the way to go here. And I know you're already aware of that procedure, because you subsequently added other collections by cloning the ones with contents. You must have simply overlooked the contented (!?) pub. I'll clone the Magicats! with contents using the info you provided and reject the original submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:44, 8 Mar 2008 (CST)

Doyle's The Poison Belt (collection)

Based on the notes in your submission of this pub and a little help from Tuck, I changed your original designation from NOVEL to COLLECTION, and merged it with an existing edition published a couple of years earlier in hardcover. This edition contained all the same extras (introduction and afterword) as your Berkley edition, but also included illustrations by William P. du Bois. Does the Berkley paperback contain illustrations by du Bois as well? And are the titles of the introduction and afterword of the Berkley edition the same as the Macmillan edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:43, 21 Mar 2008 (CDT)

There is no illustrations in the Berkley editions. The rest is the same as the MacMillan except the epilogue is titled "On Lethal Space Clouds" not "On Lethal Clouds". Don Erikson 17:04, 23 Mar 2008 (CDT)

John Domatilla's The Last Crime

Just a note that "The Last Crime" by John Domatilla was apparently a 1981 US reprint of the 1980 UK edition, so I have adjusted the date accordingly and then reconstructed the 1980 edition from OCLC's data. Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:48, 27 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Gordon R. Dickson's "Home from the Shore"

I have approved your submission of the Sunridge Press edition of "Home from the Shore", but I was wondering if you could confirm that the book's price was $4.95 ($5.95 in Canada) as per OCLC? Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:50, 27 Mar 2008 (CDT)

There is no price on this book, my copy has no DJ and I guess I assumed that is the way it was issued. According to this bookseller on ABE "Issued in a limited hardcover edition. And issued without dust jacket." Of the 47 editions on ABE only 5 were hardcovers and none mentioned dust jackets. I edited the entry to show that there was no price or number on this book.Don Erikson 12:30, 28 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Thanks, I have added a little note about OCLC's data to our record :) Ahasuerus 23:40, 28 Mar 2008 (CDT)

The Hermes Stone

The ISBN for this edition you added is showing a bad checksum, can you double check please? (It probably is as shown, Manor books are notoriously bad at getting them wrong, but worth a check.) BLongley 13:38, 28 Mar 2008 (CDT)

It is a bad checksum.Don Erikson 20:35, 28 Mar 2008 (CDT)

The Day the Gods Died by Ernsting

I have your submission of this pub on hold because the ISBN came up as an invalid number. Checking on OCLC I saw the same pub with 0-553-02060-9 as the ISBN. Could this be the same as the pub of your submission? Thanks. MHHutchins 20:29, 30 Mar 2008 (CDT)

My bad. That there yonder ISBN be the one that is all korrect.Don Erikson 11:03, 31 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Frankenstein Wheel

Approved and corrected typo in your submission (Frankensein Wheel).--Rkihara 16:33, 31 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Bridget Loves Bernie

Paul Faiman? or Paul Fairman? - I'm assuming the second - I can see some copies - many many copies on abebooks. If it's only Paul Fairman we will have to do the pseudonym thing to attach to Paul W. Fairman.--swfritter 21:03, 31 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Only 7 months & 6 days later I respond to this query. It is FAIRMAN. Don Erikson 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Added the book and changed the author. If is only credited to Paul Fairman a pseudonym relationship will have to be created.--swfritter 17:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To Your Scattered Bodies Go

This pub has a bad checksum. OCLC suggests 042502329X instead, which leads to an Amazon cover like this - does that look like your book? BLongley 14:11, 10 Apr 2008 (CDT)

This pub has a bad checksum too. BLongley 14:18, 10 Apr 2008 (CDT)

These bad check sums are my typos. It should be 0-425-02333-8. Not surprising that the image from Amazon doesn't match my book because that one is for THE FABULOUS RIVERBOAT.Don Erikson 12:09, 12 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Yeah, seems the search got confused by a note saying "Sequel to To Your Scattered Bodies Go". I'll fix the ISBNs. BLongley 15:17, 12 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Howard Fast

I have a few of your Howard fast submissions on hold and working my way through them. As far as My Glorious Brothers and Spartacus go, are we sure that we want to add them to the database? They are non-genre works by a primarily non-SF writer and our standard for inclusion of non-genre works is:

Out - Works that are not related to speculative fiction by authors who have not published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold. This "certain threshold" is hard to define, but we need to draw the line in a way that would exclude Winston Churchill, who published at least one work of borderline speculative fiction. The goal here is to avoid cataloging everything ever published by James Fenimore Cooper, Robert Louis Stevenson, Honore de Balzac and other popular authors. Instead, we would want to catalog their speculative fiction works only.

Would you say that Howard Fast, who did write a number of SF stories, is over this threshold?

Also, re: Fast's Phyllis, could you please check whether your Pocket edition was published as by "Howard Fast" or as by "E. V. Cunningham"? And is it General Zapped an Angel or The General Zapped an Angel? Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering, I couldn't get the edit feature to work for some reason (OK I forgot I had to log on).

I included the nongenre work because the line is a little blurry. I have no problem for the moderator not including them. I feel the more information available the better.

About Fast's "Phyllis", yes it's my fault, it is by Cunningham. Just didn't noticed the goof (except there in the mirror). But It IS "The" General Zapped...Don Erikson 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll massage the submissions on Monday when I am back on the road. Trying to do a few verifications this weekend while I have access to my collection :) Ahasuerus 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything has been approved and massaged -- including adding Contents data to the 1970 Ace editon of Fast's The General Zapped an Angel via cloning -- so we are now back to our regularly scheduled insanity :) Ahasuerus 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Body Snatchers and When the Kissing Had to Stop

I have approved the addition of the 1967-04-00 printing of the Dell edition of The Body Snatchers, but I am not sure I understand what the Note field says. Is it really "Stated 1st New Dell printing"?

Also, I have approved the addition of 2 printings of the first edition to the When the Kissing Had to Stop, but I am not sure that the months are right. The first printing currently shows June as the publication month and the second printing shows May. Could you please double check? Thanks! Ahasuerus 06:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this particular printing (The Body Snatchers), but I have several Dell paperbacks which list in their histories previous multiple printings and then a "new edition" starting over again with a new "First Printing". MHHutchins 03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Dell has "New Editions", with "The Body Snatchers" I see no difference in content. The Dell 42 appears as "First Edition" without "Dell" appearing anywhere on the outside of the book. The B204 edition appears as "Dell First Edition" and the 0674 just as "Dell". This could bw what they mean by "New Edition". The printing dates for "When the Kissing Had to Stop" are as the appear on the copyright page. Why? Don't know. Maybe it was a "second printing before publication" deal. Don Erikson 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Questor Tapes

I see you added another "Ballantine, 0-345-24236-X, $1.25, 156pp, pb" version - as this looks pretty much like Kraang's verified version I assume there's some difference? Cover photo is NOT scene from movie, or it is NOT Printed in Canada? Some further notes would be good before someone deletes it as a Duplicate. BLongley 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that this edition was printed in the US, I guess it's pretty much the default assumption. You are right, such a difference should be noted & I will fix it now.Don Erikson 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Rest Must Die"

I've approved this entry, but the cover surely says "Richard Foster"? Is the name on the title page "Kendell Foster Crossen" instead? If so, we can remove the variant title for now: if it's "Richard Foster" internally then this should go under the variant title instead. BLongley 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've found another Richard Foster? Or is that Crossen as well? BLongley 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does say "Richard Foster". I don't know how I miss that. Don Erikson 15:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, rearranged: how does it look now? BLongley 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And is there anything in "The Complete Guide to Middle Earth" to help disambiguate the two Richard Fosters? BLongley 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The entry looks good now. I checked my local library's online catalog and it says the Tolkien book Foster was born 1949 and is still alive, ISFDB lists Kendell Foster Crossen 1910-1981, so yes, they are different people.Don Erikson 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, renamed aside. As it was nominated for an award though, there may be more clean-up needed beyond my powers. BLongley 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Magus

As you seem to have provided the first unrevised edition I made that the parent. I'm not sure if the cover is like this as that says second edition although other details match. Do the variants look meaningful and is that cover of use? BLongley 19:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting to clone in the earlier editions. The cover on Amazon looks to be the same as mine.Don Erikson 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Kothar - Barbarian Swordsman

Bad Checksum alert here. And did I guess the right cover? BLongley 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what is says on the spine. I was leery of this number on such an early book, but it says "ISBN - 0 - 8439 - 00146 - 075". The other number on the cover says "146SK"Don Erikson 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with "146SK" for now then. It doesn't look as though Leisure got the hang of ISBNs till about 1976 - the "08439" looks right though, and the "-075" confirms the price (which isn't part of the ISBN anyway) but I can't find a confirmed ISBN with the 146 in. BLongley 19:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I was intrigued and pulled out my copy, which happens to be the 1973-10-00 printing as well. Don's observations match mine except I should add that the ISBN digit groups on the spine are separated by small black circles rather than by dashes. I suspect that by late 1973 they had heard about this new-fangled ISBN beast and decided to give it a try, but weren't quite sure what they were doing. Ahasuerus 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs, while very useful for late/post-1970s books (and before multinational misuse) are a constant pain in earlier days. The British publishers that were used to SBNs seem to have converted easily (so easily in fact that many of their early serial numbers convert to SBNs/ISBNs that they probably never actually used, but appear on many book-seller sites). Leisure and Manor are two good examples of publishers that claim to have ISBNs but didn't understand "check-digit" at least. Unfortunately as you can get it right One time in Ten by chance, it's difficult to state the year they first got things sorted properly. :-/ BLongley 19:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Year's Best Horror Stories: Series II

Don - I had your publication update for The Year's Best Horror Stories: Series II on hold for a moment. Everything looked find except the change of the cover artist from Michael Whelan to Hans Arnold.

I suspect what happened here is that there seems to be a Canadian edition with a Michael Whelan cover. I've approved your update but could you please take a look at this Ababooks seller listing to see if the cover matches yours? That seller says it's a Michael Whelan cover and Canadian edition. Thanks! Marc Kupper (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture on ABE is correct. The copyright page on my copy credits Hans Arnold and is signed "Arnold" in the lower left corner. Michael Whelan did all the covers from series III through series XV (except XII), so I can see how the mistake could be made. Don Erikson 01:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Don. The seller of a "Michael Whelan" edition came back and said it was actually Hans Arnold... Marc Kupper (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron Discenza

I see you tried to change his name from "Ron Discenza" to "Ron DisCenza" via a publication edit. Unfortunately ISFDB checks to see whether we have the 'new' author already via a case-insensitive search, so this won't work. I think we could do it by editing the Author directly - if not in one step, certainly in two - but the former name appears on some other verified pubs so it's probably best to ask the other verifiers first. BLongley 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Dean Foster - The Moment of the Magician

I have added some notes to your verified copy of this publication. If it conflicts with your copy, please let me know and I will remove the changes and create a new publication. Thanks. -- Holmesd 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Combat SF

I have approved your additions of the Ace editions of this book, but I suspect that two of the new publications may be identical. Could you please take a look at the two "date unknown" publications, which are both marked as "Stated 2nd printing as per number line" and let me know if I am missing a difference? Was it, perhaps, that the ISFDB was slow and you clicked "Submit" twice? Thanks! Ahasuerus 05:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember having problems with this. I definitely submitted twice.Don Erikson 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, zapped! :) Ahasuerus 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding Pseudonym

I'd do this myself but I just can't figure it out. A while back I entered four books by Richard Elliott and added in the Notes feature that Richard Elliott is a pseudonym for Elton Elliott and Richard E. Geis. Both are authors with ISFDB pages. There is no indication that this name is a pseudonym. Somebody with more abilities should repair this monstrous injustice. (Too much?)Don Erikson 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, leave it with me. BLongley 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I see why they haven't been done yet. There's an Elton Elliott and an Elton T. Elliott, and the one we want is Elton P. Elliott (according to Clute & Nicholls and Fantastic Fiction) or Elton T. Elliott according to SF Booklist. Do you know any more about all these Elton Elliotts? BLongley 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is Elton T. Elliott. According to my signed copies and the programs of conventions I know he attended.Don Erikson 00:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So is that the canonical name you'd prefer? And "Elton Elliott" and "Richard Elliott" are the pseudonyms? Or should "Elton Elliott" be the canonical name and "Elton T. Elliott" and "Richard Elliott" the pseudonyms? At 21 titles to 17, it's a close call and you know more about him than I do! BLongley 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Elton T. Elliott as his canonical name.Don Erikson 17:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's what I did:

A) ADVANCED search for authors ending "Geis", save results, then again for authors ending " Elliott" - this gives you easy visibility of the Author Numbers. We want

16509 	Richard E. Geis
10551 	Elton Elliott
95237 	Elton T. Elliott
6015 	Richard Elliott

B) Now we go into 10551 and make it a pseudonym for 95237: and go into 6015 and make it a pseudonym of 95237: them make 6015 a pseudonym of 16509. That's the easy bit.

C) Then you have to go into each title under each of the pseudonyms and make THOSE variant titles of (usually non-existent) titles by the Real authors. Those are a bit slower as you have to do that by exact names, not numbers. Once ALL of those are done you get the "Pseudonym. See: Elton T. Elliott , Richard E. Geis" under the "Richard Elliott" name. That's done now, have a look. I'll go do the "Elton Elliott" entries next. BLongley 19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Brackett's Sword of Rhiannon

I've added a cover link to your verified copy of this title and added the month of publication based on the Locus listing. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto for this pub as well. MHHutchins 03:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Star Kings

I've taken your word for it that the cover is signed, but can you please tell me where? I still can't spot it. BLongley 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The usual Jack Gaughan initials he signs with appear about a quarter inch down & to the right of the little beer-tap looking projection on the lower right of the spaceship. It is a dark pink and little hard to see. Don Erikson 01:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I think this has finally persuaded me into buying a magnifying glass. BLongley 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The magnifying glass has arrived: better, but I think a Microscope might have been better still! This could be a good example of what to look for in artist signatures now some images are allowed here. BLongley 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a magnifier lamp mounted on my desk and that's proved handy as it provides good lighting and magnification. As I scan covers at 300dpi sometimes I'll pan/scan over the image for signatures. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wind Child

Your recent submission for Wind Child (1990-07-00) appears to make no change at all in the existing data. I am about to approve it, but please check, is it possible that the submit button got clicked too soon by mistake, before you had entered whatever change you had in mind? -DES ^Talk

I think this was submitted as a New Novel and not an edit, but it's hard to remember even 24 hours back. BTW I noticed I misspelled the cover artist first name I was so intent on getting the last name right. I submitted the fix. Don Erikson 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Assumed first printing

I notice that several of your recent edits include the note "Assumed first printing". On what basis is the assumption being made? How will this help a future editor or user? -DES ^Talk 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in, but as this is a phrase I've picked up from ISFDB and started using without really questioning, I should probably explain MY usage. I use it when there's no signs of it being a reprint (no number-line, no details of any other printing in the same format by the same publishing company - "previously published by X" when this is a paperback and X publishes hardcovers does not stop me from creating a "First printing" though) and when we have no records of anything that might predate this copy. Sometimes I'll check a few other sources - OCLC, Abebooks, Alibris, even Amazon to see if there's any sign of an earlier edition: if the title-date predates my pub-date a lot and mine is the earliest pub-date I'll search harder, if they match I'll leave a note about ASSUMED first printing. It's not so much that a future editor or user will be helped, but it might help ME if they have an earlier edition I don't know about and my lack of certainty in the note encourages them to ask about it. We're beginning to get to the level of activity where anything can be questioned, even if verified, and will be, and it's useful to see when someone is SURE and when they're just ASSUMING or when they just haven't stated it. "Assumed first printing" is a nice way to avoid being questioned about what printing it actually is when someone has a LATER printing though. Anyway, back to Don for his explanation. BLongley 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we inherited this usage from the library world where they make a distinction between "stated Nth printing/edition" (i.e. one which has a statement to that effect on the copyright page) and "assumed Nth printing/edition", where there is some circumstantial evidence in support of the notion, but there is no explicit statement in the book itself. Librarians generally use square brackets to indicate that something is assumed, so "1st. ed." means "stated first edition" while "[1st. ed.]" means "assumed first edition". Similarly, "London: Sphere" means that the city was explicitly stated in the book while "[London:] Sphere" means that the city information wasn't explicitly stated and had to be derived by other means. Not all catalogers follow these rules, but most knowledgeable ones do. Ahasuerus 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What BLongley said. Some books are are obviously 1st printings but don't specifically say so, like Berkley Medallion that just usually state later printings. Ace sometimes uses "Ace Original" , I treat that as a stated first. I only "Assumed" when I'm pretty sure of the printing and use "Stated" when there is no doubt (or otherwise indicated so).Don Erikson 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I understand. Thanks. -DES ^Talk

The Adventures of the Stainless Steel Rat

Your recently submitted publication of The Adventures of the Stainless Steel Rat listed in the notes "5th Printing stated. No date of publication other than that of the first printing (August 1978)." but listed a publication date of 1981-06-00. On what was the 1981 date based? I have placed the submisison on hold. -DES ^Talk 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's my fault, I should have changed the date from the clone to 000-00-00.Don Erikson 15:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will approve. -DES ^Talk 10:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Last American

This pub is showing a bad checksum, can you double-check please? BLongley 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a typo, I've fixed it.Don Erikson 14:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Stainless Steel Rat Wants You!

Your submission would update the dated 3rd printing to an undated 4th printing - was this meant to be a clone rather than an update? BLongley 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I originally submitted the book as a 3rd printing then notices though it said it was a third printing with a date it also said it was a 4th printing as per number line. I've noticed that it isn't uncommon for a publisher to change a number line without updating other parts of a copyright page.Don Erikson 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so. I think that is actually why the number line was invented, to allow for a quick 1-character change to identify a new printing without needing to reset anything else. I have seen books with "First Dell edition: September 1979" and the number line shows that it is the 8th printing, and there is no clue (except maybe the price) as to the date of that printing. Isn't it fun :) ?! -DES ^Talk 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's plenty of publishers that quote the 1st printing and all subsequent reprints have no additional date, using number-line only to distinguish. It's unusual to see a dated THIRD printing with a disagreeing number-line though, so I thought I'd check. BLongley 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this submission confirms Don's memory, so I've let it through. I've cloned some of it BACK to create the missing 3rd printing though - that date in the 4th may be the only hope we have of dating the 3rd. I've assumed the page count is the same as the one before and after, but price and ISBN can't be assumed so easily. Artist is probably Lehr still but I didn't risk that either. BLongley 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon (6th printing)

In this submission of this pub you noted that "Artist credit from signature of uncropped image from 1st printing" but provided no artist credit. Please update the submission when you get a chance. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

DoneDon Erikson 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

wiki threading

The usual convention is to indent replies to help distinguish the various responses in the thread. Indents are done by placing a colon at the start of a line/paragraph. See Help:Editing for more on wiki editing. -DES ^Talk 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! There a trick to it. I wondered why None of my indents worked, I guess i didn't wonder enough to actually to read the Help page.Don Erikson 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. -DES ^Talk 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Help page? I never read them either but do shamelessly steal from others and that includes noticing they were colon retentive and thus indented. ;-) Marc Kupper (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon (9th printing)

You seem to have entered the page numbers for this twice. No harm is done, as it looks like you entered them the same way both times, but it must have been extra work for you. -DES ^Talk 21:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon (14th printing)

You replaced the catalog number "#451-J8717-195 " with the related ISBN "045-108717-8". Having the ISBN is good, better than just the catalog number. However, if the catalog number also appears on the physical book, it would be a good idea to lsit it in the publication notes. This is not vital, however. You seem to have access to a lot of different editons of various RAH works, which fills in the DB nicely. Thnaks a lot. I trust you will verify those that you can after the changes are approved. -DES ^Talk 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll for now on also add the catalog number in the notes section. When a pipe broke way back in '04 I lost about 30% of my Heinleins & Herberts and others, so there could have been many more for me to add.Don Erikson 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Heinlein's Stranger 39th printing

Please verify the ISBN for this submission. It has an invalid checksum. 0-425-03067-9 works but if that's not on the pub we should make a note that the printed ISBN is an invalid one. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The copyright page says "SBN 425-03067-X". It also says this on the 40th & 41st printings I was waiting to clone from the 39th.Don Erikson 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Henderson's Holding Wonder

You submitted an update to a previous submission (for the fifth printing) to change the price, catalog and printing. Perhaps you meant to clone the fifth printing to create the first printing? I'll hold this update until I learn more of your intentions. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I meant to clone the 5th. Should I just redo it? Don Erikson 18:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll reject the submission and you can clone the old record to create the new pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All fixed nowDon Erikson 14:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Colonies in Space

I approved your addition of Colonies in Space but saw that you had a note that says "Introduction by Ray Bradbury."

It's better to enter this as a title in the Contents section so that it'll show up in Ray Bradbury's bibliography. You might need to click [Add Title] to create a new/blank row and would enter the introduction as:

• Title: Colonies in Space (Introduction)
• Entry Type: ESSAY
• Author1: Ray Bradbury

Many introductions are titled just Introduction and so we use the Colonies in Space (Introduction) convention so that someone looking at a bibliography will know which story the introduction essay is for. I've already fixed Colonies in Space. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been using "Introduction (Colonies in Space)", and I think that is what the help calls for. -DES ^Talk 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

DES is correct, Template:TitleFields:Title mentions this in the '"Standard" titles' section. There's a small handful(10) of titles that used the Title (Introduction) format though nearly always it looks like it was to make it clearer than an essay was an introduction. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dune and John Schoenherr artist credits

Hi Don - You submitted several publications where you wrote in the notes "Copyright page says cover artist is John Schoenherr, but clearly isn't" but then did not give the source for the artist you did credit which was either Vincent DiFate or Don Ivan Punchatz depending on the publication. What is the source of the artist credits?

I've approved the submissions so you can edit them. The publications are 264108, 264109, 264110, 264111, 264112, and 264113. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the 4th time I've tried to reply to this post so I hope it goes through. The Punchatz cover is signed with his "dp" symbol he sometimes used. The notes I left for the Berkley covers was just sloppiness on my part. I re-edited them now.Don Erikson 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Green Brain (Third Printing)

Your submission to change the dating of this pub may be correct in all aspects, except that the date is actually printed in the pub, even if in error. The ISFDB policy is WYSIWYG (and I see this date in my third printing.) Do you have the second printing which also has the slug line "This Ace printing: December 1979"? If so we can verify the error of the third printing in the pub notes. I'll hold the submission until I hear back from you. MHHutchins 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the notes section, the 2nd printing is dated December 1979 so the 3rd printing would be some time later. Leaving info on the copyright page unchanged when they shouldn't is not an uncommon problem with Ace.Don Erikson 14:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do a primary verification for this 2nd printing, and I'll accept the submission for the incorrectly dated third. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Santaroga Barrier

There's one too many digits in the ISBN for this pub, can you double-check please? BLongley 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A typo fixed Don Erikson 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, that means we can date it with some confidence then. BLongley 17:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Eyes of Heisenberg

There's a bad checksum here, can you please double-check? BLongley 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's a duplicate of this pub? BLongley 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That bad check sum is as it appears on the copyright page. I changed the note section to correctly show it as the 11th printing, having forgotten to chance a note cut & pasted from another entry. Don Erikson 01:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I entered some other eds from ISBNDB.Com and Worldcat; none are close matches with this one, however. -DES ^Talk 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When We Were Dead

Are you sure about this this title? As Worldcat and Amazon and some others think that's When We Dead Awaken. There's even a picture to "prove" it. BLongley 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I've made some mistakes in the past but this one take the cake! mmmm...cake. Anyway, so much for my desid...disciti...PLAN to be more careful with my entries. oh well. Don Erikson 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Almuric

I approved your edit, but it might be a good idea to add to the note links or URLs for some of the "Many web sites". Also, since the verified record had discussed the cover artist issue, it might have been a good idea to mention the issue to the verifier before making the edit. But since no info is lost, the matter can still be discussed if there is reason to do so. -DES ^Talk 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I felt that adding information would be OK in that it didn't change any verified info. But in the future I'll check with the verifier first.Don Erikson 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Robert E. Howard

Your edti to this pub staes "Does not contain nine of the poems listed below." I presume that, now that I have aprovd the edit, you are going to remove those poems from htie pup? -DES ^Talk 07:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar with Conan - are you familiar with "Remove Titles From This Pub" or would you like some guidance? BLongley

Also, this site suggests that "The City of Skulls" is the same story as "Chains of Shamballah", but may be given different titles on Contents page and first page of story? A difference between such would be worth a note. BLongley 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remember about "Remove title" but now I used it to remove the poems. BTW could this be used to fix typos etc. by removing bad title and adding corrected one?

Yes, that's the safest way of fixing typos - unless it's the ONLY version of that typo in the database (or you own all printings of the typoed version and want to correct them all at once - which might be possible in your case!) it's the preferred way. We may still need to merge the corrected version with an already-correct version at some point, but that's a later step. BLongley 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Now about Conan, my copy of this edition is in such bad shape the back pages are falling out & out of order, but I put it back together and lo & behold there's page 189 and the story's first page which says "The City of the Skulls" so I'll go back and edit but do I use the table of contents as primary info and mention title change in notes or do I use the title of the story page?Don Erikson 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Title from the story page trumps Table of Contents entries (which are often abbreviated/wrong, point to introductory essays/art rather than stories, etc). It's very tempting to just enter contents from ToC and leave it at that - but we should always check the individual title pages. It's usually a good idea to mention errors in the ToC in notes though, in case a lazier editor comes along . BLongley 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conan

I've approved the two edits, but had to change them a bit, but it's not really much to do with anything that you did differently then anyone else who has worked on this TITLE before you did. If you check the NewPub Help screen, it has the following, 'ANTHOLOGY. Used for anything containing fiction by more than one author. For example, "Late Knight Edition" contains stories by both Damon Knight and Kate Wilhelm, individually; this is an anthology, not a collection. If a book of Conan stories contains stories which are all partly or wholly by Robert E. Howard, it is a collection; if one or more of the stories is by Lin Carter or L. Sprague de Camp, not in collaboration with Howard, then the book is an anthology.' As you can see, these two pubs contain a story not authored by Howard, making these Anthologies and not Collections. CoachPaul 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conan the Avenger

I'm a little curious about an update to Conan the Avenger where you changed "Page edges in purple" to "Page edges in yellow." Did you put in the first note by mistake or could there be a purple-edged publication? Marc Kupper (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

this is second try at answering this. Yes the yellow edged printing is a different printing than the purple. I forgot to change after I cut & pasted a different notes section.Don Erikson 04:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Don. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Conan: The Treasure of Tranicos

I have your update to publication 238773 on hold. Most of the changes are ok but what caught my eye is you want to change the price from $2.75 to $2.95. Are you sure there are no copies at $2.75 in existence? I believe the source for this record and price is Locus[19]. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

With only one piece of Fiction in this book, doesn't that make it a Novel and not a Collection?CoachPaul 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Locus Index refers to "two other stories by de Camp", so I wonder if the two essays that we currently list are actually stories? Ahasuerus 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW - The publication update that's on hold is also changing the pub from collection to novel. I assumed this is because Don saw it as a novel with essays. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can says is my copy is marked 4th printing of July 1985, and is priced $2.95. Maybe an earlier printing with the same ISBN was $2.75. It could even have also been in 1975 or even in July too. Ace didn't always change price only when they changed ISBN nor did the always give a new printing date for subsequent printings. All I can do is give the info from the book I have.

The two de Camp entries are nonfiction about Howard and his work. I used that criteria to call this a novel.Don Erikson 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Don - what I did was to

• approve the submission to capture your updates
• Change the parent title from COLLECTION to NOVEL.
• Cloned the publication record you had updated to create a new record that will be for the 4th printing at $2.95
• Edited the original publication record to change the price back to $2.75 and to remove your note about 4th printing. This record will be for a presumed 2nd or 3rd printing.
• Edited the first printing record to change the publication type from collection to novel.

FWIW - Amazon reports the date as May-1985 meaning it's likely that's the 3rd printing date and July-1985 is the 4th printing that you have. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tigers of the Sea

I approved your addition of Tigers of the Sea but a couple of things got my attention.

• Your note says "Stated 1st printing" but the date is 0000-00-00.

This was just another bone-headed move on my part, the date is plainly stated May, 1975, and I've fixed it.

Usually when I run into something like this I'll hunt around in the publication for dating clues and document them. I'll try to pin down what seems like a reasonable date and try to make it really clear what the source of that date is. In this case I see on the Internet:

• • Amazon and Jim Gardner's image (of the second printing) say 1975
  • AbeBooks seller listings report:
    • 1975 1st printing - Many of these call it "Zebra 119" implying the ISBN 0-89083-119-X is not stated but one dealer says it states 0-89083-119-X.

I should do a little more research as I enter books. The ISBN is correct.

• • • 1975 2nd printing
    • February, 1976 1976 3rd printing, $1.50 cover price., states 0-89083-119-X
    • 1976 4th printing, $1.50 cover price

I've been waiting for the Zebra 119 entry to be OKed so I could clone the next 3 printings.

• • One puzzle is the cover says "First Time in Paperback" and there does seem to be a 1974 Donald M. Grant hardcover. The implication is that the date of the Tigers of the Sea] (1975) short story is wrong and that it should be 1974.
  • A second puzzle is that the Introduction is reported as 1976. Is this date mentioned in the Introduction and/or copyright page? It seems odd that there's a pretty consistent cluster of 1975 sightings and yet the Introduction is in 1976 meaning the date of the introduction is wrong or the publication is misleading people into thinking it was published in 1975.

The introduction is dated February 19, 1974. I will make sure I will double check all the dates .

• Per Locus the short story Tigers of the Sea] is by both David_A._Drake and Robert_E._Howard. ISFDB is not crediting David Drake. Is he credited and more important, how is his name formatted? Locus says David A. Drake but ISFDB only has David_Drake. Note, we should use the name credited on the title page of the story but if that's not available then the table of contents and/or copyright page can be used but then I'd add a note explaining the source.

No mention of Drake anywhere in the book, but the intro says that Tierney finished "The Temple of Abomination" & "Tigers of the Sea". Should he be considered a co-author or is this just something an editor would do?

• You have a note "Illustrated by Tim Kirk." but no INTERIORART record. I added one. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in check, who knows what misinformation would propagate from my carelessnesses.Don Erikson 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll credit you as the co-author for our next novel, <cue mysterious music>The Tragedy of ISFDB</cue>. The ISFDB will be on the front cover as a bug eyed monster lurking in a crater while a comely maiden (who is really a rather hard bitten oil prospector) strolls by, unaware of ISFDB (which is the real tragedy).

It looks like there's no outstanding items in the queue related to this publication meaning you can go ahead with the edits to change the dates.

Note there are a couple of other items in the queue that may have been forgotten

• #Bridget Loves Bernie
• #The Green Brain Marc Kupper (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Death Dolls of Lyra

I added cover-art to your verified copy, but then also added notes about copyright versus printing date, and then pointed out the OCLC record is wrong, and finally adjusted the title to add the leading "The". So a bit more drastic a change than I thought, so please do check and let me know if there's anything I've changed you disagree with. BLongley 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It all looks good. Thanks.Don Erikson 17:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vultures of Whapeton

I approved your submission, but as you can see, the resulting publication has an invalid ISBN. Please check whether this is an error in the actual publication (in which case a proper note should be made) or a data entry error. The publication appears to match OCLC record: 3598566, so quite possibly the error is the publisher's. -DES ^Talk 15:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The bad check sum is as it appears on the spine. The ISBN doesn't appear anywhere else on the book. Of course it should be 0-89083-144-9. Don Erikson 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If it were my publication, and the correct ISBN was known, I would put the correct ISBN into the ISBN field (so that links based on it would work) and put the stated ISBN into the notes, along eith an explanation and the source or method used to determnine the correct ISBN. However, no standard on dealing with such cases at the ISFDB exits as far as I know -- the last discussion I saw came to no conclusion. -DES ^Talk 15:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Was it this discussion? If so, I think I'll update it with what I personally am going to do, as there was no specific alternative to my preference supported. So long as the fact that an invalid ISBN WAS on the pub somewhere is recorded, I see no need to demand it goes in the Catalog ID field and break all the nice link tools Al has given us. (And there's been even more tools added since that discussion tapered off.) It might be worth summarising and reposting in a proper Rules and Standards discussion, as we might then get the "I don't like Bill's idea" posters to provide a reasonable alternative. The discussion did teach me that some of the error messages mislead people into thinking only the check-digit is wrong, and that some editors and even moderators don't know what an SBN is. :-( So there will be some help upgrades needed as well. BLongley 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was that discussuion, although I thought it was on the rules and standards page, or maybe the community portal. But who knows. If you reopen it, i have comments to make, basically in support of your viuew as I understand same. -DES ^Talk 02:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Marchers of Valhalla

I approved a pair of your submisisons for this title, and added cover art from amazon to this pub record. Please check if I got the correct art. It is a bit unusual to have two different printings in the same month, but not unheard of. -DES ^Talk 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Don Erikson 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Worms of the Earth

I appears that you changed "A Song of the Race" from a shortfiction entry to a poem in several pubs of this title. The first such submission, when approved, changed all occurances of "A Song of the Race", leaving the other subnmissions as duplicates that had no effect. I approved most of these, but rejected the last after I figured out what was going on. -DES ^Talk 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Note also that one of the affeected pubs had been verified, you might want to drop the verifier a note. -DES ^Talk 16:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cathouse

I approved your submission, but then added a cover art URL and an OCLC record number and link. The result is here. Please double check that I have the right cover and OCLC record for your copy. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It all looks good.Don Erikson 03:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Best Horror Stories from the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Volume II

You submitted an edit to an existing (unverified) pub that changed both date and price (from $4.95 to $3.95). Can you be sure that there wasn't anothe publication, perhaps later in the year, with an increased price? I notice that you say your copy was the first printing as per numberline. But OCLC: record 21208092 shows a 1988 paberback edition, although OCLC: 34790574 (for a 1990 ed) says "1st St. Martin's Press mass market ed." I think maybe a clone would havbe been better in thsi case, and I have held the submisison pending discussion. -DES ^Talk 18:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have cloned the original. But how does one tell the difference between a mistake and a different edition? I just used what appeared in the book. I checked ABE to check for other printings but it was little help. Don Erikson 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't tell the diference. But if it is at all plausible that there is a diferent edition, I would so assume. (In some cases an error is obvious -- a date of 1908 for a work by an author born in 1935, or a price of $105 for a pb.) Remember that ABE will list nothing if a copy doesn't happen to be on sale through ABE at the moment. I have found isbndb.com quite helpful, as well as OCLC and library of congress online searches. -DES ^Talk 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have got back to this long ago. I did the close, using your data. I am going to reject the original submisison, but your data has been accepted via the clone. -DES ^Talk 16:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Symon Jade's Return of the Dead

Your submission updating this pub has the note "The subtitle "Return from the Dead" doesn't appear on the cover, spine or title page, but only the copyright page and the page opposite it." I looked up this pub on ABEbooks.com and saw a cover that was titled Starship Orpheus #1. If this is the title printed on the title page, we should change the pub record to reflect that. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

isbndb.com lists this as:

Return from the Dead

Return from the Dead (Starship Orpheus Series, No. 1)

Symon Jade,

Publisher: Pinnacle Books

ISBN: 0523416466 DDC: 813.54 Edition: Paperback; 1982-03

I hope that is of some help. -DES ^Talk 20:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Don has the actual pub, so he would have the final word here. MHHutchins 22:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Home Sweet Home

I just approved your pub. However, isbndb.com says of this edition "Cover art signed by Newton". That isn't IMO solid ewnough for me to just add a cover artist, but perhaps you will want to check for a signature? -DES ^Talk 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it says Newton in big easy-to-rean letters & I missed it. I even looked for a sig. & still didn't see it.Don Erikson 05:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchy In The Ashes

I just approved Your pub of Anarchy In The Ashes. I then added cover art from amazon. Is it correct for your copy? -DES ^Talk 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the right cover.Don Erikson 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Poltergeist

Can you check to see if the ISBN on this pub was incorrectly printed? Thanks.

I'll try a second time to respond here, I wonder why some of the edits I do here seem to disappear into the aether.

Well anyway, this bad check sum is my fault, mistaking a 9 for an 8. The ISBN is 0-446-30698-3.Don Erikson 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find either ISBN ("0446306883" or "0446306983") on Amazon.com, nor on ISBNDB.COM, nor on worldcat/OCLC. But since you have double checked it, I presuem from the physical pub, i am going to approve it anyway. -DES ^Talk 17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On wiki edits, it is very easy to click "preview" insted of save, watch for the 'This is only a preview" warning. You can click "My contributions" or use Special:Contributions to see a list of all of your edits. If your browser or network connection glitches while an edit is being saved, it may be lost -- hitting preview first seems to amke it easier to redo, at least it does for me. -DES ^Talk 17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Adventures in Tomorrow

Correct Cover? BLongley 16:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. Don Erikson 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Penultimate Truth

Correct Cover? BLongley 19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. Don Erikson 18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Stephen King submissions

I am holding your three submissions for the Stephen King/Richard Bachman books Rage, The Long Walk, and Roadwork. You note that they are published as by "Richard Bachman". Unless it states "Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman", we have to place these pubs under the Richard Bachman title records. If accepted, your submissions would place them under the Stephen King title record. You can resubmit the pubs (choose New Novel instead of Add Publication to This Title) or I could accept your submissions, unmerge them from the King record, and then merge them under the Bachman variant. Either way is up to you.
Also, I'm holding your clone of the Night Shift collection as the ISBN (0-451-13131-3) is invalid. 0-451-13131-2 is a valid ISBN, but what is printed in the book? Thanks. MHHutchins 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was a little confused about this, the Bachmnan books were originally published before it was revealed they were by King. When I went to enter them it shows that the Bachman page says to see the King page. I just assumed (there's that word again) that the conflict was settled already. I'll re-enter them as New Novels under the Bachman name. As to NIGHT SHIFT; the check sum IS a 2, my bad.Don Erikson 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That probably mean they were entered as by Bachman, and then a varient title record created for them as by King. That's what I would do with them in any case. -DES ^Talk 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When you're on a page that redirects you to the canonical author, you can click "Titles" under the "Editing Tools" section to reveal all the titles under the pseudonym. Then you can Add Publication to one of those titles instead and keep the correct attribution. BLongley 21:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the way variant author attributions are displayed can be confusing. It was months after working on the ISFDB that I discovered the "trick" that Bill speaks about. Go to this page which lists the Bachman titles. Click on the title that you wish to enter a new pub for, then proceed as normal. (Thanks Bill. I should have thought of that simple method to bring up the Bachman titles.) As it stands now, there are no pubs under the three Bachman titles that you were entering. I'll go ahead and delete the three previous submissions, and accept the Night Shift one (and correct the ISBN myself.) Thanks. MHHutchins 01:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Light on Quests Mountain

I approved Light on Quests Mountain by mistake, I had intended to hold it pending discussion with you. It appears that this is a "choose your own adventure" game/story book. Is that correct?

I am not sure of the status of such works. I know that gaming modules are out, even if they contain some narrative text, and game based novels and stories are in. What is this, and why do you think it should be in if it is in a grey area? -DES ^Talk 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have the rest of the series so I guess someone wants it in, although "Gamma World" was an RPG like D&D (I believe you could even use the same player's handbook}. One concern I have is that adding the middle initial to Mary L. Kirchoff has led to that name just having a stray publication. If the pub is to remain, that should be fixed. BLongley 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Light on Quests Mountain is a "choose your own adventure" game/story book. I've entered other "choose your own adventure" books in the past with no problems. I don't see these as games but as a works of fiction that just isn't experienced in the customary linear fashion. Identifying with the characters has always been integral with genre fiction, and these just take this to a higher level. But what the hell do I know, I've never read one. Don Erikson 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable, i wasn't sure where we drew the line on those. I could argue the point either way. I think i'll raise it as a general question, just to make sure we are all on the same page on the issue. Might be a good idea to include a note on CYOA pubs, as they are a bit different from ordinary novels. -DES ^Talk 19:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Book 3 Amazing Stories: Portrait in Blood

Is "Book 3 Amazing Stories" really part of the title, or is it an indication of where this is in a series? ISBNdb.com lists the title as "Portrait in Blood" and amazon puts "Amazing Stories" in parens, which it often does for a series indication that is not part of the title proper. OCLC Fiction Finder record # 13106089 lists "Portrait in Blood" as the title, with "Series: Amazing stories ;; bk. 3;". So does OCLC record 27113644 (for the microform version). The Template:Melvyl catalog does not appear to lsit this title at all. -DES ^Talk 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wed to this title. I stared at this for longer than usual trying to decide how to do this one. On the cover, spine and title page it goes in order as I entered: on the cover "Book 3" is above "Amazing Stories" which is above "Portrait in Blood". On the spine it's "Book 3" over "Amazing Stories" but "Portrait in Blood" is to the right. The title page has the same order as the cover but with different type styles & sizes. Any changes the moderator wants to make is alright with me.

To make things more complicated, after closer inspection this is a "choose your own adventure" type book.Don Erikson 19:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If we are accepting CYOAs, we are accepting them, title issues ought to be the same for them as for any pub. Ok I'll approve this and then make changes, mantioning what is actually on the pub in the notes, since you don't mind. -DES ^Talk 19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Submisison approved, title changed, note added on both pub and title level. -DES ^Talk 19:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

D.A.R.Y.L.

Your edit to D.A.R.Y.L. would have changed the existing record for a different (Coronet) edition to a record for your Berkley Pacer edition. I have instead used the clone feature and the data in your submission to create a separate publication for the Berkley edition. The result is here. Please check it out. I am rejecting the submission as it stood. -DES ^Talk 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I meant to clone this.Don Erikson 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, let he who is without typos cast the first stone. Won't be me. -DES ^Talk 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg

I've held your submission for Cyborg, ISBN 0583123910, as most sites seem to think this is actually "Operation Nuke". (Number two in the series.) Can you double-check please? BLongley 20:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'm wrong. Must have cut & pasted the wrong line. The correct ISBN is 0583122736. Now that I examine the information more closely, I feel it isn't as reliable as I would hope. Maybe we should not OK this one.Don Erikson 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the seller was using the Amazon date (Jan 1975) for a 1974 pub. (Presumably late 1974.) You've already added that one, although you had it as 1973 (the date of the W. H. Allen hardcover). I've added the hardcover and adjusted the date of the Mayflower paperback. I think I have that somewhere, but it's not in the obvious place, I'll have to ask my cleaner where she filed it. BLongley 08:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

High Deryni 1973 adult fantasy edition

You submitted an edit to this pub. One of the changes you made was from a catalog number ("#23485") to an ISBN ("0345234855"). Does the volume actually show the ISBN, or is it derived from other sources? if it is derived that there ought, IMO, to be a note giving the actual cat #, and the source from which the ISBN is taken. If the cat # is shown also, perhaps a note should mention that.

I have the edit on hold, pending your response. -DES ^Talk 18:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The ISBN appears on the copyright page.Don Erikson 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have approved the edit. If the "Cat #" appears on the cover, a note might be a good idea, but since you have the physical book, i will leave it to your judgement. -DES ^Talk 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Space Mavericks

I added a cover image to your recently entered pub. I also entered some other editions (some of which may actually be different descriptions of the same edition) based on OCLC records. Please check if I have the cover correct. -DES ^Talk 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That is right cover. Don Erikson 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs

When the copyright page shows a valid ISBN, but the cover shows a parital ISBN or a catalog number that is not an ISBN, please put the ISBN in the datbase field and the other number in the notes field. A workign ISBN in the database field enables the various ISBN-based links from the publication record. -DES ^Talk 21:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't very clear here. The ISBN of on the copyright page is the same as the a regular mass market later printing and most probably just not removed when this "Special Edition" (i.e. book club) was printed and the number on the cover is the correct one. Troll maybe an imprint of Berkley, if so the ISBN might have started with 0-425-....Don Erikson 00:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nongenre novels

When entering non-genre novels, you can go to the title record later and change the type to NONGENRE. My apologies if you already knew this. I have added some info to the non-genre Laumer novels you added today, after approving the edits. -DES ^Talk 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Really! Seriously I had no idea. I've looked for a specific NONGENRE command etc. Can I do it when I enter a "New Novel"? Don Erikson 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No I'm afraid not. The problem is that "NONGENRE" is a type of title record, not a type of publication record. When you enter a new novel, you are essentially entering a publication record, and the system creates a title record to match. To override any of the defaults for that title record (for example, to indicate that the title is part of a series), you need to come back and edit the title record (the "Edit title data" link from the title/bibliography display) after the initial edit has been approved by a moderator. This is also when you can merge the title if a duplicate was created, as often happens with anthologies or collections, and sometimes with novels. I hope this is helpful. -DES ^Talk 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The World Shuffler by Laumer

You submitted an edit (#1022551) that would change an $8.25 trade paperback into a $2.75 mass-market pb. Do you have some reason to think that the TP never existed, or was improperly recorded? I note that there is already a record for a pb with ISBN 0-441-91702-X, while the record you are editing has ISBN 0-441-91703-8. Please double check the book, and consider if your edit really should be an update, or a clone, or perhaps an update of the other record. I have the submission on hold pending your response. -DES ^Talk 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My mass market sized book has the same ISBN as this supposed trade paperback. A search of ABE shows 69 ACE copies of this book, none mention being a trade paperback. Also by searching by ISBN reveals 16 results, one saying like my copy that it is the 4th printing, another that it, as mine dated 1984-04-00, and another that it is a mass market and yet another calls it a "paperback size". It seems unlikely that there would be both a trade & mass market with the same ISBN, so I felt it was a pretty safe assumption to change it ( also considering that numerous partial entries that use "tp" as a filler.Don Erikson 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Approved. -DES ^Talk 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Earthman's Burden -- change to verified pub

I changed your verifed pub by changign the publisher from "Avon (3rd printing)" to "Avon", there was already a ote mentionign the 3rd printing status in the notes field. -DES ^Talk 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was (and still am) just learning my way around. I'm going through my collection mostly alphabetically and when I'm done I guess I'll have to start over to clean up & clarify.Don Erikson 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm still learning myself, and we only recently started to try to reguarize publisher names and consolidate publishers. it is now a good idea to do a publisher search on the key element of the anme (say "avon") and use one of the more popular forms already existing, if possible -- this avoids creating extra work for the people doing publisher regualrization. -DES ^Talk 21:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Word For World Is Forest

You submitted a new publication of this title, with type NONFICTION. I assume this was a typo. I have corrected it to CHAPTERBOOK, since that is the correct type, and you will find other publicatiosn ahve that type. See the results. -DES ^Talk 21:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant to change CHAPTERBOOK to NOVEL (and mis-selected NONFICTION) believing that it was in error. This is a standard mass market pb. Am I wrong in changing it?Don Erikson 21:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If the actual text of "The Word For World Is Forest" remans a novella, that is, contains less than 40,000 words, then the publication is a "chapterbook", no matter what it looks like. If the text is actually over 40,000 words than it is a novel, but in that case it is significantly different from the known version in Again, Dangerous Visions, and should be noted as such. -DES ^Talk 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Warrior of Scorpio

Daw 95cent edition Johs Kirby cover art. I uploaded the image. I have the same edition. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Conjure Wife

I approved your update to Conjure Wife] but then cloned it to 270260 so that there's one record for the due-cut black cover and another for the copper foil cover. The goal is one publication record per publication that can be distinguished from other publications. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Leiber's The Wanderer

Did you intend your submission for this title to be a clone or an update? As it is, it's a new pub which duplicates this verified pub. The only difference is the line: Cover also came with large rectangular blue on white sticker saying "A HUGO AWARD WINNER BEST SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL 1964". MHHutchins 20:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the original pub record stated "Printed in Canada" which you changed in your submission to "Printed in the US". I'll go ahead and accept it as a new pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Stepford Wives

Your submission, which i have on hold, says "No printing or edition stated. Date here id from copyright page and may not actually be correct for this printing as at least two other printings have same date." My first thought is to approve this, but edit the date to 0000-00-00 (which is how we normally date printings with no date specified unless there is a good reason to date them otherwise) and alter the note accordignly. Would you object to this? Do you have any other basis for the date? -DES ^Talk 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I had difficulty deciding to go with the date or 0000-00-00. You're probably right & I should have done it the other way. I still plan to clone those aforementioned editions once this is taken care of.Don Erikson 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Approved and date changed to 0000-00-00. -DES ^Talk 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mahogany Trinrose et al

Correct cover for Mahogany Trinrose (Playboy edn)? clarkmci / --j_clark 06:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've approved Unto Zoer, Forever, but please fix the price (which is currently the same as the number of pages). I have the 2nd printing which is a year later, so its price might be different. Would you also check the cover I've added, because my second printing is slightly different to the image I found on Amazon US.

I've added images (from Amazon US) for a couple of other Lichenbergs & Lindholms - I have copies, so I'm assuming yours are the same. clarkmci / --j_clark 07:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The covers are correct and the price is fixed.Don Erikson 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lion of Judah in Never-Never Land

Your submission for The Lion of Judah in Never-Never Land (which i have on hold) states in the notes "Author given as Kathryn Ann Lindskoog on title page." but has in the author field "Kathryn Lindskoog". Help:Screen:EditPub says "As with the title, take the name from the title page in preference to the cover or spine of the book. Where was the shorter form used? On the cove or spine, or elsewhere? Unless there is something about this book that I do not understand, i think it should be entered under the author name of "Kathryn Ann Lindskoog", possibly with a note about where in the publication the name "Kathryn Lindskoog" is printed. Note that we currently have on file author records for Kathryn Lindskoog and Kathryn A. Lindskoog. Neither has yet been designated as canonical, although Wikipedia uses "Kathryn Lindskoog". I await your response. -DES ^Talk 15:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It was "Kathryn Lindskoog" on the cover and spine, so I figured 2 against 1 and go with the cover version. But now I know better. There's so much to remember! My brain hurts!!!Don Erikson 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Approved, pub altered to match the description above. -DES ^Talk 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Foundation's Friends

I made a few changes in your submission of this pub. You showed Asimov as a co-editor although he isn't credited in any other edition. I changed the size from "tp" to "pb" (based on the dimensions stated on OCLC), and added the page count. I also removed the page numbers as this edition had more pages than the hardcover, so it's not likely that the editions had the same pagination. I gave the pub date as October 1990 (as stated in Locus1). If you feel any of this is in error, please let me know. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason (if I remember correctly, I mean it was DAYS ago) that this entry was so incomplete was that I imported the contents and I'm going to complete it soon. I thought I put in the page #s though at least. Well I'll fix it soon.Don Erikson 18:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Shadows 6

Your submission adding a new printing of this title is puzzling. Everything appears to be exactly the same as this first printing, but you state "Assumed 2nd Printing". Is there any internal evidence of this being a different printing? I will hold the submission until hearing back from you. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. It should have read "Stated 2nd printing". Don Erikson 18:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. I approved the submission and made the correction. MHHutchins 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Box Man (1973 US)

I realize that you are simpl addign publications to an existign title, but still. Normally we use a parenthetical qualifier like "(1973 US)" only for a revised version. In this case I see no indiation of a revision, nor of any other editon with the title The Box Man but a different text. True this does appear to be the title of a translated edition, but i don't see any need for (1973 US) to indicate that, nor does it do so clearly IMO. Do you see any reason to retain this qualifier, or the similar ones on other works by this author? -DES ^Talk 19:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Historically, suffixes like "(1973 US)" or "(1962 UK)" seem to have been added from Clute/Nicholls or other sources that use that format, to cover titles we haven't got yet. Once we get a REAL publication under such a title, I'm all for correcting the title back to what the publication states unless it really needs a suffix for "expanded" or "revised" or such. Dating such titles still seems a bit loose though - I favour first date the variant title was used, but as variant authors also create variants most of our entry dates are poor. Still, there's no reason not to TRY and get such right. I can wait till Don has finished his entries in the meantime, but yes, someone (probably not Don) should adjust this after we have the data. BLongley 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I cloned these from another entry, but because I wasn't sure if should leave the parenthetical info or not, so I erred on the side of caution.Don Erikson 01:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Approved, qualifiers removed for all books by this author with actual pubs on record. -DES ^Talk 19:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of Kings and Quests

Hi Don - what's the source for the note you want to add to Of Kings and Quests that says "Title is supposed to be OF QUESTS AND KINGS."? Marc Kupper (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well let's just say I pulled it off the shelf and checked it directly. I may have been the one to make the original mistake.Don Erikson 01:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - the easy fix is to edit the publication record and to change the title both at the top for the publication and at the bottom for the title record. It's an easy one to verify as Amazon has a cover image. I went ahead with fixing this. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hadon of Ancient Opar

Just an FYI that I have added a note to your verified first printing of this book, which reads "Stated first printing as per the number line. DAW book #100." I have also added Roy Krenkel's interior artwork. Ahasuerus 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1,000-Year Plan by Asimov

I'm uncertain about your submission adding a new publication of this title that had the same catalog number as the Ace double. It was reprinted in 1962 by Ace as a single but with a different catalog number which we already have in the database. (I did see that this pub's title record was Foundation instead of The 1,000-Year Plan which I've corrected.) Is this pub listed in your source for this submission, The Whole Science Fiction Data Base No. 1? MHHutchins 19:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I make a note that this was from WSFDB#1? Well I meant to. The WSFDB also noted that this was a "Special Edition". I also checked THE SCIENCE-FICTION COLLECTOR 2's additions list to #1's Ace checklist and there is listed two other singles also listed with the same number their doubles were. Norton's THE STARS ARE OURS (D-121) & Leinster's THE FORGOTTEN PLANET (D-146). And I checked ABE and there is a few copies for sale.

Perhaps my question was unclear. What I meant to ask: Is this Ace single listed in the WSFDB#1? I checked my copy of THE SCIENCE-FICTION COLLECTOR #2 with the additions and errata to its Ace Books listing in #1, and it does list D-110 as reissued as a single, but doesn't give the year or price. The question then becomes why would they reissue a title as a single in the same year as it was published as a double with the same catalog # and at a price not inline with their catalog numbering system (D series were all 35¢. Oh, well. Tuck doesn't have a listing for it as a single (except for the 1962 reissue). What the heck, I'll accept the submission, but will have to unmerge it from the double title in which you entered it, and place it under the single title. I'm also going to contact the two ABE book dealers who have this listed as a single to verify its existence. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just checked OCLC which has a separate printing of the title as a "Special Edition" (still abridged!) Again, no date and price given. Still that makes at least three secondary sources (or two, if the WSFDB got their info from Grant Thiessen's list.) MHHutchins 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Contacted one of the ABE dealers who verifies that his copy is an Ace Single, so now we have physical verification that it exists. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Asimov entries from the WSFDB

I'm holding four submissions pending the outcome of this correspondence:

1. Your submission for Pebble in the Sky as part of a Unicorn Book Club omnibus is incorrectly entered. The title and author of the pub record should be the title and author of the omnibus. If no single title or editor is credited, then the titles of each of the novels, with "Anonymous" as the editor, or with each individual author listed in the author fields. Then enter each of the novels as one of the content entries, then merge the newly created Asimov title with the existing title record. If you feel that entering the non-genre works would compromise the integrity of the database (I don't) you can add make a reference to this publication in the Pebble in the Sky title record's note field.
2. Your submission for a new pub of The Currents of Space contains in the notes both "5th Printing" and "1st Printing". Was this simply failing to replace part of the notes when cloning or is it listed as such in the WSFDB?
3. The submission updating Asimov's Mysteries states cover artist is "James MvMullan". A typo?
4. The submission adding a new SFBC printing with a new gutter code is up for debate. As there is no ISFDB standard for creating a new record based on Doubleday's gutter code system, I believe we should simply add in the record for the original SFBC edition a note about the additional printing, its gutter code and the date of printing. If you feel strongly about creating a new record, you can start a discussion on the Rules and Standard page. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I will re-enter the "Pebble in the Sky" mystery omnibus (or would that be an anthology) as you recommended. As to The Currents of Space ,I meant it to be a 5th printing and goofed. As to MvMullan it's a typo fro srue. As to the new gutter code, I thought a new printing meant a new listing. I see myself as just a worker ant here and let the decisions on policy to My Ant Lord Masters. Don Erikson 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy yet concerning SFBC reprints (even among us Lord Masters), so as a member of our colony your voice is as important as the next worker ant, or even drone or queen. That's why I suggested bringing the issue to one of our discussion forums. I recently wrote the standards for SFBC entries, and even I quibbled about how reprints should be handled. If a consensus can be arrived at following a discussion, I'm more than willing to fall into step. I've rejected item #1, which you said you would resubmit (as an omnibus, because it combines previously separately published works, whether they be novels, collections or anthologies). I accepted #2 and #3, correcting the typos. And will hold #4, if you wish to start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Slave of Sarma

In your update to Slave of Sarma you replaced the note

• Taken from Amazon customer cover and ABE. Cover upper left corner has MB with (price below and number 75-305 printed diagonally). No. 4 on top spine.

with

• Assumed 1st printing.

I agree that removing "Taken from Amazon customer cover and ABE." make sense but did you remove "Cover upper left corner has MB with (price below and number 75-305 printed diagonally). No. 4 on top spine." because it's not accurate or was unnecessary? Marc Kupper (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Taken from Amazon customer cover and ABE." part was removed because I was using a primary source. The "Cover upper left corner has MB with (price below and number 75-305 printed diagonally)" parts were not needed and inaccurate, being vertical and not "diagonal". And there isn't a number 4 on the spine. Don Erikson 19:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Temples of Ayocan

You are updating The Temples of Ayocan to

• Change the ISBN from 0523407874 to 0523006233
• Change the note from
  • First printing. The original version of the ISFDB record listed a catalog ID, #P623, for this book, but it's not found in the verification copy and it's not clear where it had come from.
  • Stated 1st printing.

ISBNs 0523407874 and 0523006233 are on Amazon for The Temples of Ayocan. I suspect your update is ok but I'm wondering if you have evidence that the original publication did not exist. That reference to #P623 sure throws me for a loop as that's what should be on your 0523006233 and not a 0523407874. I could not find P623 on AbeBooks/Google other than the ISFDB reference.

What I'd like to do is to clone the publication and to create a new record that matches your publication. I'd also leave the note about P623 in your clone. Please also mark it as verified as then someone digging through this mess later will know your copy is a bonafide version. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to ABE the ISBN 0523407874 is for 4th printing (or so I infer from the 4 listings), the one I changed was a 1st. "#P623" may be shorthand for what appears on the cover, starting with the P-shaped logo then "523-220623-3 * $1.25". The ISBN I used was from the spine & copyright page. I'll verify this entry as you askedDon Erikson 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Don - I approved the update. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dragons of Englor

Regarding your update to The Dragons of Englor. You want to change

• the price from $1.25 to $1.50
• change the note from "Second printing May 1977." to "Stated 2nd printing."

Though I normally don't like to see publication record's prices changed it looks like this one is ok in that someone cloned the first printing to create a record for the second printing but failed to remove unverifiable information such as the price. More evidence of this is the "Second printing May 1977" note where someone replaced "First" with "second" but failed to change the date on the note though they changed it in the metadata. Dragoondelight verified the 3rd printing. I wonder if he's creating pub records for presumed editions based on the contents of a later edition. First I'll ask you - did you create this record and are now fixing it or did you find it and are now updating it? Marc Kupper (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I own both these printings so if there is a problem it was my fault.I think I cloned the 1st printing and forgot to remove the old date from the notes. I redo the the 2nd's update now.Don Erikson 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - approved and then date from a later update to this pub (the note) added. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And I noticed that with the Jeffry Lord biblio the listing of "Blade" books is incomplete (missing 13,14,30) but are all there when you click the series tab at the top of the list. Just thought I'd point this out.Don Erikson 20:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that author bibliography pages don't show a variant title unless the parent title is also on the same page. Jeffrey Lord is a house name shared by Roland J. Green and Ray Nelson. For most of the Richard Blade titles we have not figured out if Roland J. Green or Ray Nelson wrote them and so they they just appear on the Jeffrey Lord bibliography. The actual author for titles 13, 14, and 30 has been identified and the Jeffrey Lord versions of the titles are now variant titles of Roland J. Green or Ray Nelson titles. The missing stories appear on the two physical author bibliographies and no longer show up on Jeffrey Lord's bibliography as the titles are variants. I have long thought ISFDB should not do this but the last time I looked into this the fix was complicated. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Grey Ones

You updated The Grey Ones to add the catalog # and note. Those are fine but down in the Contents section you are changing the date of the title from 1960-00-00 to 1970-00-00. I accepted your updates to the publication but changed the title date back to 1960 as the story was published by Hodder & Stoughton in 1960.

Does your copy have a 1970 copyright date indicating perhaps that it has been revised or maybe the author added a new introduction? Marc Kupper (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops!. That was just a typo.Don Erikson 14:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hatchetman

Don if you still have this magazine[20] can you give me the first and last sentence of the story Hatchetman on page 4. I want to see if it matches part of a story in the fix-up novel "Planetary Agent X". Thanks!Kraang 03:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Billy Antrim was riding hard." "For once again it was a matter of no getaway arranged for pistolero Billy Antrim."Don Erikson 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect match! It appears "Pistolero" was never published in Analog(as stated in the Ace Double copyright page) and it's first publication was in the fix-up novel "Planetary Agent X" as "Part Two" as the only title. It was then republished as a single story in 1966 as "Hatchetman. Thanks!Kraang 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not Quite Human #1: Batteries Not Included

I've approved these, but I'm just wondering if the cover of your copy is the same as shown on Amazon US here. I ask 'cos my UK edn has the same painting and the artist on mine isn't credited that I can find; thus I'll cross-ref to your artist, if so. Ta ...clarkmci/--j_clark 00:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The cover I have is the same as the one shown at Amazon. The artist credit is from the copyright page.Don Erikson 15:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ...clarkmci/--j_clark 23:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Six Gates from Limbo

I've approved your edit to Six Gates from Limbo but wonder if there's another UK price that could be listed? I suspect my obscured UK price copy concealed a "4/-" entry or suchlike - in 1969 we were still using Shillings although we were preparing for decimalisation. Feel free to take over Primary Verification if your copy is better than mine! BLongley 20:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears both ways. Like this "4s.(20p.)". I wasn't sure if "4s." was written here as "4/-" so I went with the decimalisationismically way. I will go back and add a note.Don Erikson 21:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I always like to know what I missed when somebody mutilated my physical editions. BLongley 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Earth Lords

Just a note that I have added the following text to your verified edition of Dickson's The Earth Lords: "Stated "Ace original edition, and has never been previously published". First printing as per the number line. Price in Canada C$5.25." Ahasuerus 21:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Whole Science Fiction Data Base Quarterly No. 2 Summer 1988

I have approved the addition of The Whole Science Fiction Data Base Quarterly No. 2 Summer 1988 and then changed the constituent sections from NONFICTION to ESSAYs. Keep in mind that we reserve NONFICTION for book length works and ESSAYS for anything less than that :) Ahasuerus 03:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kai Lung Unrolls His Mat

Don, I have to question the classification of this as a novel rather than a collection. You're down as verifying our only verified pub of it (same edition I've got, I think - can't easily check right now as it's mislaid somewhere), & I'm guessing that you're responsible for classifying it as a novel & for the note in that pub giving a reason for this.
I've entered a request for discussion here. If I'm right about your taking the pro-novel view, I'd appreciate your joining in. Thanks -- Dave (davecat) 04:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The John C. Winston Company

Hi Don - I approved a batch of updates but was curious as to why you changed some publishers from The John C. Winston Company to Winston, left others as "The John C. Winston Company", added some as "The John C. Winston Company" and added others as "Winston". Marc Kupper (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You can lay the inconstancy to forgetful inattention. But by the time I neared the end of the list I felt uncertain about my changing to "Winston". I will go back and make them all uniform to "John C. Winston Company" dropping the "The" as being unnecessary. If anyone has a better ideas I'm open to them.

Consistency in publisher's name seems to be an ongoing problem. Like how it may be "Ballantine/Del rey" or Del Rey Ballantine" or just " Del Rey" or some other variation of order, capitalization, etc. May I suggest a list of "preferred" publisher names compiled by someone willing to make all hard the decisions. The real problem I see with this would be how with company mergers and in-house & imprint name changes it all could look to be as convoluted as a hillbilly's family tree.Don Erikson 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's nobody competent to make ALL the hard decisions. I'd have a stab at English paperback publishers if people let me. I wouldn't even know who to support for such a role for US paperback publishers, or even if I should have a vote on such, despite owning many. Hardcover experts are another category, and if people do both they're probably too busy. BLongley 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We're all a bit specialist in some ways, and all we've done so far is consolidate unverified publishers a bit more than they used to be, then got into some controversy over whether verified pubs can be regularised by someone that thinks they know best. I still lean towards something I said when this all started - we should have a publisher field we can express our desired detail level in, and another (originally copied from the first) that we can regularise to some extent so that we can link to a standard Wiki page for all the other stuff we can't yet put in the database. So "Winston" is fine for the regularised version, but people can still record "The John C. Winston Company", or "John C. Winston Company" or "John C. Winston", whatever... but they could find the "Winston" wiki page and see if THAT says that a certain form of the name defines a period that books with that form of the name on were published, or mentions that there was a "Charles Winston" company that also published SF and the division between John and Charles needs to be made clearer, or suchlike. BLongley 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment we're a bit stymied and not moving anywhere. :-( I could live with people leaving comments on each Wiki page we have for publishers, saying "Ace SF and Ace Fantasy need to be split!" or "Scholastic needs to be split into YA and other imprints" or "Tandem Science Fantasy and Tandem Fantasy are the same, merge them" and see what we end up with in a few months, with a basis of "if nobody else has commented in all that time, make the change". For now though, I'd say "Editors can go decide what's best for their own publications, keeping the aim of eventual CONSISTENCY in mind", and "If this form is important to you, go create or update the Wiki page" and the Moderators with the BFG tools can hold back for a while. BLongley 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Eight against Utopia

Good catch on the Gaughan!--Bluesman 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Death Dream

I have approved the addition of Graham Masterton's Death Dream and then merged it with the pre-existing Title. However, it looks like it may be the same first printing as the one verified by Unapersson? Ahasuerus 01:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, it's the same. I just didn't look to see if it was listed as part of a series. Normally I would use the crt+f find to make sure I didn't miss something but... Don Erikson 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added your information to the verified pub and left the verifier (Unapersson) a note. Ahasuerus 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Gifts..." in The Iron Years

Your verified pub has the story as "Gifts...". I strongly suspect that somebody else changed the title from "Gifts" when they edited the issue of Astounding it first appeared in - and there was the cascade effect. The art director of Astounding during this period had a tendency to go totally wacky with with the ellipsis in the graphic art for story titles. Both the TOC and footer pages in the mag do not have ellipsis - and Contento and Strauss both list it as "Gifts". Please don't change anything - I am likely to remove the ellipsis from the original.--swfritter 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also I noticed that you may have missed one of my queries. The submission has been on hold for a while.--swfritter 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The title appears as "Gifts", no ellipsis, on TOC, at beginning of story & copyright page. I now have answered the Fairman query, only 7 months & 5 days later.Don Erikson 17:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It should have been that in the Astounding entry. I am now pretty confident that it also should have been that way in the one unverified pub in which it appears. Please also note my message concerning the Fairman entry.--swfritter 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seven Footprints to Satan

I have approved all Seven Footprints to Satan submissions and checked them against OCLC, but could you please double check that the Notes field in the thirteenth printing is correct? Basically, I moved "Avon 28209", which you overwrote with the ISBN, to the Notes field based on what OCLC has, but I am not sure their record is for the same printing. Thanks! Ahasuerus 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It does say "thirteenth printing". I got the ISBN from the copyright page. I have noticed that for a period Avon had ISBNs that did not correlate with the catalog number. Some ISBNs only appeared on the copyright page and some appeared on the spine under the catalog number. I should have put the catalog number in the notes.Don Erikson 17:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The King of the Swords

I rejected the one edit, but since it came after the previous two, I passed those. What do you want to do with those?--Rkihara 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please just reject them. They are both totally wrong.Don Erikson 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Northwest Smith

I have approved the addition of the 5th printing of Northwest Smith to the database. However, since it's a collection, I wonder if you meant to clone the pre-existing first printing instead? Not a big deal either way, we can always use the "Import Content" option instead. Ahasuerus 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I take care of it.Don Erikson 23:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Weird of the White Wolf

I have approved the addition of various Berkley printings of this book, but are their titles really The Weird White Wolf and not The Weird of the White Wolf? I suspect that you may have cloned one of our old publications that has this alternative (and likely erroneous) spelling. Ahasuerus 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Like a mutant gene this mistake crept through generations of clones. It is The Weird of the White Wolf on all & I missed every one. My goof.Don Erikson 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! Ahasuerus 02:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A Remembrance for Kedrigern

I have approved the change to the Ace printing of this book, but then changed the "0000-00-00" date to "1990-00-00" and added the following note: "Date not stated; taken from Reginald-3." Hope this matches your intent!

Also, we have a nearly identical publication record for the Berkley edition. I wonder if the Berkley pub doesn't actually exist? Ahasuerus 03:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The book has a date on the copyright page but somehow I screwed it up. I have now fixed it. I noticed after doing a few edits of Morressey's books that the Berkley entries have the same ISBN as the Ace, then I remembered that Berkley and Ace were (are?) the same company and that Ace reprinted many Berkley books using the same cover art and type set text. So I think it's you could say that a Berkley book with a 0-441-xxxxx-x is actually an Ace.Don Erikson 18:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have blown the "Berkley" pub away and the world is a better place now :) Ahasuerus 01:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the Fields We Know

User: MA Lloyd would like to add the following poems to your verified Beyond the Fields We Know:

In the Sahara 	Lord Dunsany 	1929-00-00 	168 	POEM 	
Songs From an Evil Wood 	Lord Dunsany 	1929-00-00 	169 	POEM 	
The Riders 	Lord Dunsany 	1929-00-00 	172 	POEM 	
The Watchers 	Lord Dunsany 	1929-00-00 	174 	POEM 	
The Enchanted People 	Lord Dunsany 	1929-00-00 	176 	POEM 	
The Happy Isles 	Lord Dunsany 	1929-00-00 	178 	POEM 	
A Word in Season 	Lord Dunsany 	1929-00-00 	179 	POEM 	
The Quest 	Lord Dunsany 	1929-00-00 	180 	POEM 	

Could you please check your copy and see whether the poems are present? TIA! Ahasuerus 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why I have trepidations when verifying collections, especially ones with so much content. To answer your question, yes these poems are all there AND there is also a two act play KING ARGIMENES AND THE UNKNOWN WARRIOR. Also an afterword by Carter THE NAMING OF NAMES: NOTES ON LORD DUNSANY'S INFLUENCE ON MODERN FANTASY WRITERS. And eight one-page "Editor's Note" by Carter introducing each section.Don Erikson 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have approved MA Lloyd's submission. We already had "King Argimenes and the Unknown Warrior" listed on page 139 and I have added a note about the eight one page Editor's Notes. The only thing outstanding is Carter's "The Naming of Names"; could you please add it when you have a moment since you know the page number? Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Werewolf of Ponkert

I approved your submission of The Werewolf of Ponkert, but I do have a question. You credited the intro to "Anonymous". Was "Anonymous" actually listed, or was no author credit for the intro given? in the latter case the credit, according to the help page should be to "uncredited". ("If a work is credited to "Anonymous", then put "Anonymous" in the author field. The same applies for any obviously similar pseudonym, such as "Noname". If the work is not credited at all, use "uncredited", with a lower case "u".") A minor issue, in any case.

I also note that what may be the same work is also entered as a novel, see The Werewolf of Ponkert. Can you determine if this is the same complete work, or perhaps just the same work as the first shortfiction in the collection you entered? Then the entries can be properly merged or linked or proper notes entered, as the case may warrant. -DES ^Talk 23:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Clute/Grant, "The Werewolf of Ponkert" (Weird Tales, 1925) was followed by "The Werewolf's Daughter" (WT, 1928), a serial. The 1958 book The Werewolf of Ponkert was a fixup of the two. After that things get murky: "[Munn] later reworked the other stories and added extensively to the series, most of these tales appearing initially in Robert Weinberg's Lost Fantasies series, and then in book form as Tales of the Werewolf Clan, #1: In the Tomb of the Bishop (coll of linked stories, 1979) and #2: The Master Goes Home (coll of linked stories, 1979)." Since Weird Tales and everything even vaguely related to it have been researched to death, there is a good chance that there is a more detailed bibliography somewhere on the net. Ahasuerus 02:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia has a more extensive, but still incomplete list of related stories. Ahasuerus 02:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed anonymous to uncredited. Is it a collection or a fix-up novel? They were separately published as a collection but a fix-up is the same. So who knows? Not me. Collections of related stories are not uncommon but does that make them a novel. It may come down to intent, was it meant to be novel or not. To quote the back cover "The book as it is issued contains a second story, `The Werewolf's Daughter'..." seems to imply that the two stories were meant to be separate works.Don Erikson 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The main difference between a fix-up and a collection of linked stories is that in fix-ups the text of the original stories has been changed compared to their standalone appearance. Sometimes the changes are minor, e.g. trivial introductory/explanatory material may have been omitted in later stories, in which case it's OK to make the book a collection and leave a Note explaining what happened. Sometimes it can be a major rewrite, in which case we will want to make it a fix-up Novel and note which stories it was based on. It's hard to be sure how significant the changes are unless you are in a position to compare all versions of the text, so we have to rely on secondary sources much of the time. Ahasuerus 22:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Neville addition

Which part of the date did you add? Month/year? Just looked at my copy and can't believe I missed the month..... gremlins again!--Bluesman 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cover credit problem

Answered on my Talk page. Ahasuerus 05:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Niven's Ringworld

I'm holding your submission to update this record, because I believe you intended to clone it to create a new pub. Here's the submission:

Column - Current [Record #171891] (as verified by Scott Latham)
Title - Ringworld
Authors - Larry Niven
Tag - RNGWRLDJTX1983
Year - 1983-04-00 [Changed to 1981-11-00]
Publisher - Del Rey / Ballantine
Pages - 342
Binding - pb
PubType - NOVEL
Isbn - 0345306341 [Changed to 0345293010]
Price - $2.75 [Changed to $2.50]
Artists - Don Davis
Image -
Note - 12th printing [Changed to Stated 15th printing.]

Strange though is that your 15th printing is cheaper than Scott's 12th printing! Let me know if you wanted to create a new one or updating this one. MHHutchins 07:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I meant to clone this instead of edit. But I noticed a mistake I made(date not price), so just reject this and I'll redo it.Don Erikson 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. MHHutchins 21:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Danger Planet-chapterbook

This. [21] . I played hobb finding this title. I realize that it is novella size by today standards, is that the reasoning for terming it a 'chapterbook'? This is not a dispute, but a simple clarification. It is not appearing in search. Here is a cover image if you wish. [22] . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else in the dark and murky past termed this a "Chapterbook" and I just verified the entry. I don't think I even noticed the "Chapterbook" designation. I did a rough word count it comes to about 50,000 so I think maybe the "NoveL' designation would be more accurate.Don Erikson 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It won a Retro Hugo in the Novel category so I think you're right and have adjusted it. Please check if I've done so appropriately. BLongley 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Short novel, but I think it fits also. Thanks, for the title search fix, Bill. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that the title search works now, that's a rather fundamental rule that recent Chapterbook edits are breaking. (Every publication should have a title record.) Hopefully Don likes the edit too? (I added a Cover that I think matches as well whilst I was at it.) Feel free to contact me directly to fix a chapterbook that's broken that way - we may not yet have decided on the "official" workaround, but if the content MUST stay as Shortfiction then it seems most people can cope with the publication being a single content Collection or Anthology or Magazine. It's only the Novels that people seem to want to break this way. BLongley 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, this book led me to searching for the Retro Hugo rules, which are quite interesting and will safely take me away from editing/moderating here tonight - it seems many editors are getting Three-against-One advisory notes today where four people will have at least five different opinions! So going to find some rules we can steal is probably better use of my time. BLongley 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Galactic Invaders

Greetings! Did a change to the title of GLCTCNVDRS1976 and added a note to explain that "The" appears only on the cover and not on the title or copyright page. Have been told by a couple of Moderators that the title page takes precedence. Cheers!--Bluesman 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've approved this, updated the "Title" record, added a note about "The" on the cover only and last added a cover image.Kraang 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Space Swimmers

On your copy of THSPCSWMMR1967 can you read the signature on the bottom right of the front cover? I've tried even with a magnifying glass and can't quite make it out...?--Bluesman 01:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice it before but it says "Powers", I'm 99.9% sure. The work looks like his, the signature looks like his even though it's a little dark. I would have no problem in saying it is Richard Powers.Don Erikson 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

16th printing of Priest-Kings of Gor

Can you double-check the publication date of the 16th printing of this title? It doesn't match up with other printings. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right I screwed something up. I will fix it.Don Erikson 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

1st printing of Nomads of Gor

Look at the note you submitted for this pub and you'll notice the inconsistency. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And this one as well. Also this one. You might want to check out all of the Nomads of Gor submissions. The dark secrets of cloning brought into the light! MHHutchins 19:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have gotten a copy of RAIDERS OF GOR mixed in with NOMADS...

I will go back and double check them all.Don Erikson 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Outlaw of Gor

I'm holding your submission for the fourth printing of this title. There appears to be a similar one which was verified by Ahasuerus. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have been using the verified book as a clone source, I'm going to recheck all the Norman books I've done so far so go ahead and reject this one.Don Erikson 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Timekeeper Conspiracy-last digit year error?

This. [23] . My copy is the same, but the date is April, 1984. This fits the series timeline printings and this cover. [24] . Also Canadian price is C$2.95. I think your verification is a simple typo on the year. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a typo and I missed it. Don Erikson 06:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Android at Arms

Regarding your update to Android at Arms. You want to replace the note

• Referenced in bibliography by Helen-Jo Jakusz Hewitt published in 1975 publication "The Book of Andre Norton"
  Matches OCLC record 00971237

with

• Stated 1st printing. Cover artist is in my (DWE) opinion Dean Ellis.

Did you intend to remove the original note? As it's a verified publication I'm assuming the verifier either added that note or chose to leave it in. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that at one point an editor added a whole bunch of Norton pubs from Helen-Jo Jakusz Hewitt's 1975 bibliography. We have been slowly verifying them, sometimes leaving the original note and sometimes taking it out. I think it's OK to leave the note after primary verification as long as we rephrased it in a way that doesn't suggest that we rely on Hewitt's biblio as the primary source of information. Something along the lines of "Also referenced in...", perhaps.

As far as OCLC record numbers go, I find them useful even after primary verification, doubly so in Norton's case since OCLC incorporates an unusually complete Norton bibliography. Ahasuerus 18:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ahasuerus. Both of those seem like a good idea and so I approved the submission and then edited it to add an "Also referenced in" section to the notes. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreigner=Page count

This. [25] . I have a dust jacketless copy and the page count is 378. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) My copy IS also 378 pages. I will go and change the notes.Don Erikson 03:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vintage Books

Hi Don! I'm doing some work on Vintage Books(Random House/Knolf), do you have any of their early paperbacks circa 1950's, 1960's & 1970's? Thanks!Kraang 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some, maybe ten or so I guess. Would you want info here or should I cherry-pick and enter them to the DB directly? I think the only one I've done so fare is the Bradbury collection and Cerf anthologies.Don Erikson 19:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A brief overview here would be fine. In general what I'm after is how the publisher records their name on the cover, spine and title page. Thanks!Kraang 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I have, I hope you find it helpful.

(The under-score equals a dot in title page)

THE VINTAGE BRADBURY #V-294 later printing Cover:number upper left, no co. name or logo. Spine:lower spine has logo "Vintage" and # Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House _ New York"

BORN WITH THE DEAD Silverberg. #V-447 june '75 Cover: number upper right, no co. name or logo. Spine:Logo, number, then "Vintage" Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House _ New York"

BIO_FUTURES Sargent #V-366 june'76 Cover: number upper right, no co. name or logo. Spine: Logo, number, then "Vintage" Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House _ New York"

HUMAN-MACHINES Scortia #V-607 nov. '75 Cover: number upper right, no co. name or logo. Spine: Logo, number, then "Vintage" Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House _ New York"

THE VINTAGE ANTHOLOGY OF SCIENCE FANTASY Cerf #V-326 Cover: Logo Number then "A Vintage Original" in lower right. Spine: Logo, "Vintage" then number. Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House _ New York"

WOMEN OF WONDER Sargent #V-41 jan. '75 Cover: number upper right, no co. name or logo. Spine: Logo, number, then "Vintage" Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House/New York"

MORE WOMEN OF WONDER #v-876 sARGENT aUG.'76 Cover: number upper right, no co. name or logo. Spine: number and "vintage vertical then logo at bottom. Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House, New York"

THE NEW WOMEN OF WONDER Sargent #V-538 Jan. '78 Cover: number upper right, no co. name or logo. Spine: number and "vintage vertical then logo at bottom. Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House, New York"

MONKEY SHINES Stewart no "V" number aug. '88 Cover: at bottom middle price them logo then ISBN horizontally Spine:Logo at top ISBN & price at bottom Title page: Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House New York" all caps flush left with no punctuation.

THE FANTASTIC PULPS Haining V-109 TPB Cover: no logo number & price bottom right Spine:Logo, number, then "Vintage" Title page:Logo & "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House/New York"

THE MARRIAGES BETWEEN ZONES THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE Lessing #V-978 Aug '81 TPB Cover: No logo or co. name. price number & ISBN lower left vertical Spine:ogo, number, then "Vintage" Title page: Logo facing page 2-page spread. "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House New York" all caps flush left with no punctuation. on right hand page.

THE MAKING OF THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR PLANET EIGHT Lessing No "V" number mar. '83 TPB Cover: No logo or co. name. price & ISBN lower left vertical Spine:Logo then "Vintage" Title page: Logo facing page 2-page spread. "VINTAGE BOOKS" " A Division of Random House New York" all caps flush left with no punctuation. on right hand page.

Don Erikson 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Don, the above info answers all the questions I had. I have none of the Vintage books in my library and was unable to find any in the used book stores to look at. Again Thanks!Kraang 02:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a non-genre hardcover - Where Angels Fear to Tread by E. M. Forster. Title page has "VINTAGE BOOKS   NEW YORK / 1959". Title verso has "Published by VINTAGE BOOKS, INC. / .... / Vintage edition published February 1958; second printing, October 1959. $3.00 with a Leo Lionni cover. There's nothing about Random House.

Oddly, I don't have any Vintage from the 1960s but have a bunch from the 1970s such as The Celestial Omnibus if you are interested by me taking a gander at them for something. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Spell of the Witch World

Hi Don - you submitted an update to the record for the third printing where you wanted to change

• Year from 0000-00-00 to 1972-00-00.
• Note from "Third printing" to "No printing or edition stated but is 1st printing. DAW# 1"

I rejected this as

• You probably intended to update this record which is for the first printing. (I believe you picked the publication at the top of the list thinking that was the 1st printing. The undated later printings are in a random order at the top of the list).
• I also would have not dated it 1972 without a note as the early DAW books did not state a first printing date (until October 1972).
• The note about #1 looks good but should go on the record that matches your publication. I assume you have the first printing meaning it would be this record. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What a doofus I am. When I changed the date I felt something was wrong but in my arrogance I didn't check. I'll redo itDon Erikson 23:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Satan's World

The editor Bluesman has updated your verified Satan's World and added the note '"First Time in Paperback" on the front cover.' I approved the update as it seems safe enough. 06:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Undying Wizard

I approved your update to The Undying Wizard but see you removed the note "Zebra science fantasy". OCLC 2685857 reports this as "Series Title: Zebra science fantasy, 197" and I'm wondering if a reference to this exists in the publication or if OCLC had picked this up from another source. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is not an actual series designation. I checked several other Zebra books and each have a genre description, Science Fantasy for any fantasy or sword & sorcery, Science Fiction for SF, Horror for horror, and Adventure for, for example, Ahern's Survivalist series. The top of each spine has the Zebra logo then "Zebra" then the genre. With some thinner books, as with THE UNDYING WIZARD, the genre is set vertically, making it appear separate from the company name & logo. Also the number is just the catalog number and is different on later reprints, so it doesn't seem to a specific title designation. Of course this is all just supposition, but then what isn't.Don Erikson 18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Don. I guess there's no point is starting a new project to record the publisher's genre designation. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 20:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Man Who Upset The Universe

Found the initials P E S on the cover of your verified pub TMNWUU1955 and added that to the record with a note. Don't know who it is. Directly to the left of the 'U' in Unabridged. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Page's The Hephaestus Plague

You changed this pub, removing the publication date and adding a note about it being at least the second printing. Is there any internal evidence (or secondary source) that this is not the first printing of January 1975 (as it claims)? In other words, it states itself to be the first printing and is dated January 1975. "A rose by any other name..." Thanks. MHHutchins 19:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you added a new pub which is the first printing. As Emily Litella would say, "Never mind." Thanks. MHHutchins 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Midsummer Century

I have added the frontispiece in MLO1382 as interior art. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Times Without Number

Don, could you take a look at a posting I just put on Bill Longley's talk page with the same title as this, item #90, as it concerns you, too. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Time-Jump

Corrected a story title in MLO1058, "Whirligig" has no "!" in the table of contents or in the text. Also added a couple of notes about first printing and the artist being uncredited/no signature. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gods Themselves

On The Gods Themselves you noted "Cover artist is uncredited and signature is not visible on cover."

I see a very distinct CM with the tail of the C curving up into the left side of the M. I'd say it's most likely Charles Moll who is reputed to use "CM" and was active in 1973. Do you think that's correct? The CM on this pub is on the lower edge mid-way in the dark brown band that's the back of the neck. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This, in my opinion, is Charles Moll with the airbrush work with the image free-floating on a white background. And use of warm colors and sharp edged geometric shapes. But all three printings I own using this image has no signature, probably trimmed off. Don Erikson 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated your publication record. It's odd yours are cut off. My copy would have to be more than 1/4th of inch out of registration to loose the CM. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Siege Perilous

Added a note to SGPERL1966 as Currey says this book was actually written by Paul W. Fairman!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Space Swimmers

Found Powers' signature on the cover of THSPCSWMMR1967 about 1/2" up and 1/2" in from the bottom right corner. Added that and a note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman Junkie

Changed the designation of the forward to GNTLMNJNKN1983 by Robinson from "shortfiction" to "essay". ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Men in Black

You wrote in the notes for a new edition of this title; "Steve Perry wrote this based on Ed Solomon's screenplay so maybe he should be removed as an author." How is it credited on the title page? Is it by "Steve Perry and Ed Solomon" or "Steve Perry based on the screenplay by Ed Solomon". If it's the latter we can safely remove Solomon's credit. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It says " A Novel by Steve Perry" & under that it says "Based on the Screen Story and Screen Play By Ed Solomon". It is same squeezed on the spine. On the cover the quotes are side-by-side. Each in the same type size.Don Erikson 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rocheworld

Added some notes to RCHWRLDLNF1990 as to $C price, that it's an expanded edition of Flight of the Dragonfly, artist credits. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian price and artist credits are fine, but aren't the Title-level notes for Rocheworld enough to cover the expansions? BLongley 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point! Title level Notes updated so that both vts have matching notes. Ahasuerus 05:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Flux

Added Gaughan's interior art to the contents of FLXLBPMDRR1974 with matching note and noted the full number line. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's Orbit Unlimited listing in Whole SF Database No. 1

Can you check to see if this record has the right publisher? I believe it should be Sidgwick & Jackson, not Secker & Warburg. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your right! I must have used the auto-fill feature and didn't catch the mistake. Good catch.Don Erikson 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation: Outer Space

Added a couple of notes to PRTNTRSPCB1957 about it being a first printing and noting the initials RES or RFS on the cover. This rings no bells so didn't do more than leave a note. Anything spring to mind? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Magic Goes Away

Added the essay by Sandra Miesel to the contents of THMGCGSWVN0000. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Moudy's No Man on Earth

There's been a new pub for this title submitted that matches your verified pub, except for the author credit. Can you verify whether there's a middle initial in the author credit printed on the pub's title page? Thanks. MHHutchins 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My fault. There is NO middle initial. Don Erikson 23:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Barringer's Gerfalcon

You added this second printing of the Newcastle edition of this title, but it has the same date as the first printing. Also the cover art shows the price is $3.45, which is the same as the first printing. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AARGH! That's just careless clonifying...clonification...cloning! That's it! The date should be 1977-00-00 & the cover may or may not be the same artist, though it's a good bet, so I guess the cover image & credit should be removed because of the lack of direct information. According to OED "Cloning" is first used in 1959 in its biological sense and first used figuratively in 1974. The word clone goes all the way back to 1903.Don Erikson 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. BTW, how was the word "clone" used in 1903? Thanks. MHHutchins 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cloning directly from the OED:

1903 H. J. WEBBER in Science 16 Oct. 502/2 Clons..are groups of plants that are propagated by the use of any form of vegetative parts. 1905 C. L. POLLARD in Science 21 July 88/1, I therefore suggest clone (plural clones) as the correct form of the word. 1928 Times 20 July 20/3 In a tapping test of buddings now being carried out by the institute, the highest-yielding clone has latex vessels of much smaller bore than the lowest-yielding clone. 1929 Bibliographia Genetica V. 234 In Bacillus coli communis...a biotype was also found having lower motility than the remainder of the clone from which it came. 1935 Economist 26 Jan. 212/2 Namoe Tongan Rubber Estates in Sumatra..have just been planted with selected high-yielding clones. 1958 New Scientist 20 Feb. 13/1 Various techniques have been devised for producing these ‘clone cultures’ from single cells. Don Erikson 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Piper's Fuzzy Sapiens

Can you check the ISBN printed in this pub (if you have a copy)? The record now has an invalid ISBN, and, if correct, we'll want to place a # before it to avoid the error message, with a note that the pub prints an invalid ISBN. Thanks. 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's a bad check-sum. Appears that way on the spine and on the cover as 26192-X. Don Erikson 02:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the verification. MHHutchins 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Behind the Walls of Terra-cover image

This. [26] . Does this cover image match your verification? [27] . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the correct coverDon Erikson 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Added. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Poe's Eight Tales of Terror

Do you intend to update this pub with a new date, price and printing, or was it your intention to clone it as a later printing? MHHutchins 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I intended to clone. Reject this submission and I'll redo it.Don Erikson 18:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Space Swimmers [2]

Added a cover image to THSPCSWMMR1967 ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dark Dominion

Added a cover image to DRKDMNN1954B ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Eden

Added a cover image to BYNDEDEN1955B --Bluesman 18:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Green Odyssey

Added a cover image to TGRNODY1957 --Bluesman 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gateway

I have approved the addition of this Canadian printing of Gateway, but I noticed that there was no ISBN or price information in the submission. Did you get the information from the copyright page of a later printing, by chance? Ahasuerus 06:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that the first Canadian printing numbers probably match the 1st US's, but I didn't want to assume being they were not printed in the same month as is usually done. I now have added a note concerning the source of the info.Don Erikson 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A Plague of Pythons

Please check the dates again on the second and third printings by Ballantine. There are two listed for October 1969. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I made note that the Oct '69 printing was actually the 2nd US printing and not the real 3rd, because it was counting the 1st Canadian as the 2nd. With the note I originally used for the Aug. '73 (3rd US) printing, it should make things clear (I hope). I also submitted a delete request for the other 10/69 entry, I hope I did it correctly.Don Erikson 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pournelle's Escape from the Planet of the Apes

See the note in this edition. Perhaps you mean that the date is from the 5th printing's copyright page? MHHutchins 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I realized just after I submitted this that I forgot to change it and made a note to fix it but the one of the eagle-eyed wunderkind caught it before I could get my lazy ass around to repairing my mess. I keep a list of common notes on Notepad to cut & paste and sometimes I forget.... I done fixt it good now!Don Erikson 19:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Invaders from Rigel

Is there a reason why you are updating a verified pub with a $0.40 price whether than creating a clone?--swfritter 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm a moron? Actually I meant to clone this. If you reject this I'll redo it.Don Erikson 18:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if morons weren't allowed I wouldn't be here either. Will reject.--swfritter 21:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And to prove my point I accidentally approved it - but it is back in it's original state.--swfritter 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars / Star Trek and the 21st Century Christians

Is there a reason for changing this from non-fiction to chapterbook. Chapterbooks can be a little weird to edit sometimes. At 91 pages with a pb binding? this looks like it might possibly be left as non-fiction.--swfritter 00:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The word count for this book is very low but being nonfiction I guess maybe it should be left unchanged.Don Erikson 18:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't for the weird things that sometimes happen to Chapterbooks this would likely be a valid choice. Will reject.--swfritter 21:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gateway

I added cover art to your verified pub GTWWSGJJKC1978 which matches my copy of the same edition. Kevin 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49

Perhaps this pub should be the third printing. Right now we have two seconds. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now.Don Erikson 16:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Piserchia's Doomtime

About a month ago, you credited H. R. Van Dongen for the interior art in Piserchia's Doomtime and Michael Whelan for the interior art in her Earthchild. I pulled out my copies earlier tonight, but I couldn't find an identifiable signature on either drawing, although there is something "signaturesque" in the left corner of the Earhchild one. Did you identify the artists based on their style, perchance? Ahasuerus 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The interior art for DOOMTIME is signed "H. R. Van Dongen" at the lower right of the image. EARTHLGHT is different kettle of fish (mmmm...cliche), it ISN'T Whelan after all but Jack Gaughan. His "JG" signature is in the lower left of the image. That's my mistake and I fixed it.Don Erikson 16:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Time Dweller

Added a cover image to THTMDWLLRS1979 that matches my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Approved so that Don would be able to compare it to his copy. Ahasuerus 02:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It compares favorably. Don Erikson 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ringworld Engineers

Added a cover image to THRNGWRLDB1981 that matches my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tepper's End of the Game

I made a few changes to your submission for this publication. The publication date was changed to January 1987, the month of its selection for the SFBC. I assumed the "Forword" was a typo and changed it to "Foreword" (please change it back if that's the way it's stated in the book) and added the pub's title to the generic foreword and note to disambiguate the records. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to take a moment here to thank all moderator-trons for their thankless diligence especially in regard to reining in my particular brand of typographical & procedural buffoonery. Don Erikson 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think of it more like uncontrolled exuberance that leads to the simple mistakes (especially when I make them!) Like when your puppy pees on guests, you're hoping he'll grow out of it. Every time I make a mistake, I tell myself "You'll grow out of it." Funny thing is, I remain that bouncing puppy and continue to pee all over the place. My saving grace, as a moderator, is that I get the chance to clean it up before any other guests arrive. MHHutchins 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Janissaries III: Storms of Victory

Added a cover image to your verified BKTG13702 that matches my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Earth Lords

Added a cover image to your verified BKTG01785 that matches my copy of the same 1st edition. --MartyD 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Moment of the Magician- added cover image

Good Morning. This. [28] . I added a cover image matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Life, the Universe and Everything

Added a cover image to your verified LFTHNVRSND1982 that matches my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 01:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Other Log of Phileas Fogg

I added the foreword and some interior illustrations to your verified pub, to match my copy. Willem H. 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Times Without Number [2]

Added a cover image to [[29]] and massaged the notes a little. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To Reign in Hell---added cover/notation

Morning. This. [30]. I added the cover and notation and crediting as per my copy match to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Doc Savage: Deadly Dwarf / Repel

I'm holding a submission adding a new pub to this title, but I can't figure out how a pub titled The Deadly Dwarf should be entered under a title record for Repel. Am I missing something? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the Lester Dent page "The Deadly Dwarf" is an alternate title for "Repel". Being that there was an earlier separate printing by Bantam with this title and that the Dent page already showed it as a variant title, I went with it. Did I do it wrong?Don Erikson 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Variants of variants cause trouble. Not only does this have a variant author it also has a variant title. I'll try to untangle it and place your submission under the correct record. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as this title's concern, it's been straightened out. As for the rest of the Doc Savage titles, it looks like a tangled mess. It seems that "Kenneth Robeson" has been made a pseudonym for both Lester Dent and "Kenneth Robeson", and pseudonyms can't be broken. It's my understanding that not all of the Doc Savage titles were written by Lester Dent even though someone has given him in the author data as the legal name for the author. Those titles which we know were written by Dent will have to have variants created. All of these Kenneth Robeson titles will have to be removed from the Doc Savage series, and the Lester Dent titles will have to placed into the series (once variants have been created.) I'll do a little more work to get some of it in shape, but I don't have the time to take it on as a project (and I'm not particularly interested enough in Doc Savage to make the time.) If you want to take it on, be my guest. :) MHHutchins 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I know how to break incorrect pseudonyms at title level, and even some incorrect ones at author level (just work on everything they've ever done, changing them to a temporary author till the original author goes: THEN change them back) but it's an awful pain. In the Robeson case, I'd give up. Pseudonyms of themselves are unfixable as far as I can see. Still, Al will return and fix them all someday! BLongley 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thief of Llarn -- cover image

I added this image to your verfied THFLLR1966 that matches my copy of the same edition. --MartyD 10:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

At the Earth's Core -- cover image and questions

Hi. I added this image to your verified ATEC1962, matching my copy. I noticed that the entry uses Roy G. Krenkel, while the credit in the book uses Roy Krenkel, Jr. and that he's also explicitly credited for the title page drawing for which there's no INTERIORART content record. If you agree, I'm happy to do the edits -- I was thinking of adding a note about the dating anyway. I don't know how important precision of artist information is in the greater scheme of things, but I figured I'd ask about it while noticing it. What do you think? --MartyD 11:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In my my opinion, the artist is not the credit or signature. The artist is the same person no matter how they sign their name or is credited. Richard Powers is credited as Richard, Dick, R. or Powers/LAZorg, but they are all the same artist so I don't see the need to be overly specific. But that's just me.Don Erikson 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Xenogenesis

Added a cover image to [[31]]--Bluesman 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Castle Kidnapped-- added cover/notation

Afternoon. This. [32] . I added a cover image and notation matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Siege Perilous [2]

Added a cover image and notes to [[33]] --Bluesman 23:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Story of the Glittering Plain

I added a cover image and price to your verified pub THSTRFTHGL1973. I also expanded the title to the full title on the title page. Thanks.--Rtrace 05:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dance of the Apocalypse

Added a cover image to [[34]]--Bluesman 22:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Star-Anchored, Star-Angered

Added a cover image to [[35]]--Bluesman 02:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman Junkie [2]

Added a cover image and a couple of publishing notes to [[36]] ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fu Manchu

Just a heads-up that you don't need to leave a "(US)" suffix on every publication title! In fact, it's not even needed at Title level - variant support has improved a lot since Al typed in a load of stuff from Clute/Nicholls. There are a lot of left-over conventions from ISFDB1 to sort out, (e.g. see all the title entries with a "^" separating two variant names) but you might as well not compound them, we're getting better. BLongley 20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Book of Farmer

Added a cover image to [[37]]--Bluesman 01:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hadon of Ancient Opar [2]

Added a cover image to [[38]]--Bluesman 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Also to [[39]]--Bluesman 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mad God's Amulet

I added a cover image and price to your verified pub THMDGDSMLT1977.--Rtrace 03:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wind Whales of Ishmael

Added a cover image to [[40]]--Bluesman 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mad God's Amulet

I added a cover image to your verified pub DBLJPRDZBP1969.--Rtrace 04:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rocheworld [2]

Added a cover image and massaged the notes for [[41]]--Bluesman 00:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Slaves of Sleep

I added a cover image to your verified pub SLVSFSLPFX1967.--Rtrace 02:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Undersea Fleet

I added a cover image to your verified pub NDRSFLTCVC1971.--Rtrace 12:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyber Way - added notation

Morning. This. [42]. I added the location of cover artist signature and Canada pricing in matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry, --Dragoondelight 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Weirdstone of Brisingamen

I added a cover image, a note, and additional contents (intro and map) to your verified pub THWRDSTNFB1978.--Rtrace 22:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Best of James Blish

I added a cover image to your verified pub THBSTFJMSB1979.--Rtrace 02:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre-approved. Ahasuerus 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Garbage World

I added a cover image to your verified pub GRBGWRLDHM1967. Thanks. --Rtrace 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Incubus by Ray Russell

I'm holding a submission updating this pub. Did you really mean to change the date to 1981 and the price to $2.25, or were you just cloning it for a new pub record? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OOPS! I meant to clone. Do I need to redo it? Or can you just fiddle it in?Don Erikson 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Conan of Aquilonia

I added a cover image to your verified pub CNNFQLNJND1977. Thanks. --Rtrace 05:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Web of Light

There's a bad checksum on this, can you have another look please? BLongley 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is the way the ISBN appears on the cover and copyright page.Don Erikson 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. This is an interesting situation, as the Worldcat link works despite 0898650821 being invalid. The "correct" (according to most of the other sites) ISBN 089865162X is significantly different (but we have a pub for that too}. Some people solve the big red warning by adding a "#" in front, but as that would break a useful link I'm reluctant to do that. Normally the Bad ISBN leads nowhere and the "Good" one works everywhere, so it helps to put the "Good" one in the ISBN field and the stated one in Notes, but in this case any of our workarounds breaks something. I'll take it to general discussion. BLongley 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cahrles Vess"

Slight typo on interiorart for THHRPNDTHB1982 I think? BLongley 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yse taht is a tpyo,Don Erikson 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Black Corridor

I added a cover image to your verified pub BLKCOR1971. Thanks. --Rtrace 21:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Meddlers--- added cover/notation.

Afternoon! This. [43] . I added a cover image and notation matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jurgen

I added a cover image to your verified pub JURGEN1964. I also expanded the title to include the subtitle and added the foreword and afterword to the contents. Thanks. --Rtrace 22:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Long Tomorrow

I added a cover image to your verified pub THLNGTMRRW1980. Thanks. --Rtrace 12:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources

I noticed tonight a couple of submissions based on info from Abebooks, which is OK as long as it's not your only source. For instance a search on OCLC for this pub would show the year of publication was 1978 and was 271 pages. I find that OCLC to be the most reliable secondary internet source. I see that you're very good at trying to fill the gaps for missing editions, and you'll find OCLC does this better than anyone. For example The House of the Brandersons. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From This Day Forward -- added cover image

I added this image to your verified FRMTHSDFRW1973. --MartyD 00:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Queen of Zamba

I added a cover image to your verified pub MLO1904. Thanks. --Rtrace 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Sword of the Dawn

I added a cover image to your verified pub THSWHDWN571977. Thanks. --Rtrace 03:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Three Stigmata -- cover image

I added this image to your verified THRSTGMTPE1975. --MartyD 00:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Saga of Lost Earths / The Star Mill

I added a cover image and updated the note for your verified pub SGFLRMLLA71979. Thanks. --Rtrace 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Exiles of the Stars---added cover image/notation

Morning. This. [44] . I added a cover image and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dueling Machine

I just cloned your pub of Bova's Dueling Machine. I own a copy that states it's the first Signet printing. Except for the copyright page it looks identical to yours, except it's printed in Canada. There is no list of printings in my edition. As you requested in the notes, I changed the publication date and added a note. I think you should look at (and change) the notes yourself. I also noticed that the link to the coverscan was broken. Willem H. 17:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Caesar Dies

I added a cover image to your verified pub CSRDSJMGVB1973. Thanks. --Rtrace 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Land of the Giants #3

Added a cover image to [[45]]--Bluesman 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More Stories from the Twilight Zone

Please check the publication date for this pub. It seems a little off. MHHutchins 17:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this one you entered too? As "Nught" isn't a word I recognise and doesn't match the notes? BLongley 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Teaches me note to do this while sick (Achoo!!). I did notice that I was making many errors so I quit for now and I'll repair things when I conquer the internal bug invasion. NEVER SURRENDER! Don Erikson 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No hurry, hope you get well soon. Hope it's not the Swine Flu people are talking about. (Although as it's apparently a strain that can infect Avians and Porcines as well as Humans, shouldn't it be Flying-Pig Flu?} BLongley 21:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Eskimo Invasion--- added cover/notation

Morning! This. [46] . I added a cover image and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ruins of Isis

Willem H. is putting me to shame. You had a note on this guessing the artist - you're right! But he spotted a signature that I, you, and Dragoondelight missed, if we all have the same copy? BLongley 21:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From This Day Forward / Judas

I changed the pagenumber for the story "Judas" from 59 to 89 in this verified pub to match my copy. Willem H. 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved to clear the queue. Please speak up if it's different in your copy. Ahasuerus 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ringworld

I added a cover image to your verified pub RNGWRLDMTS1977. Thanks. --Rtrace 18:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheckley's Pilgrimage to Earth

Can you check the ISBN of this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that it's the same pub as this pub (except for the ISBN). You may have missed it because it was incorrectly listed as from Bantam instead of Ace, which I just corrected. MHHutchins 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened, so I would say just cancel my addition. Don Erikson 18:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Operartion Longlife-- added cover/notation

Afternoon! This. [47] . I added a cover image and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

... and I have just approved Harry's similar changes to your verified Operation Exile. Ahasuerus 20:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Operation Exile-- added cover/notation

Afternoon again. This. [48] . I added a cover image and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Weird of the White Wolf

I added a cover image to your verified pub THWRTWLFBA1977. Thanks. --Rtrace 03:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Master of Hawks

I added the cover artist an a note to this verified pub. Willem H. 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

David Shobin's The Obsession

Check the notes for this pub. I think there may have been some copy-and-pasting remnants. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did the same thing on another book until I noticed and was (& did) fix it later. Don Erikson 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox's Earth

I see that you would like to enter Anne Rivers Siddons' Fox's Earth into the database, but as far as I can tell from Amazon reviews, it's not speculative fiction. We have only one other Siddons book on file, which is apparently bona fide spec fiction, but that doesn't quite make her an established SF writer, nebulous as this exalted title is. I wonder if Fox's Earth belongs here? Ahasuerus 02:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This was laziness on my part. The cover has the look of a generic '80s horror novel, scanning the back cover copy I saw "evil", "demonic", "reign of evil", & "unholy mistress", and made an assumption. So after further review I would say to just cancel this entry and I'll take it as a lesson learned.Don Erikson 15:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Ahasuerus 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Silbersack's anonymously published "Science Fiction"

I've changed the authorship of this No-Frills book to "uncredited" and made a variant making John Silbersack the author, based on the notes you provided. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tower of Glass (Bantam 1983)

You've submitted an edit to remove a note from Tower of Glass that states "Third Bantam printing." and replace it with one that states "Stated 1st printing as per number line." I approved it, but I notice that there are actually 2 previous Bantam versions of this title. Do you think we could add a little more information to the note, so if someone links into it they will know that this is just the first printing of this particular Bantam edition? Thanks Kevin 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant for it to be a 3rd printing and will change it...wait for it...NOW!Don Erikson 04:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved the correction. Thanks for double checking! Kevin 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Simak's All the Traps of Earth

After accepting your submission for a new pub of this title, I saw that there was an almost-identical verified one already in the database. The only difference is the "...and Other Stories" in the title. Just an oversight, or am I missing something? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You are right, feel free to eliminate the errant entry. Don Erikson 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

Have you ever considered archiving your talk page? It takes me several scrolls just to reach the bottom of your TOC. If you would like help, instructions, or to have it done for you, please just ask. Thanks - Kevin 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to archive my page, I'll look into it...hmmm knowing my level of computer skills any assistance would be appreciated. By the way, and you probably already know this, but if you push the "End" button it will take directly to the page bottom.Don Erikson 05:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the [END] key is so small on this laptop. Seriously though, the reason I visit a page is usually to see if someone left you a note about changing a verified publication. What I actually want to do is cruise your TOC and when it's longer than a page or two it can get unwieldy. As to the act of archiving... just click this link User_talk:Don_Erikson/Archive_01, then click edit. Open your talk page in another window/tab. Edit the whole page. Copy then Paste from one to the other, and add a line near the top of your page to link to your archive page, which is [[User_talk:Don_Erikson/Archive_01]] Kevin 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Signing 'Notes'

Signing notes with your initials (DWE) may help the approver who can see your ISFDB login, but it won't help folks looking at the record weeks, moths or years later. If you feel the need to leave an opinion, or want to sign a note, I personally recommend using your ISFDB Login. Kevin 04:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll change my Notepad file were I keep all the Note sentences I use often.Don Erikson 05:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only person who does that. Kevin 05:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, I know who DWE is!. Many times I have seen that with a note with vital information. Thanks, greatly. Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Enchanted Pilgramge

I rejected your edit to Enchanted Pilgrimage because your edit would have replaced "Month of publication from SFR #49 (November 1983)" with "Stated 1st Ballantine books edition." While your addition was good, unless the publication itself states a month ofpublication, this could be bad. I will resubmit a replacement edit. If the publication states the actual month, we can remove the other line of the note. Thanks (and my apologies if I stepped on your toes... after I rejected it, i realized it very well may state the month. I'm still getting used to this Moderating thing Thanks again Kevin 04:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It does state the month.Don Erikson 05:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Pub updated as you submitted (With a sheepish apologetic smile). Kevin 05:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Silverberg's Sunken History

The Literary Guild isn't the actual publisher of this edition. It was (is?) a book club that reprints other publisher's editions. Ordinarily the books themselves still credit the original trade publisher. In this case we would show "Chilton / BCE", and add to the notes that it was a book club edition and a selection of the Literary Guild. If it had been a selection of the Science Fiction Book Club (another Doubleday book club) we'd credit "Chilton / SFBC". Thanks. MHHutchins 18:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I see. The copyright page of the paperback said just Literary Guild so I guess i should have investigated more thoroughly. So it's now changed how you suggested.Don Erikson 00:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruler of the World

Added a cover image to [[49]] --Bluesman 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Door Into Fire

I added a cover image to your verified pub BKTG02233. Thanks. --Rtrace 05:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dragonslayer

I added a cover image to your verified pub DRGNSLRSSF1981. Thanks. --Rtrace 12:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)