User talk:Lorenzr

Welcome!

Hello, Lorenzr, 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
• FAQ

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ahasuerus 18:14, 1 Feb 2007 (CST)

Thank you

Thank you for taking a whack at the unknown authors! Marc Kupper (talk) 11:20, 28 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Dragon Magazine 191

Well, I learned something from this one; apparently if there's no EDITOR type then the contents don't display correctly. Nothing to do with your edit, but it needn't some fiddling. I've added Moore as EDITOR and it now looks OK, though I have to ask if the short story title really should have the "The" at the end? Mike Christie (talk) 20:01, 28 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Copied the title from Locus. The "The" should be at the begining.Ray 09:22, 29 Mar 2007 (CDT)

OK, fixed. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 22:13, 3 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Budrys

I held the pseudonym sub for Algis Budrys, editor; he doesn't have any edits under that name so I'd suggest either deleting the author or merging him with "Algis Budrys". Let me know if there's something else going on, otherwise I'll go ahead and reject this in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk) 22:15, 3 Apr 2007 (CDT)

No problem. Hit one of my work busy periods again. I Will delete it soon I hope. As for the other item the bug. I don't remeber the submission. Maybe a future feature to allows us submittors look at our own request and delete them. Ray 12:55, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Oops forgot us non mods can't delete authors or merge authors. Just edit and Pseudonym Ray 13:57, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

The Sherwood Ring

Re: the Series info addition to "The Sherwood Ring", would "Magicquest" happen to be a real series of related Titles or would it be what we call a "Publication series" like "Ace Specials", Gregg's SF classics, etc? Unfortunately, we don't have software support for the latter at this time :(

If I recall correctly, Magicquest was just a paperback reprint series of YAish fantasy, wasn't it? If so, we would want to document the fact in the Notes section of the Publication record, but we wouldn't want to create a separate Series for it since it only applies to editions, not Titles. Ahasuerus 14:35, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Started to see that. When I ran across a a title belonging to another series. Checked to see if the series was like a overall universe but it wasn't. Magicquest looks like a mini imprint. Ray 15:48, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, I will zap it then :) Ahasuerus 15:55, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Hi!

Just though I'd let you know I haven't stopped approving your edits because I disagree with them or anything, it's just that Pub Deletes are far slower to check than, say, series updates for titles or suchlike. And you're submitting some deletes for a publisher that another editor (do you know Chris J?) is organising the remaining true novels for, and I'd rather not risk confusing the two at the moment, this late on a Friday night! Keep up the good work - we just seem to get a little short on moderators at weekend times though, so don't take a long edit queue as a personal affront please. BLongley 17:55, 15 Jun 2007 (CDT)

no problem... Ray 18:29, 15 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Ok

I been pushing the in versus out policy.

out young children's all picture books (including baby books those one with boards and not paper)

out children's activity or education books. stickers tattoos

in novelization of popular movies

out any type or book that is like a comic book or graphic novel.

debating bunch on horror stuff. cant tell if it meats the official policy or not without having to read it.

out fiction that doesn't state it is of a speculative type like "Masterpieces of Modern Short Fiction"

Ray 18:51, 15 Jun 2007 (CDT)

out invalid isbns 0f 999 with a duplcate title and publication. Most of these are unknown author load by a automated feed. Be warned there are a lot of these.

out Manga as the policy states but someone has spend time orgainzing these into series and cleaning them up. Still won't look at them until I finish some more on the unknown titles.

Ray 16:35, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Well, tattoos and stickers are right out. I think you and I deleted some dice as well, along with character sheets and such.

You missed the floor displays before you were a moderator. Ray 21:46, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Have some Collectable Card to work on. The easy ones are mostly gone. Stuff like Xfiles pack A I just can't find a source that actually just states it. Ray 21:46, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Novelisations of popular movies are in, only if they are SF movies. Although it's a pain if the novelisation is by a different SF author to the one that wrote it in the first place.

Graphic novels are out if that's all they are, if it's a graphic novel of a novel we have anyway I don't delete it.

I'd be quite happy if Horror moved to "the Internet Horror database" but it seems we have to deal with it here for the moment. Tip: don't mess with it if you don't understand it.

I keep Short Fiction collections unless they're proven to ALL be non-SF. Our kind of SF does get into all kinds of places now...

Most "999" ISBNs can be zapped. Fixing them into shape isn't worth the effort.

Manga stuff - let the editors work on it, we'll let them take it with them if we kick them out later, OK? BLongley 19:55, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I was deleting manga that had unkown authors and they get approved ok. I stumbeled across a large amount under the correct author. I posted a note about it somewhere in the Wiki a few months ago. [Archived Rules and Standards] I only haven't done it since the some require 3 passes to actually remove them. Ray 21:46, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Unknowns

There was some talk about removing the author of unknown from artworks. Is this true? Can't it be expanded to other types like interviews, reviews, others? Ray 18:51, 15 Jun 2007 (CDT)

You know you CAN come and talk on Rules and Standards if you don't like the way things are going? Ranting on your own page may be noticed, but not always in the right way. But feel free to fix unknowns, if you try and claim "unknown" is all down to L. Ron Hubbard or suchlike, the Mods should catch it. ;-) BLongley 19:31, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Someone was discussing it before just don't rember where. Ray 21:33, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Actually this place works as best as the rest. I tried posting things one the discussion pages of the relevant topics. Then there was the Community portal before it grew out of control. They have some nice wiki pages like the [RPG Cleanup] but most don't use them. The rules page is now becoming a discussion page versus a concise set of rules. Ray 21:51, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I don't remember where the discussion was/is but there was talk of using "uncredited" for covers. Template:PublicationFields:Artist says to leave it blank and so what I do is to leave it blank and to add a publication note that says

• The cover artist is not credited nor is a signature visible.

There was also discussion about the semantics between, unknown, anonymous, uncredited, etc. it looks like that's summarized in Template:PublicationFields:Author. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:45, 24 Jun 2007 (CDT)

ps: I should add that in terms of the unknown author bibliography - I'd want to go through the cover art titles one by one and:

• If the publication is unverified to blank out the cover artist and to delete the old title record (I think the delete needs to be done manually?).
• If the publication is verified to blank it out and leave a publication note that it's not credited. Another option is to change this to uncredited though I suspect once unknown has been cleaned up we'll then need to clean up uncredited. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:52, 24 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Retief:Diplomat...

Hi Ray, I'm still working on the Laumer bibliography and if you could look at Retief: Diplomat at Arms that would be great. It appears to be wrong at the moment. If you could look at any other of Laumer's collections, if you have them, that would be much appreciated. Thanks!:-) Kraang 17:17, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Done Ray 18:00, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Ray, I see the new updates and that's great, but by changing the contents titles that changes all the titles in all publications (including dates). The way to do it is to go to the "add title" and put in the correct titles at the bottom just like you would do with a new collection (put in title and author only no dates). Then, when it gets approved, you bring up the publication and click on "Unmerge title" in the tool bar. This will remove the titles from your publication and leave the newly added and correct titles. This will leave the correct titles in the other publications. When that's approved, then click on the duplicate titles in the tool bar to merge the new titles with any existing entries. Also when adding titles in contents, change the "Anthology" entry type to "Shortfiction", the other way it creates a separate title for that entry and it will not show up in the publication. I will use your data which is good, but in the wrong order (it will mess up all my corrections and put me back to the start). If you have any questions, leave them here. Thanks :-)Kraang 19:21, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

One of the problems with Laumer is that he has a lot of variant titles and if you change one in the contents, it changes all the publications tied to it. Also by not including the date in a new contents entry when approved it will be set at the date of the new publication. Then, when you merge duplicate titles, you choose your publication, which you know the date of from the earliest date that exists for the title. If a title is a variant, then you should note what the parent's title # is before you merge the variants.Kraang 19:52, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I've approved some of your submissions and have some on hold to make changes. Powers Laz/org? Is this the artist's signature on the cover? If it is, then put in Richard Powers and a note in "notes" that artists signature is on cover. When entering non ISBN# use the "#" in front i.e. "#F223" , "Q-4448" or #425-00099. The Long Twilight: the date is 1970 in your submission, but the price $1.50 which would make it later. If this is a later printing and the printing date is not given, then set the date to 0000-00-00 and make a note like "Stated 4th printing of 1970 Berkley ed." for example. Have a look at some of my verified Laumers and Chalker titles and it should give you a better idea on how to handle these.:-)

The Powers Laz/org was how he signed it. Didn't say it was Richard Powers in the publication. My thinking was set it as a Pseudonym, so others would know.

Didn't know about the title publication thing. Makes it difficult. Why then are some publications empty of contents?

They were entered without content(we're now filling them in), from the actual books. Kraang 21:50, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Didn't remember about the ISBN# isssue.

The Long Twilight confused. 1970 for $1.50 paper seems right. The 1969 was 4.95 for the hard cover edition.

A Berkley from 1973 is priced about $0.75. Yours is from the mid 70's. Is there a printing date on the bottom? Kraang 21:50, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Oh ~35 books left that need a second pass. Due to pending approvals from the first pass. (not really pending in the queue) Ray 21:32, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Some of your submissions I can approve and adjust, some where it affects the contents I'll have to reject and use your submission info and do it myself. This is fairly easy.:-) Kraang 21:50, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

So basically, if it already has contents add them at the bottom then unmerge it. Or just unmerge and start from that? But don't touch the stuff already there. Ray 21:59, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Star Treasure I had I assumed was the first printing. There was no second printing indicators on the copyright page. All Information matched. The Long Twilight does state it's the second printing, but no other dates. Ray 22:15, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Star Treasure

1. The Star Treasure if you think it's a 1st printing, it's best to submit a new novel or do a clone of a similar novel and then make changes. This way it will not change existing publications. If a publication does not state the printing "second printing-Aug-1989" its best to enter year as 0000-00-00. A lot of publishers only state the initial printing date and then print "Second printing" for example.This printing information should be mentioned in the notes.

1. Contents-if you have a matching publication, i.e. date, publisher,Cat/ISBN#, but some of the titles are wrong, then use the "add title" . Add correct titles and author, but leave dates blank, put in page #'s for all correct titles and leave incorrect titles blank. Submit and when approved, bring up your publication and click on the "unmerge pub" in toolbar. Check off the titles (the ones without page #'s) to be removed and submit. If your uncertain that yours is the same publication but is similar click on the clone instead of edit. This way it leaves the original there and creats a new publication record. You than make contents changes as described above.Kraang 23:49, 16 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for working on this, folks! I still have a bunch of unverified Laumers in my collection, mostly first edition hardcovers, but I won't get to them until 2006-06-30 at the earliest and possibly later, since I am on the road 90%+ of the time at the moment. Ahasuerus 01:36, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Quick question: can I submit verifications on entries I submitted update to?Ray 17:57, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

There is no approval process for verifications, they are immediately applied to the database. Once the record matches the edition that you have in your hands, feel free to Verify it :) Ahasuerus 18:25, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

There's a risk in verifying while you have edits pending - you don't have to wait, but if the edit is rejected you may end up having verified something you think is wrong or at best incomplete. I prefer that people don't verify until the edits have gone though, as the approver gets a warning about edits to verified pubs, but it doesn't tell you if the verification is from the person who submitted the edit you're looking at. BLongley 12:23, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I was waiting until at least then. I didn't know if the was the verifier had to be someone other than the person that entered it.Ray 12:43, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

It's fine to verify your own publication additions - particularly if it's a rare one. (How long would we have to wait for a SECOND owner of Amazing Stories #1 to come along?) I always prefer to leave a day or two between adding a pub and verifying it though, just so that I can look at it again as if it was someone else's submission. I'm currently looking at some edits I made months ago, actually, and cringing a bit! :-/ BLongley 15:00, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Dragon magazine

Thanks for entering these issues! User:CoachPaul has been working on this magazine, on and off, but there are a lot of issues to process and any help is appreciated. I have approved all submissions and added a special "EDITOR" title to each one. This happens automatically behind the scenes when you enter a new magazine, but has to be done manually when you are converting another Publication to "magazine". I then merged all newly created EDITOR titles and put the resulting merged title (which is associated with the 5 entered issues) under the Dragon Magazine series where it finds itself in good company of the other 44 issues that we currently have cataloged. Take a look, see what you think :) Ahasuerus 00:33, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Question. Going to start on 1995. There are several issues that are entered as novels. (213,215,218,220,222,223,224) These look like just quick title entries and don't contain any contents. From above would it be easier for the mods (due the EDITOR title) to convert a publication or for me just to enter new entries and delete the old? Ray 11:09, 10 Aug 2007 (CDT)

It would probably be easier to enter them from scratch. If nothing else, the probability of moderator confusion would be minimized :) Ahasuerus 20:15, 10 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Yes I saw User:CoachPaul he had the PDFs for issues under 200. The PDFs I had were included up to 335. I need to go back and correct the titles. I wasn't quite sure how to move them into those nice yearly title groups. I figured fill in the data and the mod would comment about it. I wanted to work on the unknowns some more before tackling a new project. Ray 10:25, 22 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Thanks a whole lot for helping with the Dragons! You might find the following web sight helpful. http://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/index.html It has links to both Fiction Reviews and Fiction. I did find an innaccuracy or two, but It's a nice little reference when you're not sure about how many installments a serial were in. I see you have the Publication Format listede as a "Bedsheet". I have no idea what a "Bedsheet" is, should they all be listed that way? I also see from your user page that you think that the Dragon's with no Fiction shouldn't be listed. I might agree with that if you said no fiction and no book reviews, however I have been putting them in anyway in the hope that someone else won't come along and enter them like the one's that you've been fixing if they are already there. CoachPaul 15:30, 25 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Caroline Spector

Ray the date you entered was 04-27-1958, this turns up as unknown, so i changed it to 1958-04-27. Is the date ok? Thanks! :-)Kraang 22:10, 25 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Darn must have been tired. I wonder how many other I changed the format around on. At work my team works with some Brazil resource's talking about yet another set of date formats. (don't even mention daylight savings time.) Thanks Ray 12:23, 26 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Keith Laumer's "Chrestomathy"

Just a quick FYI that I have added Laumer's forewords to this edition of Chrestomathy that you verified a couple of weeks ago. Ahasuerus 22:54, 29 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Laumer's Bolo

In your update for this pub, you overwrote the Title Reference with the first new content entry. This will remove the link between this publication and the title. I accepted the submission but had to go back and make several steps in order to restore the link to its original title. In the future, skip the first entry (if its filled) and choose "Add Title" before starting to enter contents. Don't overwrite the existing entry. Thanks for submitting. Mhhutchins 17:35, 4 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Magazine Help

Ray, to answer your question, you need to use new magazine and then merge the titles. Unfortunatly, I'm leaving for a week in the mountains on Friday morning and don't have the time right now to go into the ins and outs of Magazine entering, but if you ask your questions of one of the other mods, they will be happy to help as time allows. swfritter is an expert here at magazines and can really help you if he's around. If not, I will be back on Monday the 20th and can help you then. CoachPaul 23:59, 7 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Missing reviewer in Dragon #235

Who reviewed the Bester novel in this issue of Dragon? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:38, 9 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Wasn't credited. looks like a typo in the magazine. Ray 17:04, 9 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I added the reviewer as "uncredited". Mhhutchins 18:43, 9 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Retief story

That sounds like the very first Retief story, Diplomat-at-Arms, which is indeed very different from the rest of the Retief series. It was recently reprinted by Baen in Retief! and is currently available on their Web site for free, so it should be easy to check. Ahasuerus 20:12, 10 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Laumer's Star Colony

Can you check the date of publication on your verified copy of this pub? Locus #267 and WorldCat show this edition as the first Ace paperback. Mhhutchins 11:11, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Peter Telep

I'm afraid '0000-04-08' doesn't work for Author's Birthdates. Maybe you should start his Bio page? BLongley 15:12, 4 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I have been getting a blank page recently while trying to do that. I think the main site is pointing to the wrong url of isfdb.tamu.edu Ray 16:09, 4 Oct 2007 (CDT)

There's a problem with ALL the tamu.edu links - just replace "tamu.edu" with "org" and you get to the right page though. Most updates will then try to show you the broken "tamu.edu" link again, but your updates will usually have got through. I know, it's a pain, hopefully fixed soon. Beyond my access level unfortunately - we need Al. :-/ BLongley 16:31, 4 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Dragon Magazine, January 1995 or 1994

I accepted your submission of this new pub, but discovered afterward that there is an issue already in the database with the same date but with a different issue number. Are you able to verify the dates and issue numbers of either or both of these records? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:21, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Yes expecting that. Was going to correct it as soon as it was approved.Ray 14:30, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Isn't it nice to know that the moderators catch a few mistakes every now and then? Otherwise we'd feel so unnecessary. Thanks for the submissions. Mhhutchins 14:40, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

going to try this merge of the year to see how bad I can mess it up Ray 14:48, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Just quick a heads up that CoachPaul will be effectively unavailable until the middle of the month, so he may not see your last message about Dragon Magazine until then. Ahasuerus 14:51, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

ok, I was just giving a update. Ray 14:54, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Your merge of the editor titles look very good. We normally don't provide the issue numbers in the merged title record, but since Dragon seems to be under the purview of CoachPaul (by default), I'll let you and him decide how it should be. Otherwise, great work. Mhhutchins 15:16, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Alligator Alley

I am reviewing the proposed change to the authorship of this Title record -- from "unknown and K. W. Jeter" to "Mink Mole and Dr. Adder" -- and I am not sure I understand the intent in this case.

There are two Alligator Alley Title records in the database (plus two review titles and a cover art title), one as by "unknown and K. W. Jeter" and one as by "Mink Mole and Dr. Adder". The former title Title is the master one and the latter one is its Variant Title.

If the intent is to eliminate the "unknown" Title record and leave the "Mink Mole" record, then we will first have to break the association between the two Title records. As per our Help pages, this can be done as follows:

If a title is marked as being a variant title or as a pseudonym when it should not be then enter 0 (zero) in the Parent # field in the upper part of the page and click [Submit Data]. This will change the title record from being a Variant Title to instead being a standalone title.

Once the link between the two Titles has been broken, we could then delete the "unknown" Title. Having said that, have you seen what the Locus Index has to say about Mink Mole? Ahasuerus 12:28, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

The book never had K. W. Jeter on it. It was an attempt by the original person who entered the record to credit the real people behind the pseudonyms. I don't see the Parent # field maybe its a moderator field. I could try to use the unmerge link. Ray 12:53, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

The parent # only appears when you try the "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" link. "Unmerge" isn't wanted here, that's for where you have several variants incorrectly grouped under one title, rather than two titles linked. BLongley 13:29, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Guess to finish it I need to take Jeter off of the book. Break the pseudonym between Jete and Dr.Adder. Add MacNAMARA, TIMOTHY to the Database make pesudonyms of Ferret, Dr. Adder and Mink Mole to MacNamara. Can you enter an author with out entering a book? who only uses pseudonyms? Ray 13:01, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I think a new author needs to have a Title, although not necessarily a Publication. Editing a title directly to change a duff author to a brand-new one should work, although I don't do that myself - there seems little point in having an empty author, so I always try and find a suspected publication to enter. BLongley 13:29, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, folks, I think I see what's going on here. I am tired tonight, so let me sleep on it and see if I can massage the data tomorrow. Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:24, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

OK, I have rejected the submission, deleted the Jeter parent Title, created a new one for Timothy MacNamara and set up pseudonym associations for his alter egos. We will need to attribute the rest of "Ferret" stories/art to him soonish. Also, there is no way to delete pseudonym associations at the Author level at this point, so we are stuck with the bogus Jeter link on the Dr. Adder page :( Ahasuerus 01:16, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Couldn't you have merged 'Dr. Adder' with some other deletable author while he had no titles? I must play about with some more Manga junk this weekend and see if that would work. I suspect we could avoid the display problem, although there might be a stray pseudonym entry between non-existent authors left behind in the database. (I really should get my local Python software running.) BLongley 12:48, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I don't think I have been able to delete bogus pseudonyms yet, but what you are describing sounds interesting. I'll try playing with it tonight, thanks! Ahasuerus 13:06, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Did you get to try this? (No hurry, I'm on this page for another reason which I will forget if I get too involved.) BLongley 17:27, 8 Nov 2007 (CST)

Nope, not yet. Thanks for the reminder! Ahasuerus 17:56, 8 Nov 2007 (CST)

Planet Run by Laumer & Dickson

Can you check to see if the ISBN was printed in your verified edition? Tuck gives the catalog number as X1588, and I'm not sure if Berkley was printing ISBNs in 1968. Thanks. Mhhutchins 09:01, 12 Dec 2007 (CST)

1968 is too early for regular ISBNs in US mass market paperbacks, but it's possible that Ray derived the ISBN from a proto-SBN. This ISBN does pass checksum validation, but I don't see it in OCLC or used.addall.com, so something unusual is going on here. Ahasuerus 09:22, 12 Dec 2007 (CST)

Yes, same thing here. I only create an ISBN when the publication prints the old SBN (circa early 70s), but I make sure to place a note that the ISBN is derived. And I only do it on hardcovers, because paperbacks always have catalog numbers. Is there an ISFDB standard about creating ISBNs? Mhhutchins 15:28, 12 Dec 2007 (CST)

I don't think there is a standard aside from an implied rule that it's OK to reconstruct ISBNs from SBNs as long as you document what you did in the Note field. As our Help pages say, "If you entered a value that was not exactly not as stated in the publication then please add a comment about this in the Note field." I can see how that can be helpful in certain cases since some online booksellers (and even the odd library) list these "derived" ISBNs in their catalogs, but on the other hand it can confuse unsuspecting users. One of those "is the glass half empty" things, I guess... Ahasuerus 12:49, 13 Dec 2007 (CST)

We might want to remove that double negative from the help... ;-)

My rule of thumb is "is the derived ISBN going to be useful"? E.g. does it make the Amazon link work, can people use it on Alibris or AbeBooks or somewhere else and get to the same edition? Yes, I'd leave notes, but in the past I haven't when it's been a simple SBN to ISBN change. Some 'Stub' entries I've created for titles with no pubs (until my submission) have been from cover-photographs with catalog numbers alone, for publishers with well-known ISBN prefixes, but I've always checked whether the derived one works usefully. In this case, Google doesn't find 0-425-01588-2 ANYWHERE. BLongley 13:04, 13 Dec 2007 (CST)

When searching for an ISBN with Google I use both the 0425015882 and 0-425-01588-2 form. 0425015882 is "0-425-01588-2" found a few pages. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nora Roberts

Good to see you back "culling the imperfect"! As usual though, your activity swamps us a bit, so apologies for delays and/or queries on certain actions.

I've put the Nora Roberts collection updates on hold as I don't think they're going to work as you intended, and there might be something else you can do at the same time that would help if you're going to do more of the same.

• When you change the overall Pub from Novel to Collection, you should change the Content record Novel to Collection as well - not use it for one of the new constituent titles. You're changing the master record there, and you'd end up with a Pub with no matching title and make things a bit difficult to find. I know it sounds like more work, but you should change the Novel to Collection and add THREE novels, not the remaining TWO.
  • I keep forgetting this. Note to self. Changing the type of publication needs special steps. Ray 18:04, 31 Mar 2008 (CDT)
• Actually, if they're all Novels, shouldn't they really be part of an Omnibus rather than a Collection? I know the titles say "collection" but that's not the ISFDB term.
  • I hit the logic in the help pages. Collection a set of stories by a single author. Omnibus generally this category should not be used unless the other categories do not seem appropriate. I think there is some technical differences behind the scenes with entries that needs to put in the help pages. Ray 18:04, 31 Mar 2008 (CDT)
    • True, it's been discussed during some of the data-cleanup projects and there's been a leaning towards Collections of ONLY Novels being called Omnibuses. Collections containing Shortfiction as well are more likely to be left as Collections. But you're right, we should update help. BLongley 17:13, 1 Apr 2008 (CDT)
• I see they're audio books - "Audio CD" is obviously more accurate than "unk", but we sometimes get caught out with MP3 CDs (I hope you've checked that). But it helps if you set pagecount to "0" as well. (Unless Al has fixed that since I last looked, we get Warnings for pubs with no pagecount, and obviously audiobooks don't have such, but "0" makes the warnings go away.)
  • I was wondering about that. I tried to make them all Audio CDs I might have missed one. Ray 18:04, 31 Mar 2008 (CDT)
    • Apart from the first, they were actually all audio cassettes. BLongley 17:13, 1 Apr 2008 (CDT)

I'll go review/fix the ones I've held tonight later, but hopefully this will improve your submissions and save us some more work. Thanks for editing! BLongley 17:19, 31 Mar 2008 (CDT)

All sorted now, I hope. Have a look at http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?78296 , http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?78194 , http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?78158 , http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?78117 and if they're all OK submit the title merges and I'll reject the original submissions. (It was easier to redo them than approve the originals and fix afterwards, I'm afraid.) BLongley 17:13, 1 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Thanks I have some more various publication that I am mulling over from the feed. Seriously is Amazon or the publishers too lazy to type in more than a couple authors.Ray 11:14, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

I think Amazon are lazy - some days I find myself updating as many publication records on Amazon as I do here, they're so bad! Still, they're useful to some extent (Look-Inside, Cover-art, Imprint details, just flagging up that a book exists at times) but I'm glad we don't accept their data unmoderated. BLongley 13:38, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

I think there was a data feed at one point. Which is most of my cleanup of unknown and various. Ray 15:21, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Carry on Cleaning! (Is that a film yet?) I know most of the tools here make it harder to lose the unwanted than adjust the wanted, but I do go cull some RPG and non-SF Manga and Children's books occasionally - I appreciate the effort you put in to such. Not many of us do it. BLongley 16:04, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

As a sideline, ISBNs of "B0%" are usually ASINs instead and could usefully be cleaned. We've either mostly got the data already or it isn't useful data. So many new tools to work with, so much crap to deal with... :-/ BLongley 16:20, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Dragon Magazines

Thanks for submitting new issues of this periodical. I had to edit each submission (after acceptance), adding a dollar sign before the price. Also can you verify the publisher of the issues? Your submissions indicated an individual, when most likely it should have been TSR or Wizards of the Coast. (I don't recall when WotC purchased TSR, and became publisher of their mags.) Individuals are sometimes given the title of "Publisher", but the ISFDB standards lean toward crediting the company or corporation. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:06, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

ok about the dollar signs. Where TSR was once listed the publisher a single name is now listed. When TSR (early 1997) dissolved all TSR magazines were not part of the deal. So Dragon was left to stand by itself it still list TSR Inc in the mailing address. Piazo publishing picks them up later about 2002 . I could change it back to TSR but I think it just a holding corporation Ray 21:03, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

In the very fine print from the yearly Statement of ownership WotC appears as the mailing office. TSR Inc. is also listed as the publisher. So I need to TSR Inc. The TSR Inc. name stays around until the tradmarks expire in 2003. It being so hard to find. Do I detect some resentment? Ray 21:39, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

I am going to have a problem with ISBNs starting 09/1998 they dump them in favor of some magazine standard of the same ISSN with a month digit suffixed. This maybe the way other mags are done.Ray 21:03, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

On top of that the electronic editions remove the ISBN codes starting in issue #265. I had to change tactics starting with issue #251 the electronic editions went from cut and paste 6MB PDFs to 100MB scanner dumps.Ray 21:41, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Dragon Magazine, January 1999 - Issue #255

I have approved the changes to Dragon Magazine, January 1999 - Issue #255, but then changed the spelling of Odom's name from "meMel Odom" to "Mel Odom" since I figured it must have been a typo? Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at Dave Gross' bibliography, I notice that he has 6 issues of Dragon Magazine listed as novels. I assume it's safe to convert them to magazines and make him the editor? Ahasuerus 01:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From some research I think I was just going to create new entries and delete the old. I heard this was easier than modifying entries from novel to magazine. I have issues 251 to 335 in a spread sheet ready to be entered. The lack of book reviews helps. Ray 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

True, changing Novels to Magazines is not for the faint of heart since the current magazine implementation is not exactly obvious. It's only 6 issues, though, so I could do fairly quickly if you would like me to. Thanks! Ahasuerus 05:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Retief: Emissary to the Stars

Ray, when you get a chance, could you please double check whether your verified copy of the 1986 Baen edition of Retief: Emissary to the Stars may contain "An Excerpt from Retief & the Warlords (Excerpt)" the way my 1979 Pocket edition does? Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Might be awhile. I was in the process of moving and my old house is not ready so most of my stuff including 18+ small boxes of books is still in storage. I am look at late August time frame before I will be unpacking them. Ray 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I Have some of the Retief books, i'll check if I have that one. -DES ^Talk 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheridan LeFanu

You wanted to make both "Sheridan LeFanu" and "J. Sheridan LeFanu" pseudonyms of "Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu". We have very few of his works entered yet -- it seems premature to determine which name is canonical. In looking though his works recorded on the Worldcat database through First Search (see the Sources of Bibliographic Information page) I find that out of around 50 entries, only 5 clearly were published under the name "Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu". Most were under "J. Sheridan", "Sheridan" or just "J. S. LeFanu".

You may not have been aware that once we create a pseudonym relationship, we cannot undo it (short of direct monkeying with the database innards) even if we later determine that a different form of the name should be the canonical name. Note that for ISFDB purposes, the canonical name should be the name by which an author is best known, or under which the author's works were most often published, which is often not his legal name. For an extreme case, see Lester_del_Rey and Wikipedia:Lester del Rey#Birth name. Had Mark Twain been an SF writer, we would not list his works under "Clemens".

I am inclined to reject these submissions for the reasons above, but I will wait until I see your response, in case you have additional information that I am not aware of. -DES ^Talk 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have the canonical name as "Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu", for better or worse. (Twice over for "J. Sheridan Le Fanu"!) "Sheridan LeFanu" should probably be allowed as the only title it has already is a verified variant, here. If the preference (after talking to the verifier) is to correct the name rather than make it a variant, the title relationship should be broken first. "J. Sheridan LeFanu" could either be 'corrected' to "J. Sheridan Le Fanu" or author AND title need variants. Unfortunately there's no verifier for that title: I'd be tempted to change it myself and let it get changed back by any future verifier if necessary. BLongley 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't Verifying how it was documented on the original work. I just noted it was the same person. I typical pick the entry with the most entries or most complete entry if they have the same number of entries. I noticed sometimes that the root entry is sometimes the first name entered. I even noticed some pseudonyms (especially these name variants) are linked to other pseudonyms that then linked other root entries. On a side note some these (<1900) old books the information was imported from a database (paper versions) where it was the full name not the documented name. There is the possibility to enter the same author information under both names and have them appear as possible duplicates. Ray 01:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some cases were created rather hastily, and were not perhsp the wisest choices. And in the case of many more recent and well-known SF authors, pretty much everyone "knew" what the "proper" name was. But if possible, the most commonly used name shoiuld be picked as cannonical. And whatever the cannonical name is, we wqould like to document which form of the name was used on which publication, when that info is available. Working form secondary sources, sometimes that info isn't available or isn't reliable.

I have entered several additional Le Fanu works, mostly from worldcat, today. Of course these are all the same person, and we do want all of hsi works listed on the same bibliography page. Very well, I will approve the submissions and create variants for the works I entered. -DES ^Talk 02:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles E. Carryl

Just to let you know that I was trying to massage Charles E. Carryl's bibliography, which apparently caused a problem with reviews, so I have put your proposed pseudonym submission on hold until Al can figure out what has happened. Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed OCLC and other records and have confirmed that the preferred name is "Charles E. Carryl", so I set up the relationship that way. I think everything is fine now, but please take a look when you have a chance. Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

W.H.W. Bicknell

I've accepted the author update but also re-edited it to space the initials correctly. BLongley 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also rejected the "Hilare Belloc" make-pseudonym, as the only entry we had for that was a stray title left behind by somebody adding the correct one but not deleting the wrong one - the name no longer exists. BLongley 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

B. M. Croker

It's a bit soon to decide on "Mrs. B. M. Croker" versus "B. M. Croker" isn't it? One entry each so far. Or do you know something I don't? BLongley 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Same person. Last book published in ISFDB 105 years ago. --Ray 06:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

However, Worldcat lists several works we don't have on file at all, so data entry is not complete, and we don't yet know which form is most common. (so far the form without the "Mrs" seems more common). —The preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel60 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 June 2008

I havw now entered a good many items from worldcat, amazon, and other sources. We now list 1 novel, 9 collections, and 44 works of short fiction by "B. M. Croker" and one work of short fiction by "Mrs. B. M. Croker". I think the pesud declaration is now justified, and I would make it myself if it wern't already on hold. (I might add that Worldcat lists another 10 or so novels by "B. M. Croker", but they do not appear to be specualative in any way. According to the web pages linked, much of the author's short fiction was ghost/horror storeis, but most of her novels were classic mainstream fiction of the day. -DES ^Talk 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Louisa Baldwin

I have your make-author-pseudonym for Louisa Baldwin with the parent being Mrs. Alfred Baldwin on hold. I'm thinking this should be reversed with Louisa Baldwin being the canonical name and Mrs. Alfred Baldwin the pseudonym. While it was a common practice for women to use their husband's first name as in Mrs. Alfred Baldwin it seems it was well known she was Louisa Baldwin using the name Mrs. Alfred Baldwin in her correspondence/stories. As author pseudonyms can't be edited once set up in ISFDB I wanted to make sure we get this one right and would like your thoughts on one direction vs. the other for the pseudonym relationship.

One surprise is that Louisa does not have a Wikipedia page of her own though though her husband and son have articles with the son's being extensive and there is an article dedicated to the sisters. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes found the other Wiki entries too. Again I was trying to deffer to other reviewers wishes to use the most common published of the two names. See the other questions posted on this page. --Ray 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ray. I took another look at Louisa_Baldwin vs. Mrs._Alfred_Baldwin and approved your make-author-pseudonym. I also went ahead with linking the Louisa Baldwin story titles to the Mrs. Alfred Baldwin versions. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

W. L. Alden

I have your author update to W._L._Alden on hold. What got my attention is the change of

• Birthdate from 1833 to 1837-10-09
• Deathdate from 1891 to 1908-01-14

Usually ISFDB's data is accurate and so I want to make sure there's not two people named W. L. Alden and/or to better understand the sources for the dates. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to research this - what sources did you use? Marc Kupper (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

strangely I couldn't find where the original dates came from. www.sfsite.com. The only websites with the 1833-1891 dates looked to be ISFDB data exports. Alden, William Livingston then found the specific dates one on his fathers bio. The other I am not sure. Ray 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I approved the update but also added a note to Author:W. L. Alden. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ward[e|o]n All[a|e]n Curtis

I've no problem with you correcting my secondary source edits: but is it Wardon Allan Curtis or Wardon Allen Curtis or Warden Allan Curtis or Warden Allen Curtis? Or something else? :-/ BLongley 22:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Took me awhile on this one. I didn't see the All[a|e]n until you pointed it out. I was sure "Warden Allan" wasn't right but "Warden Allen" is a possibility I didn't check. I guess a pseudonym is required again. But lately when I have been trying to link authors with a typo people have been complaining. I wasn't checking from the book point of view but just filling in author's details and linking the authors when they are the same person. --Ray 05:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to link to unknown too when the author wasn't a actual person but the reviewer assumed I was entering the book too. The reason I was linking to unknown was because that is how the "unknown" is now. Any group or generic pseudonym seemed to be linked to unknown. Just trying to following what already was there. --Ray 05:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wardon Allan Curtis seems to be the consensus, I've let both your edits through then changed the second to reflect that: I know where the 'Allen' came from and it's not a 100%-typo-free source. A pseudonym isn't always the answer: it IS if the error is in a publication, if the error is HERE then fixing the error here is the solution. Sometimes you have to just give up and wait for Primary verifiers though: e.g. search for "Zealia" and try and figure out which ones of the six were printed somewhere and which weren't. :-/ BLongley

As for Unknowns - well, I've never really seen the point of linking to it unless someone is going to work through unknown and try and trace all the real authors or delete the rubbish, but I wouldn't stop you. BLongley 08:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

H. B. Marriott-Watson

When both H. B. Marriott-Watson and H. B. Marriott Watson have only a single pub on file here, assignign a pesud rlationship seem bit premature, -DES ^Talk 08:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This I spent time double checking too. The more popular and legal name was without the hyphen. The double last name with the hyphen a modern editorial correction. The name is more like of an aristocrat keep all the names or a double middle name. But is seems some where in history some stuck a hyphen in it thinking it should be there so some books are like that. Still they are the same person and the books tend to flipflop. I don't have either book or reference. --Ray 05:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Exploring Psi in the Ganzfeld

I have put your deletion of this on hold. It appears that it is not a novel, but an (at least ostensibly) nonfiction account of research into parapsychology, that is ESP and related topics. Some might say that all such research is in fact fantasy, but that would be a stretch, However, it seems that Carl Sargent wrote several actual SF novels, and that we have several of his non-fiction works on file. This seems borderline to me, but I am not comfortable with deleting it without a bit more discussion. -DES ^Talk 23:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in discussing this matter at all? -DES ^Talk 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I don't think the DB should included unrelated works non fiction from the author not about the author or other fiction works. Since it isn't actively maintained. (The manga authors below are a good example. The book was imported but the interviews never linked resulting in a book with vague title and an attempted delete. People looking up the interviewed authors never finding the book.) Some Scientist authors publish prolifically in journals. I in favor of nonfiction material like interviews, maps, Calendars, etc. But ISFDB isn't the place people visit / research to find out about all works under a specific author. Yes ESP is the area of speculative fiction but I think this promotional material for Parapsychology Foundation. Also the requirement of significant authors seem to be very subjective. Something like the top 100 authors of each year or something would be better. Ray 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(I was trying to clear up my old holds) RoA #8 is rahter subjective. It says "In - Works (both fiction and non-fiction) that are not related to speculative fiction, but were produced by authors who have otherwise published works either of or about speculative fiction over a certain threshold (see below). This will include any non-genre works published as standalone books as well as non-genre short fiction, but exclude non-fiction that was not published as a standalone book." Where that "certain threshold" lises is never clear. i tend to be a bit inclusive on the matter. In this case the author appears to have written 4 or 5 SF novels, mostly or all RPG-based. Near the borderline, IMO. I Think I'll rais the matter on the portal, rahte than act unilatterally one way or the other. i do think that for major SF writers, it is a good idea tho have soemthign like a compelte bibliography, even though it makes the Isaac Asimov page much longer than it would be under an SF-only rule. -DES ^Talk 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm clearing up old holds. I decided to reject the publication delete. This guy is borderline but I'd rather leave the non-genre work in, particularly those items that may be of interest to someone using ISFDB. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Vertical Limit

I have rejected your deletion of Vertical Limit, because Mel Odom has quite enough SF listed that his non-genre works arguably should be included, at least until the matter is discussed more. However, i have converted the record to "NONGENRE" and merged the two title records. -DES ^Talk 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Magazine

Ray, it will still be quite a while before I get to the rest of the Dragon's below issue #200 as I've currently got over 100 Collections/Anthologies still left to do (and seem to be adding more on a consistent basis, and over 30% of them will need to have all information added, so if you want to tackle these earlier issues of Dragon, by all means feel free.CoachPaul 14:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ok I was planning on working backwards but I only copied issue 200+ to my laptop before the moving. The DVD with the other issues is in boxes still.Ray 19:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have them currently available, don't worry about it, I'll get to them...eventually.CoachPaul 20:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Garfield's Pet Force

I've held these deletions as I don't think they're actually Graphic Novels, just Illustrated Novels. See the first with Amazon Look inside - e.g. first four pages are all text. I'm not sure about the others, I'd presume they're similar. Have a look and let me know if you're still convinced they should go. BLongley 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I grabbed a different volume and ended up with only picture pages. Seems to be an illustrated novelRay 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I can reject those four edits then, or do you think there are picture-only versions that should go? I'm personally not really bothered if there are graphic novel versions of "real books that should be here", I don't actively seek out such and tend to leave deletion of those editions to others. (I'd actually support inclusion of some of them in fact, if it's the only way we get to hear about other SF works by notable SF authors - rather like the NONFICTION rules for notable authors. But that's a separate discussion I'm too tired to raise at this time.) BLongley 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

yes ok to reject. I just happened to get a excerpt that wasn't representative of the books. Ray 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Making of a Graphic Novel/ The Resonator: Double-Sided Flip Book

I think you're a bit over-zealous here too. This is only HALF Graphic Novel - the rest is a How-To guide that should probably make it a NONFICTION. Held until we see whether that author should be here at all - I suspect not, but it's the sort of thing that often gets reviewed here at least. BLongley 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that. But the non fictions side also deals with graphic novels. Like how to draw manga and manga for libraries to buy. Ray 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily excludes it, hence the Rules and Standards discussion. But it can probably go if there's no other "Prentis Rollins" work worth keeping. BLongley 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Panel One: Comic Book Scripts by Top Writers

This looks suspicious too - surely that's mainly a book of SCRIPTS for comics rather than comics themselves? The comment is "There aren't many books that pass for "invaluable references" in our field, but this qualifies." Part II says: "Contains annotations, plots, interviews, and scripts by comics scribes Otto Binder, Peter David, Mark Evanier, Bill Mumy & Miguel Ferrier, Judd Winick, and others. Includes illustrated scripts by Mike Baron and Scott McCloud. Features commentary on how to illustrate from comics scripts by artists Larry Lieber and Pop Mhan." That sounds like an awful lot of text... BLongley 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you wanting to delete Watching Anime, Reading Manga : 25 Years of Essays and Reviews by Fred Patten makes me think we need to clarify the rules of acquisition again. I'll raise this on Rules and Standards. BLongley 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Topic raised here - please add your views. Thanks for the rest of the stuff in the meantime though, deletion is such a multi-step pain that I think you're the only editor doing it manually and often! BLongley 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Retief of the CDT by Keith Laumer

In Publication:RTFFTHCDT1985 http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?RTFFTHCDT1985 is the last story really The Piecermakers and not Piecemakers?Tpi 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Still unpacking. I put it on my list to check. Ray 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Planet Run

I was verifying my Dicksons tonight and discovered that you verified the 1968 Berkley Medallion edition of Planet Run over a year ago. The data looks fine, but one thing that puzzled me was that the ISBN field read "0-425-01588-2". US paperback publishers didn't use ISBNs or even SBNs back in 1968 and the printed catalog ID is "X1588"; nor do I see anything on the Web to indicate that used booksellers use Berkley's prefix, "425-", to recreate the ISBN from the catalog ID. I am not sure when you will get a chance to review this note, so I will enter the catalog ID and move the reconstructed ISBN to the Notes field for now, but please let me know if you think that we should keep the ISBN where it currently is. Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed this discussion above! Ahasuerus 03:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Assignment in Nowhere

Found Powers' signature on the cover of SSGNMNTNNW1968, added that to the record with a note. Plus notes about the first edition/printing. Changed the ISBN to the catalogue # as there is no SBN/ISBN in/on the book. What does "placeholder" signify for a verified pub? Can see it for an unverified one... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"placeholder" refresh my memory. (I really need to unpack my books but I have other boxes waiting and the master bath is a empty shell) Ray 19:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Time Trap -added cover/notation

This. [1] . I added a cover image and notation. Thanks Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Time Bender

I added cover art and updated the cover artist information beyond just the signature on The Time Bender - Thanks Kevin 04:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Assignment in Nowhere

Just a note that a cover scan has been linked to your verified Berkley edition of this book. Ahasuerus 01:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wyatt Blassingame

You submitted your edits to Wyatt Blassingame twice. This does no harm, but has no benefit either. Perhaps it was just an unintended extra click, that happens to us all. I have approved the edits. -DES ^Talk 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thought I left off the -00-00 on the date. Ray 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. On some, but not all screens, the software now converts YYYY to YYYY-00-00, I believe. On others it converts YYYY (like other invalid date forms) to 0000-00-00. In any case, thanks for correcting your own error. We all make plenty of them. -DES ^Talk 20:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Header templates

Please consider using {{AuthorHeader}} on Author: pages. See Help:Header templates for more info. -DES ^Talk 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Night of Delusions

Could you please double check your verified 1974-01-00 Berkley edition of Laumer's Night of Delusions? According to a book listing by The Other Change of Hobbit:

"One of the great mis-publication stories of the 1970s, now almost completely forgotten. This set consists of 3 books, a Very Fine copy of the hardcover of Laumer's NIGHT OF DELUSIONS (1972) and the 1974 paperbacks with the titles NIGHT OF DELUSIONS and THE MAN IN QUESTION, nominally by John Godey (author of THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123). Somewhere in the production process of the paperbacks, the manuscripts got switched. Thus, the book with the cover and title page for NIGHT OF DELUSIONS has the text of the Godey novel, and the book with the cover, title page and running heads for THE MAN IN QUESTION is actually the Laumer."

The error was corrected in the 1974-12-00 printing of the Berkley Medallion edition, but it sounds like you have the first, erroneous, printing. The corrected version starts with "I didn't hear anything: no hushed breathing, no stealthy slide of a shoe against the carpet." Could you please double check? Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohh I might have to unpack for this. Ray 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)