User talk:Marc Kupper/Archive4

From ISFDB
< User talk:Marc Kupper
Revision as of 17:35, 29 August 2009 by Marc Kupper (talk | contribs) (Archive more August items)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Race Against Time by Piers Anthony

Hi. In looking at my copy of Race Against Time, I came across your verified entry RCGNSTTMGR1985 of the 3rd printing. My copy is for the 6th printing, and I will enter it separately, but it dates the 2nd printing as October 1985. I know the date for the 3rd printing is just a pseudo-date, but using September 1985 as the base must be wrong if the 2nd printing is October 1985. I had thought of editing the existing entry, but I hadn't noticed it was already verified. --MartyD 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello MartyD. Thank you for the heads up. The pseudo-date was part of an experiment. The publications where I did this also include this note:
  • Note – the printing date for this publication is unknown. Rather than using 0000-00-00 this publication in ISFDB has been dated using the YYYY-MM of the first printing and the day of the month is set to the printing number to get the publication sorted into a reasonable spot relative to other printings for this edition.
This non-standard system works well if only the first printing is dated and the rest would be 0000-00-00. If any edition gets a date from a secondary source then we are better off converting the pseudo-dated publications to 0000-00-00. As you have a secondary source for the 2nd printing I've removed the 1985-09-03 date plus the note from the 3rd printing. I could not think of a good way to add a publication record for the 2nd printing as we don't know its ISBN nor price. I ended up adding a note to the title record. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is that dating style something I should be using for undated later printings? I had just been using 0000-00-00 if I had no other information to go on. --MartyD 01:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No - enough people have complained to me about it. :-) The initial plan was that we would add a printing # field to the publication record and I'd then hunt down the pseudodated publications and fix them to use the printing # field. The first part of the plan (adding the printing #) is moving slowly. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bright Star by Robert Louis Stevenson III

Since you were kind enough to offer an opinion about Rogue Warrior.... What do you think about Bright Star by Robert Louis Stevenson III? I see there's an entry for Torchlight. Here's a review on Amazon that will give you a good overview. --MartyD 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Off hand, I'd say it's not specfict. ISFDB:Policy#Contents/Project Scope Policy includes a definition for science fiction that states "... that deal with technological advances that were futuristic at the time they were published." The problem here is how futuristic is Bright Star? It seems like an Aegis Combat System on steroids and in that sense is a "technological advance" over what's publicly stated about today's weapons but not by much. There's also "Speculative fiction is defined to exclude techno-thriller, political thriller and satire works set in a future indistinguishable from the present(?)". The trailing "(?)" is part of the definition.
Something I've done with these cases is I include them in ISFDB but add a title note explaining how it's borderline specfict. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I won't do anything with it. Seems more like a techno-thriller to me than anything else. --MartyD 11:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A term that just came to mind is "tech fiction". In a science fiction story some aspect of science is either beyond or different then what we have. In tech fiction the science is the same but the technology is beyond or different than what we have. That would be a way to evaluate "in or out?" for a techno-thriller. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea. I suppose another distinguishing characteristic should be whether speculative aspects of the technology are one of the key underpinnings of the story. To use a movie analogy, something like Goldeneye really shouldn't qualify, while something like War Games should. --MartyD 20:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen Goldeneye, but in the James Bond category I'd have ignored Moonraker as originally published (plain old ICBM targeted at London by evil multi-millionaire) and included the movie ("Death to All Humans but us!" - from Space!). War Games was just too believable until the AI element kicked in - that and things like Demon Seed make me a bit wary of definitions. BLongley 22:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dagon and Other Macabre Tales

User:Rtrace would like to link a cover scan to your verified copy of this book. On hold for your reviewing pleasure. Ahasuerus 03:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that's the right cover though I'm wondering why I did not hunt down a cover on Amazon as I usually check there first and then scan/upload if needed. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Man in his Time

Added a cover image to [[1]] and deleted your note re:cover image. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bill. It was still in the queue and so I approved it. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW - I don't know if you know about {{p|record-or-tag|name}}. These all go to the publication record for Man in his Time.
{{t|###|title}} works exactly the same way for title records. There's no real benefit over using [] other than when in edit mode the strings are more compact than the full URL. I'm not sure if I like the green. It's ok for one or two links but if you do it in a full table it gets ugly. Some day... when I get to coding... I'll fix it so that links to ISFDB itself don't get decorated with the arrow thing. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but each of those involves typing for which I only have two fingers I can rely on (and not always!). The [] requires 'command c" then "command v" and it's done! As for the colors, I think there should be grades, each with it's own distinct color. Worst would be red for those aspiring editors who would screw up the universe if they could, all the way up to gold for the holiest of Mods. That way you would know who/what you were dealing with even before you opened a submission! ;-) ;-) ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So a Mac does not have [] handy? Amazing. I guess the people that developed wikitext did not know that. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Clear as mud, I are! What goes between the [] only requires the two 'command' moves.... This thing has more options than I can use and I'm always finding new ones. If making the colors takes all that below, I'll stick to black...! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
We (DES and I) deliberately chose the green to make people object to it and suggest something better. We're still waiting for suggestions. (Well, I am - DES seems to be a bit quiet recently.) I guess if he comes back we'll have to start a Civil War Drazi-style to encourage a resolution. (If he gets the Babylon 5 reference.) Or Marc knows how to make it Purple anyway, I'm sure. Or people could just make their minds up? BLongley 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Purple is cool. Let us do it! --Marc Kupper|talk 09:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Then make it so! BLongley 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Daw reference book

Marc, I just approved this book "Future and Fantastic Worlds: A Biblographical Retrospective of DAW Books (1972-1987)"[2]. Thought you would like to know about it unless you already do.Kraang 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool and thank you for the heads up as I'd never heard of it. A scan of AbeBooks finds were missing a few titles by Sheldon R. Jaffery / Sheldon Jaffery - always more things to do...
    • The introduction by Sheldon Jaffery explains the sub-genre of the "Weirds". Stories include: The Mole Men Want Your Eyes by Frederick C Davis; Mistress of the Blood-Drinkers by Ralston Shields; A Beast is Born by W Wayne Robbins; The Horror at His Heels by Wyatt Blassingame; and more. Starmont Popular Culture Series, Volume 1.
Non genre but the only one

DAW notes

Have come across another one of DAW's first printing text/later printing covers [[3]] I know we had a brief discussion about this regarding another pub that escapes me at present, and know this can't be easily explained/pigeon-holed, but is there a general 'feeling' about how to explain this in an easy note so future editors sort of have something to go on? This kind of thing seems a DAW-only circumstance, at least I haven't seen any other publisher that has been so 'lax' in allowing later printings to carry an incorrect copyright page. This isn't a critical thing, but something 'generic' might be helpful. Any suggestions? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The note you added looks fine other than the part about "It is unclear why DAW has, in several instances, issued second (or later) printings with different artwork than the first editions, yet have retained the copyright page from the first edition/printing." which is a general note about DAW and not that publication. I will usually add a title note explaining the issue so that future editors can be on alert that to check and document both the painting and credited artist.
From June 1981 to March 1982 DAW reprinted a handful of titles with different covers and also assigned new DAW Book numbers to them. One of my mini projects is to get copies of all printings of these titles as there's a lot of confusion regarding credited/actual artists, the DAW Book No., the stated printing number, if the actual book contents ever changed, etc.
  • DAW Book No. 146 and then 438 in Jun-1981 - Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said.
  • DAW Book No. 100 and then 442 in Jul-1981 - Hadon of Ancient Opar.
  • DAW Book No. 046 and then 447 in Aug-1981 - King of Argent.
  • DAW Book No. 154 and then 463 in Dec-1981 - The Birthgrave.
  • DAW Book No. 197 and then 475 in Mar-1982 - Flight to Opar.
Wish I could remember that other book, as it is not one of the five you have here. I will make a mental note and get back to you with any like this in the future so your mini-project has a few more bones to pick!! Went sleuthing and came up with Brunner's "Polymath", has new #UY1217, no DAW Books # and a Kirby cover with a DiFate credit, 2nd printing, CDN. A start...~Bill, --Bluesman 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
[[4]] One more for the list. --Bluesman 00:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Initially it looked like a reprint program where DAW was selecting and reprinting one title per month. Every single one of these titles has been a nightmare from a bibliographic view with Flow My Tears being a little worse as there's also a third cover... My notes on Flow My Tears have:
Order # DAW # Price 1st pr date Printing Artist
UW1166 146 $1.50 Apr-1975 1st Hans Ulrich; Ute Osterwalder
UW1266 None $1.50 Apr-1975 3rd Publication credits Hans Ulrich; Ute Osterwalder but is signed "Kresek".
UE1624 438 $2.25 Apr-1975 5th Oliviero Berni (printed in June 1981?)
UE1624 438 $2.50 Unknown Oliviero Berni
UE1969 438 $2.50 Unknown Oliviero Berni
You threw a minor monkey wrench into that list in that your UW1266 is a Canadian printing with a 1-??? number line. As the Canadians were generally better than the Americans when it came to keeping track of the printing numbers I'll suspect this really is the first Canadian printing though uses the cover from the American 3rd printing. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a title note. I don't think anyone will miss it. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad I only have a Granada edition. ;-) The Panther/Grafton/Granada/Triad mess is SO much simpler to deal with. BLongley 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Whipping Star

Your note for [this] pub is incorrect. The sixth printing has that ISBN, verified by Currey as it is the first edition with revised text. Found an image and have re-entered the pub into the DB. I did not adjust your note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Many things about the publication update I did on Dec 28, 2008 don't make sense to me at all. From what I can see in the edit trail. I trashed out a perfectly good record and left notes as though I was editing an entirely different record.
Is there an explanation of the revised text? I suspect we should have separate Whipping Star (1970) and Whipping Star (1977) titles. It's possible Berkley printed both at the same time. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't answer that. I do not have a revised edition. The Currey data and a real ISBN were the reasons for re-birthing of the pub. Doubt that Berkley had concurrent versions, though. Think, for now, a note about the revision might be sufficient until a verified copy turns up??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I figured out more of why I did the edit I did. It turns out I'd spotted a duplicate publication record for 0-425-06997-4 at $2.95. I hijacked one of those to create the publication record that matches my publication. That explains why I seemed to overwrite a perfectly good record. The mystery is still thick as my note said "Prior to verification this record used the ISBN 0-425-03504-2." The note is strange for a couple of reasons. 1) It's the wrong prior ISBN. 2) When I hijacked I also changed the price but did not make a note of that. 3) I would not have left a note at all if I knew I was hijacking a duplicate record.
Regarding the record you to added ISFDB - it looks like there are now three publication records for the 6th printing.
No date Berkley 0-425-02824-0 $1.50 176pp Stated 6th printing
No date Berkley 0-425-03504-2 $1.50 188pp Paul Alexander Stated 6th printing. Copyright page says 6th printing even though 0-425-03308-2 also says 6th printing.
Sep 1977 Berkley Medallion 0-425-03504-2 $1.50 188pp Alexander "Berkley Medallion Edition, September, 1977 / Sixth Printing." - Currey [Revised Text]
0-425-03308-2 This line is from the note for the second pub above. Amazon.com says this is the 8th printing. There is no ISFDB record yet.
I believe you added the third record in that list. It seems to duplicate the second record. I have e-mailed Don Erikson as he seems he has both of the sixth printings. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Don replied back. It turned out he had a typo. The record that used to say 0-425-02824 now has 0-425-03308-2. This allows his existing note on 0-425-03504-2 to make sense. I added a new record for 0-425-02824 which was for 95 cents. I also added 0-425-05515-9 at $2.50.
It turns out there are two publications marked "sixth printing" with one being the 1970 edition and the other is the 1977 edition. Don reports the differences as
It was definitely reset AND was set as with chapters, starting at the top of a page and leaving space at the end to start the next chapter atop the next page. Also they added fictional quotes & epigrams at the beginning of each chapter. Also there is one less line per page of text. All this takes up more room.
I thought about breaking this out into two separate title records but as it seems the story did not change I dealt with it by adding a title note. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dark Piper - Questions

Morning!. This . [5] , You are second ver and my copy does not match this opening statement. [The printing date is not stated. However, the advertising on the back pages are dated 8A-2-71, 25-6-71, and 6-71 and so a date of 1971-06-00 was used for this ISFDB record.]. I know I am going blind, but I have no dates on advertisement pages. Did you match the above? My copy has four pages top books are 89700 - 50¢ Witch World, The Big Time 06220 - 50¢, right side double column 81780 - 75¢ (over) A Torrent of Faces and Lords of the Starship 49250 - 50¢. I have no catalog adv dating. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - it's publishers messing with out heads again. Here's the pages
  • [1] Excerpt that starts "Returning home after ten years, ..."
  • [2] Andre Norton novels available
    05160 - 50¢ The Beast Master
    ...92550 - 50¢ The X Factor
  • [3] Title page / footer has "An Ace Book / Ace Publishing Corporation / ...
  • [4] Copyright page - rather plain. It credits Jack Gaughan
  • [5] I guess you would call this a chapter header. The page is blank other than "Dark Piper" floating mid-way down the page on the right.
  • [6] Blank
  • 7 Start of story
  • 220 End of story
  • [221] "Ace Science Fiction Doubles / Two Books Back-to-back for just 75¢" Books listed are 05595 to 81610. 15¢ handling fee. Lower-right corner has 8A•2•71
  • [222] Award Winning Science Fiction Specials. Books listed are 00950 75¢ to 94200 75¢. 10¢ handling fee. Lower-right corner has a "7"
  • [223] Andre Norton. Books listed are 69681 60¢ to 95961 75¢. 15¢ handling fee. Lower-right corner has 25•6•71
  • [224] Andre Norton. Books listed are 67555 75¢ to 66831 60¢. 15¢ handling fee. Lower-right corner has •6•71
The book prices are listed below. The numbers are the count per advertising page.
  • 50¢ 0+0+1+0
  • 60¢ 0+2+9+13
  • 75¢ 12+11+2+7
  • 95¢ 0+4+0+0
As you mention several 50¢ items your printing must be before mine. My prices are clearly in the 75¢ area. The four at 95¢ are likely the newest
A little curious given I'd estimated a 1971-06-00 date for the book. I don't have time to chase these down more.
Note that the advertising on page [2] is priced from 40¢ to 50¢ with one 60¢ (63410 from 1969-01). I did not include it in the tally above as it may not change as often as the advertising at the end. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm back - Something I'm thinking about is one, and maybe both, of us should clone DRKPPR1968. While the usual methods of distinguishing publications would make ours the same they are clearly different. I've invited Dave Sorgen, who did the primary verification, over. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
We are totally matched pages 1-220.
(221)Andre Norton's Brilliant Fantasy Series of the Witch World
(222)Classics of Great Science Fiction
(223)Ace Science Fiction Specials
(224)Ace Recommends . . .
40¢ 2+ 0+ 0+ 0+
50¢ 4+ 10+ 0+ 5+
60¢ 0+ 5+ 8+ 4+
75¢ 0+ 0+ 7+ 2+
95¢ 0+ 0+ 3+ 1+
pg 223 38120 95¢ The Jagged Orbit 1969(ISFDB ver). (first printing)
pg 223 47800 95¢ The Left Hand of Darkness Mar 1969 (ISFDB ver). (first printing)
pg 223 37425 95¢ The Preserving Machine 1969 (ISFDB ver). (first printing)
pg 224 17260 95¢ Dune unknown (ISFDB no ver). (reprint of 1965 story)
Just guessing at late 69 or early 1970 instead of 1971. Just keeping the ball spinning. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with that date though most likely it's mid-1969 to late 1969 with a small chance it's early 1970.
  • 1968 is still a possibility. The main thing against 1968 is none of those books are listed as "upcoming."
  • 1969 is the most likely.
  • 1970 is likely out otherwise you'd expect to see some 1970 titles unless Ace only advertises books already in print and it's early 1970.
  • 1971 is out for sure unless you find a 1970 or 1971 title.
Once Dave Sorgen pops in we should know which way to clone and date things. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. You have to wonder if the 'royalties' payments had anything to do with it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I cloned the 1971 version and changed the notation to reflect my copy difference. I found two copies available at the local book store. One of each type. Your version was being sold for $16.00, but it was priced quite some time ago, mine was $2.00. Nice aside, the owner is going to open up a storage shed and let me rummage. It will break me I am sure, but a quick look showed several thousand pbs. Please check my clone for thoroughness/completeness. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The new record looks good though I got confused by some of the wording. I edited that plus added a new bullet to both publication records[6][7] that explains that the other exists and links to it. Once Dave Sorgen pops in and comments I'll clean up this talk page section leave it as a publication comment at Publication:DRKPPRVHHX1969 and link to that from the publication notes.
Have fun rummaging through the shed. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Book of Poul Anderson

Locus #213 (August 1978) has a listing for your verified pub. It has the same catalog number and price and was published in June 1978. The only puzzlement is that yours says it was printed in Canada, and I don't think Locus would list a Canadian printing. I see there are three pubs listed under this title with the ISBN 0-87997-347-1, but one pub doesn't give the DAW catalog number, one gives UE1347, and one gives UJ1347. The Locus listing shows UJ1347 at $1.95, so I'll leave it to you to figure out which one it refers to. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated my publication to be June 1978. The UE1347 record is my publication and was in error. The correct catalog # is UJ1347. There is some evidence for a December 1977 printing and much more for a mid-1978 printing. The UJ1347 catalog # would be December 1977 in the numbering sequence. However, the advertising is for 1st printings in May 1978 and reprints up to November 1978. It's listed in the DAW 1978 catalog for June 1978. (one of my long suffering projects is to go through the catalogs and to date the reprints). Amazon.com lists it as June 6, 1978. I don't have one of the price list spreadsheets from Penguin handy to confirm that Amazon has Penguin's date but would assume it's correct.
The Canadian edition is something Bluesman verified. The Canadian editions use their own printing sequence numbers and are usually priced a little higher. Usually they say "Cover printed in the USA" meaning it's possible the Canadians did a 4th printing in December 1977 and DAW used the same covers for their USA 3rd printing in June 1978. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ace DBL D-491 [2]

Added links to individual cover images (way clearer than the double format) and artist credit to Emshwiller for the second cover (not sure who does the ACE Image Library data, but it certainly seems accurate) for [[8]]--Bluesman 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The double cover images tend to be a mess. I have not developed an opinion one way or another on if the Ace image library is accurate. The way you did it with citing them for the credit works well as then whoever is looking at the ISFDB record can decide for themselves if the credit is accurate. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarke SFBC

Hey, Marc! [This] pub raises some questions. My copy has the correct gutter code, but also has "First Edition" on the copyright page. (Mine has no cover). MartyD's copy has a cover and the gutter code and the "First Edition" and a price. There is a brief discussion on his page about this. I think the trade edition was printed by Doubleday for Harcourt. If your copy has no price on the jacket but has the "First Edition" on the copyright page, then that should confirm this. Can you check? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bill. It looks like you have a trade edition like MartyD. My copy has no price on the cover, "Book Club Edition" on the lower front flap, and the copyright page is rather plain. It starts out with a ten-line block of story copyrights, a three line paragraph with the "All rights reserved" notice, and finally one line with "Printed in the Unites States of America". There is no printing or edition statement. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek Reader

Replaced the image for [this] as I scanned in my SFBC cover. Also added a small note about this being the first HC appearance of ST8, per Currey. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I fixed the image link as you had it going to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?THSTRTRKRD1976 (a publication record). I assumed you meant this which is the image for that publication. I'm fine with the note you added though I don't agree with Currey that inclusion of a story in a hardcover omnibus, collection, or anthology, etc. counts as an "appearance" of that story in HC. Technically that is true but in *my* universe <g> it would need to be the main or only story in a HC to count as "appearing in HC." Maybe Currey has defined a distinction between something like "hardcover printing" and "hardcover appearance" that allows for this. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't change the 'designation' of the image when I have the SFBC and am using that image for the trade issue (or the other way around). They are not always identical (blurbs on the cover can change) and if I 'steal' the tag for the image then if the correct image comes along it means replacing that image and the 'tag' is already used. I have had difficulty making the DB over-ride an existing image like that so I just avoid taking the tag. The Currey note was for the entire collection "ST8", which did not have a hardcover printing until this omnibus. He has the hots for first hardcover anything, wish he had done the same for first PB editions, would have cleared a lot of biographical questions. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

THE GHOULS cover signature

My copy of this book is trimmed so there is a little more room at the bottom. I see the signature "A. Magee" and by looking at other Magee covers I'm 99% sure this is Alan Magee. I'm saying only 99% sure because sometimes that 1% can turn around and bite you in the ass.Don Erikson 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Don! --Marc Kupper|talk 09:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Star of Danger

Scanned in a new image for [this], the other one was from the ACE Image Library (we don't have permission yet to link to them, and I picked up a fine copy just today). Also added the interior art piece to the contents, and noted it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do have permission from the Ace Image Library now. But don't let that stop you improving on them. BLongley 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Bill for catching the int-artist. I also agree with "But don't let that stop you improving on them." For example, I'm uploading an image for another book right now even though a nearly perfect scan exists on Amazon. Part of the reason I'm doing this is it allows me to zoom in to see if any signatures are visible. The book credits the artist but as long as the book is sitting in the scanner I check to see if I can update the signature library. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Kudos! Another major image source!! Sometimes they are really great, sometimes not... Best thing is they have scans of all the printings, with, usually, a clear view of the catalog/price numbers. We can zoom images on the DB? or are you referring to your scanner? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Kevin Pulliam was the one that secured permissions, all credit to him. BLongley 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As to "zoom" - I think Marc must be referring to his scanner. I know I've used such to investigate a tiny sig that my magnifying glass can't cope with. But he may be referring to images here - sometimes you click on an Amazon image and discover the original is smaller, whereas I always try to make sure my scans here are at the 600 pixels limit. That's usually enough to be sure an (I)SBN is readable (prices tend to be on the back covers here though) but it would be rare to have a sig readable at that level. Maybe that'd be enough to point out where a sig actually is though. BLongley 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the zoom I mentioned before. I normally scan covers at 300 dpi. This allows me to blow up or zoom in on the image and I pan around looking for a signature. How much I zoom depends on how busy the image is. I also like to look at the pictures in detail as artist often hide little things in their works. As I'm in Paint Shop Pro both panning and adjusting the zoom can be done with the mouse (the wheel controls the zoom and hold-click drag pans). If I find the signature and have a reason to save it then I'll rescan that area of the cover at 1200 dpi. With both the full cover and signature detail I crop the image in Paint Shop and save it. When uploading images to ISFDB I first scale it to a maximum of 600 pixels high or wide using EZ Thumbs which I've set up so I just right click on an image, select Make Thumbnail, and it'll make the max-600 pixel high or wide file for me. I've found that at 600 pixels that the catalog number and price are usually readable. Amazon's 400 pixel images sometimes blur things enough that I'd only be able to say "it seems to match this known pattern." --Marc Kupper|talk 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DAW #19 - The Regiments of Night

Info for you. [This] record had a statement that there was no printing statement. The CDN edition does, but no number line. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I temporarily put it on hold while I think. I'll ask Don to take a hard look at his copy. The troublesome aspects are Don reported n.d./n.p. (no date, no printing) and I confirmed the same on a visit to a bookstore. Both of these were in late 2006 and it's quite possible we were not as picky about distinctions as we are now.
Do you have the Canadian edition? If so, then we should clone and make a new record that notes it's for the Canadian edition and presumably the price is C$0.95. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like another of the moderators missed the hold note and approved your changes. The notes used to say
  • Daw Book No. 19
  • Assumed first printing. The publication does not state a printing date nor number. The source for the date on this ISFDB record is unknown but is assumed to be accurate.
I sent an e-mail to Don asking about what his copy says. If it's n.d./n.p. then I'll clone and make a new record though would still like to know if yours is the Canadian edition as those did have the printing month/year in late 1972 while the USA copies did not. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Don replied back about the contents of his edition. I cloned the record and created a new one for the USA edition plus updated the record you verified to note it's printed in Canada and to make the price C$0.95.

Rabkin's Fantastic Worlds

There's a listing for the tp edition of this title in Locus #222 (June 1979), giving the publisher's price of $5.95. Being a university press and probably intended to be a classroom text, the price was probably not printed on the book. That way the publisher could gouge students raise the price at any time. MHHutchins 03:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add that they give May 1979 as the month of publication. They give the price of the hardcover edition as $15.95, so I don't know where the $22.50 that's currently on the record came from. MHHutchins 03:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've updated the verified publication record. I'd have to guess that $22.50 is from Amazon.com for a later edition or possibly a Canadian price. You are likely correct in that it's used as a textbook as Amazon still has it in print and priced even higher than last year. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195025415 has a look inside for the 17th printing of the TP. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bug 2202918

When you get a chance, could you please check if Bug 2202918 "Python error on pub contents export" is still a problem? I tested www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?274045, which is given as an example in the body of the Bug report, and it seemed to be OK. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fixes - I checked the other anthologies I'd tested against back when I filed the report and they all worked meaning the bug seems to be fixed. I did run into a minor issue in that for my test I did the exports and approved them constructing a test publication with 270 stories. I then went into remove-title, checked all 270 titles, but only the first 199 titles were dropped into the XML blob meaning I needed to do a second round to pick up the remaining 71 titles. I seem to recall that someone once said there was a 200 title limit and if so, it's been confirmed. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Bug 2830311, "Can't remove more than 199 Titles from a Publication" created, thanks! Ahasuerus 12:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

De Witt on R&S page

You might want to look at Rules and standards discussions‎#Spaces in Author names. I would ping Harry, his views would be worth while, but he has objected strongly to being invited into such discussions in the past, particularly by me. -DES Talk 21:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I forgot about the difficulty in parsing walls of text. Thanks for the heads up. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Best New Horror, Volume Twelve - "The Other Side of Midnight"

Can you re-check your verified copy of this anthology to see if the story by Kim Newman has a subtitle "Anno Dracula 1981"? I'm holding a submission that wants to make the title record a variant of the one with the subtitle. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like what the editor did was fine. The story was first published on www.scifi.com as Castle in the Desert: Anno Dracula 1977 (verified via Google cache as it's no longer on the site) and also on the author's web site. Castle in the Desert was the title used in the first (and only) book publication. I suspect DES will notice this and start YAR&ST (Yet Another Rules & Standards Thread). :-).
FWIW - In the book the upper part of the first page has Castle in the Desert in large letters followed by a two paragraph author bio. There's a space, and then centered in bold body text size text is Anno Dracula 1977. The story immediately follows the "sub title." The TOC, copyright page, and page headers all use Castle in the Desert. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Visible Man

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks Willem H. 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Submission was accepted. Can you verify the artist's signature also, Marc? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Willem. Good eye in spotting that signature. Even when looking in the lower left I missed it at first as at first I thought it was one of the lines between the tiles. Both of my copies of the publication are fairly worn and so I don't bother with uploading a full cover image. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Marc_Kupper/Archive4&oldid=165091"