User talk:Rtrace

Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you're writing to inform me that you've either added a missing COVER IMAGE or NOTES to any of my VERIFIED PUBS, please click HERE and add it to the bottom of the list. A link to the pub record would be appreciated. Once the pub has been reviewed, I'll remove your note from the list. Thanks. Ron (Rtrace)


for older discussions.

A Hand-Drawn Map of New Crobuzon - interior artwork by China Miéville

Hi Ron, I have a 12th printing of the 2011 edition of China's novel Perdido Street Station and I'm trying to sort out all the map references under different titles to his credited map here. So I can make sure it's the same map, could you do me a favour and check for me:

China is definitely credited as the artist.
"New Crobuzon" appears as the title at bottom left.
4 points of the compass at top right.
Key (Skyrail, Railways, Woodland) at bottom right.
Scale (2 miles) at top left.

If the map is the same as the one I have, I think several changes would be in order.

'Your' map pub date is 2013-10-00 - I think this should be a variant of the original map pub title/date - see here, and here.
Further, a search on on Crobuzon shows Hitspacebar (in his 2014 entry) to be the only one titling the map correctly according to the Help guidelines.
Accordingly and if you think it's correct, I propose changing the titles of all the maps to "New Corbuzon (map) (2000-03-00) by China Miéville (as by uncredited)" and varianting your 2013 title to that.

I hope this all makes sense - the maps are a mess :) Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2023 (EST)

Hi BanjoKev
I also have the 7th Del Rey printing. The map in the World Fantasy Convention book is definitely a different map than that published in the Del Rey editions. It is credited to Miéville insofar as it is part of a collection of his drawings with a paragraph explaining when and why he drew them. While I don't believe it's mentioned in the help pages, there is a de facto standard of naming INTERIORART records by their caption when present, which is why the hand drawn map is named as it is. Thus, the 2013 map should not be re-titled or made a variant of the other maps.
That's great! Could you add a note to the title record so that this doesn't get messed up in future? --BanjoKev (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2023 (EST)
I see you've done that already, thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2023 (EST)
The map in the Del Rey edition matches your description with the exception that there is no artist credited. The map is not currently listed in the publication record of my copy. I agree with you that this map should be titled "New Crobuzon (map)" (correcting a small typo). Since you're working on this, I'll hold off on adding it to my publication until after you've determined the title and original date of the other maps. I do suspect that it occurs in all the Del Rey editions. You can go ahead and import the ultimate title record for the map to the 7th Del Rey edition. Alternatively, you can let me know once you're done merging that maps and I can do that. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 08:11, 7 January 2023 (EST)
So, your different map is the only one credited to China - all the rest are uncredited. I'll sort all this out, including the 7th Del Rey and let you know when it's all done. Many thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2023 (EST)
I've completed all the changes needed for all the maps, including your 7th Del Rey printing. The only loose end is the map & novel pagination in yours if you'd do the honours. Thanks for your help, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2023 (EST)

Forest J. Ackerman credits

When you have a moment, could you please check how your verified Forest J Ackerman pubs credit Ackerman? The other day a user pointed out that most of Ackerman's books/stories use Forrest J Ackerman as opposed to Forrest J. Ackerman, but only 30-ish of our pubs credit him that way. TIA! Ahasuerus (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2023 (EST)

Both lacked the period after the middle initial and I've changed them. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:09, 7 January 2023 (EST)
Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2023 (EST)

The Moon Maiden

Dear sir: I am fond of Garrett P. Serviss. In fact, I have read all his works (but The Moon Maiden) and I am translating them into Spanish for first time (e.g. I have not managed to get a text of The Moon Maiden in any format and I have not been able to find Argosy 1915 not in paper nor scanned. I tried everything! Could you, please, somehow, hand me a scanned version (or pictured by phone or any mean) of the pages of Argosy May 1915 where it was first published? Nothing I can offer in exchange but gratitude and, if you wish, credit. Best regards. Rubene Guirauta (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lidenbrock (talkcontribs) .

Hi Rubene
Unfortunately, I do not own a copy of that issue of Argosy. I think you may have gotten the impression that I do because of the secondary verifications that I have marked on the publication record. What I have verified is that Bleiler's Science-Fiction: The Early Years, Clute and Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Tuck's The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy all mention that issue of Argosy. Without rechecking each of those references, I suspect the issue is listed because of the Serviss story, the Franklin story, or both. As I'm sure you are aware, there is a later publication of the novel by Crawford/FPCI, but again, I don't possess a copy and have only verified its existence through secondary sources. I did also look for that issue of Argosy at the Internet Archive, which does have scans of many pulps, but unfortunately not the one you're looking for. Good luck with your project, and I'm sorry I couldn't be more help. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:55, 16 January 2023 (EST)
Hi Ron
Thank you very much for your answer. I understand the role of verificator... but I had to make this attempt, there was a chance you could have it. It is really a challenge to find this issue of Argosy (or the edition of 1978 of The Moon Maiden). I have tried in Internet Archive, Hathi Trust, Library of Congress and others, and in second hand sellers (Abebooks, eBay, Facebook groups...) unsuccessfully. In case in future (this quest is going to last, I am afraid) you could get any information, copy, scan, picture or any clue, please let me know. Best regards. Rubene.

Heroic Fantasy frontispiece artist

There's an unentered frontispiece in Heroic Fantasy that has a signature that I don't know how to interpret. Do you? --Glenn (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2023 (EST)

Is that an "R G K" which may indicate Roy G. Krenkel? He did do some covers for DAW. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:37, 24 January 2023 (EST)

Amazon image for Assassin's Price

I have replaced the Amazon image with a scan from my copy for Assassin's Price by L. E. Modesitt, Jr. ../Doug H (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2023 (EST)

Lovecraft's Notes;; OL cover has the price on it; alternate? --Username (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2023 (EST)

I don't think it's an alternate. My copy has the price and I've replaced the image with a scan of my copy. Given the date of the previous upload, I was probably replacing an unstable Amazon image and may have just saved theirs and re-uploaded. I don't know what publication the image without a price represents. Chalker/Owings mentions two subsequent editions. There was a library edition published without imprint by people associated with the University of Wisconsin. However C/O states that it was bound in green cloth and issued without a jacket. There was also a 1982 edition from Necronomicon Press, but their publications are usually larger in size. In any case, the image is now correct. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:00, 30 January 2023 (EST)

The Wizard of Maldoone

Ron, Any objection to converting to CHAPBOOK? While approving the addition of the softcover, I looked at the scan in the internet archive. There is no way this is 40,000 words. I'm checking since you entered the hc edition and added the secondary verifications. John Scifibones 12:30, 30 January 2023 (EST)

No objection at all. I've only verified from secondary sources. Reginald uses the terms "novel" or "story" for length and I believe has different thresholds for these terms than ours. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:03, 30 January 2023 (EST)

Whispers, 1987;; I added FantLab ID to digest edition; Russell story says "Kolorized" on contents page, not "Kolarized", and Eisenstein story says "Weasling", not "Weaseling". 1 seems like contents may be right, the other one seems like a misspelling. So if you can check your HC copy. --Username (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2023 (EST)

It looks like Bob has already taken care of the correction and explained the contents error. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:07, 30 January 2023 (EST)

Pearl Pumpkin; Halloween, not Haloween, according to title page. --Username (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2023 (EST)

Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:08, 30 January 2023 (EST)

Baxter - Raft

Hi Ron, just noticed your Raft. My later printing pagination is x-245 - perhaps yours is a typo? Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2023 (EST)

Not a typo. The last numbered page in my copy is 246. The last page has the author bio and is numbered. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:43, 1 February 2023 (EST)

The Black Sorcerer

Hi Ron, could you moderate this submission please. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2023 (EST)

Done. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:44, 1 February 2023 (EST)
Thank you Ron! That record solves a lot of problems. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2023 (EST)

Walter Wiggins; Isn't that a title page photo in the AbeBooks link I provided in the moderator note, with a Jr. on it? Also, I re-did the other edit of mine you rejected recently re: changing Charnal to Charnel with the page that says Charnel House on it. --Username (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2023 (EST)

So it does. I've changed the author's name which allowed me to approve your original edit without losing data. Just keep in mind, that when you change the last reference to an author's name in a publication or title, the software deletes the old author record and creates a new one. Thus, any data on the old author record is lost. No need to inform me about the re-issued edit, it will come up in the queue be handled by whoever is working it at the time. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:32, 2 February 2023 (EST)
Honestly, you're the main handler of my edits these days; some mods have quit recently, at least for the time being, others just do a few of my edits now and then that you skip for one reason or another. Dirk used to do a lot of mine until recently (he used to do a lot in my early days but got mad at me and stopped doing them for awhile) when he got mad at somebody else on these boards and decided to take a break until 2024,, and JLaTondre and Ahasuerus used to do a bunch when they had the time but they're so busy doing site stuff that it rarely happens anymore. So odds are you'll be the one to approve that specific edit and you'll know why I provided the zine link because you're the one who rejected it and asked for proof; someone else may be unclear why I'm adding something like that. --Username (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2023 (EST)
As it turns out, I was the one who worked that edit. However, the title wasn't correct for what was in the scan. I've corrected it and it's fine now. If I'm the only one working the queue, then that's a problem. As I am going on vacation starting tomorrow, I will be approving few if any edits in the next 10 days. I do see other moderators approving edits other than their own in the recent approvals page. I'm not surprised that other moderators skip some of your edits. I do that myself when you've failed to notify primary verifiers, or not provided sufficient sources for your edit. I also skip them in cases where the research required to approve your edit is more than I have time for while I'm working the queue. In the past, I have held your submissions and left notes on your talk page, but this invariably results in arguments that you feel you don't need to notify or document. I'm tired of making the same arguments each time, so I choose to ignore these edits. I will still reject or hold edits that are destructive, or that introduce potentially incorrect data. I can't speak as to why others skip your edits, but this has been my experience. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:25, 2 February 2023 (EST)
I'm fully aware of why you skip certain of my edits, although in almost all cases whatever I did in those edits ends up being approved by others because it was correct; most of my edits end up being approved by you, anyway, so the ones you skip are in the minority. As I've said before, with the massive amount of edits I do (more than almost any other non-moderator in the history of this site, and that's in just 2 years or so) I don't expect every one of them to be approved; a few always fall by the wayside. In the case of the Charnel House thing, I see that you added those secondary verifications you mentioned which had the incorrect "Charnal", but the scan of the issue at hand has been available on for many years, so really before adding those verifications less than a year ago you could easily have checked all info in the magazine itself and would have discovered this problem and fixed it yourself instead of me having to fix it like I've had to fix thousands of other things on this site (and I suspect there are many other Cemetery Dance mistakes on ISFDB since so many different people have worked on the 70+ issues). Re: Dirk, he used to do a lot of mine, didn't like the fact that I questioned some of his rejections, and decided to stop, but started again last year, then stopped completely because of his problems with other mods, including both of those I mentioned above and a few others, questioning him. Apparently he has a problem with being questioned. Other mods just don't have the time because the server move created such a big mess they spend most of their time bug-fixing. I'm sure there's a couple that have some personal grudge against me because I'm not an ass-kisser who bows and scrapes so they can get themselves self-moderator status and that's why they rarely approve anything of mine (although they still do occasionally, usually for edits that have some minor problem they can complain about) but honestly, who cares, 43,000 edits and counting. I'm an amateur just doing this to pass the time; I have no time for any of the personal issues so many on here seem to have. As I go through old board messages I can see that many of the angry people who still edit on this site behaved the same way LONG before I started here, so really none of this has anything to do with me. Also, if you ever feel upset about a few of my edits not being exactly done right, just remember how many countless edits either approved by you for others or entered by you personally I've had to fix. Do I complain about that? --Username (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2023 (EST)

Pwendt for self-approver

Hi, Ron. I should be a self-approver here and I expect you agree with that. I prefer to be nominated by a longtime heavy-duty contributor, but I plan to nominate myself ("Self-nomination for self-approver") sometime tomorrow if you, plural, is available, ready and willing in the next ~20 hours. I write to a couple others too.

A couple hours ago, you approved this morning's creation of a parent Nancy Drew collection as by "unknown", noted "1st of 5 this collection". Recently I had deleted the other four, and several more, upon suddenly recognizing that it only creates more work to Make parent titles without attending first to the Juvenile tag, among other things. --Pwendt|talk 15:39, 2 February 2023 (EST)

Le Guin - The Wind's Twelve Quarters and The Compass Rose

Hi Ron, is this image any use for your PV here?

Same for this image for yours here. Kev.

Better yet, I can upload to your pubs "your-pub-specific" images which are exactly the same as the Amazon ones if that's ok with you. I'm trying to avoid linked images like the plague now, I did a test to find out the bad things that can happen with linked images. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2023 (EST)
I don't worry that much about Amazon images except for the ones known to be unstable. I do know with the SF Masterworks they've frequently had images that differ slightly from the printed copies, but not in this case. However, if you're more comfortable, I can link to your images. No need to duplicate them in the server. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:46, 21 February 2023 (EST)

Demons By Daylight; Does this require a separate entry, having the $6.00 sticker you mention in your notes, or should I just add it to your PV? --Username (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2023 (EST)

No need for a separate publication record. None of the secondary sources (Chalker/Owings, Jaffery, Nielsen, Joshi) mention a change in price, though I'm sure that is what this is. My copy is one of the ones with the sticker. However, the addition of a sticker isn't really a new publication. I've gone ahead and added the link to the scan. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:38, 12 February 2023 (EST)

Robot Visions

You verified a 3rd printing. I'd like to verify the 4th but I have some updates to the contents which are likely the same in your printing:

  • artwork on page ii is same as on page 260. I would change the latter to the same title.
  • artwork on page 42 is not listed. We could call this "Robot Visions [12]"
  • page 82 should say 83

I can update both printings if you're in agreement. Thanks. Fjh (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2023 (EST)

All these changes are fine, except for the repeated artwork on pages ii and 260. A single title record cannot occur twice in the same publication. Thus if you renamed the artwork on page 260 to "Robot Visions" and then tried to merge the two INTERIORART titles, it would create a problem. What we want to do instead is to make Robot Visions (8) (changed brackets to parentheses for the wiki markup only) into a variant of Robot Visions. Please feel fee to proceed with the changes. I can help with the variant if you're not familiar with how to do that. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:25, 15 February 2023 (EST)
Thanks for the help. I found instructions on making variants and went ahead. Hope I got that right. Once that lands I'll go ahead with the edits to both pubs. I could use a clue on creating the new art title "Robot Visions [12]." My guess is I just put that in when editing a publication, and a title entry is automatically created in the db? Fjh (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2023 (EST)
By sheer coincidence, Robot Visions is next up on my pile and this thread came up on my watchlist. I have the VGSF 1st printing if I can be of any assistance :) Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2023 (EST)
Does your book have the same interior art? If so you could add them to the contents, once we're done with the title changes. Fjh (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2023 (EST)
Not the same. I'll use your pagination for clarity (mine is different).
  • Yours has 11 pages of interiorart, mine has 12.
  • My art in the stories agrees with your pages: ii, 3, 24, 51, 82, 123, 235, 245, 343, 359, 401.
  • Mine also has art in "Too Bad!" (a couple looking at a robot they're considering buying). It would be good if you would allow a gap for this in your numbering(?) system, so that this one can fit in nicely with the sequence when I add it.
  • The art for "The Bicentennial Man" is the same as at your ii.
  • My book pagination is correct at 383 pages and it's counted from the very first page inside the front cover. The first numbered page is page 7 and the Introduction starts on page 9. There are no pages with Roman numerals, as yours has.
[edit] It might be a good idea to put a brief description of the art in the title records when the dust has settled, to aid identification and guard against publishers swapping the art around. Let me know if there's anything else. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2023 (EST)
Kev, here are photos of all the art in my book if you want to compare with yours. If you were comparing with what isfdb currently says, I'm sorry, I haven't fixed that yet. (I'll let you know.) I love your idea of describing the art in the notes. I mean, unless there's a way to put in actual pictures (Ron?) then notes are needed to make the entries useful so I will add some. My book does indeed have roman numerals, only on the TOC pages oddly enough. ymmv. Fjh (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2023 (EST)
I wouldn't suggest linking to scans of the artwork, which is under copyright. I do have a suggestion, though it is a bit more work. There are a few ways that INTERIORART can be named. Here we have named it after the title of the collection, with a numeric disambiguator added to all but the first title. However, we could name each INTERIORART with the title of the story where the artwork occurs (and for which it presumably illustrates). Thus, we would avoid having to name a missed record our of sequence (Robot Visions [12]), and it would also go some way to describe each title. This would make a description less necessary, but it can still be added if desired. I would recommend naming the artwork on page ii as "Robot Visions (frontispiece)" while still making it's repeat on page 260 a variant. The only drawbacks to this, are that it's a bunch of edits, and we would want to notify the active primary verifiers of all the editions. Actually, it looks that aside from us three, that would only include Mhhutchins. We should also probably break the variant relationship for the Portuguese title. That title appears to be for all the artwork for the book and not just the frontispiece. This should be checked with the verifier. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:12, 16 February 2023 (EST)
Thanks for the suggestion Ron. I'm willing to tackle this. I was going to edit all the titles anyway so renaming them along the way doesn't seem like much more work. I think it's ok to start with the variant business you proposed above? As I said up there (but easily missed because I foolishly inserted it in the middle of the thread) I already have a submission in for that. And as I asked up there, to create a title one just adds it to a publication, and if it doesn't match an existing title a new entry is created? Thanks. Fjh (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2023 (EST)
Sorry, I meant to answer that. But it sounds like you've got it. Just edit the publication and use the add title button. After you've added it to one publication, you can use the import tools to get it in the other publications. You'll need the Title Record # from either the newly added title (after it is approved), if you want to add an individual title, or you can import all the titles from the container that has the new one. The software is smart enough that it doesn't try to import titles that are already there, so you'll catch anything missing from the target record that is in the source record. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:00, 16 February 2023 (EST)

(unindent) Good idea putting the photos up for me to identify! It does take us a little further down the wormhole though.

  • We've each got all 12 artworks.
  • My versions of your p.37 (Too Bad!) & p.359 (Galley Slave) have been horizontally reversed - not that that matters to our titling, but it's a nice little observation to include in the Publication Notes if they're different from your description in the canonical title - for instance, in my publication notes I would add "The image for [........] has been reversed in this collection". This led me to consider how you would describe the art depiction in the Title Records#. The only thing I could come up with to overcome the 'direction' would be something like, for p.37, "....Robot facing page-right." and similarly for p.359. It's a bit more difficult with a couple of others... For the frontispiece (good one Ron) and p.260, the best indicator is the lighting on the robot's hand to page-left: brighter than the other one. For p.235 something like " of head hinged up towards page-left."
  • I like the titling method: "Robot Visions (frontispiece)", "Robot Visions (Introduction: The Robot Chronicles)" ...etc. This will cover all eventualities I think.
    Not precisely what I was suggesting. For the artwork on page 3, I would name it "Introduction: The Robot Chronicles"; "Robot Visions" for page 24, "Too Bad!" for page 42, etc. This is how these would be handled if this were a magazine. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:24, 17 February 2023 (EST)

I appreciate the work you're putting into this, I'm sure the end result will be rewarding :) Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2023 (EST)

It's good practice doing different kinds of edits. I drafted descriptions for each piece of art, if anyone wants to suggest improvements before I start submitting them. Fjh (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2023 (EST)
I think you've done a pretty good job of meeting your goals there! Here are some suggestions for you:
  • Too Bad! - "...glasses at left and man at right standing..." - i.e. lose the brackets.
  • The Bicentennial Man - again, lose the brackets, plus:
  • Make this the canonical and the frontispiece the variant - if a publisher is going to drop one of them, it'd probably be the frontispiece - yes/no?.
  • "Robot in open shirt, holding board over its head. Pens in robot's left shirt pocket."
  • frontispiece - "Same illustration as for The Bicentennial Man. Robot in open shirt, holding board over its head. Pens in robot's left shirt pocket." - the use of 'variant' could be misconstrued?
The other nine descriptions are excellent, and I also like Ron's magazine-like title treatment. Hope this helps.
Btw Ron, how much do we owe you for the rent? :) Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2023 (EST)
No charge. My talk page is your talk page. I just appreciate you and Fjh doing all this work. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:02, 21 February 2023 (EST)
Thanks for the suggestions Kev. Unfortunately by the time I saw them some edits had already landed. You can of course edit again. Sorry too for my long absence, but I am still working on this and eager to wrap it up. Fjh (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2023 (EDT)
No problem, thanks for the update. Like you, I'm waiting for the edits to land :) Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2023 (EDT)


latest update Fjh (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2023 (EDT)

Early Asimov Book One

Thanks for moderating my submission to add the introduction to the contents. Unfortunately I did it wrong. A new title was created when I wanted to link to this one. (I have both books in front of me and the contents are the same.) I don't suppose you have an undo function for that submission? If not then I think I need to:

  • "Remove Titles From This Pub" to get rid of what I just added
  • "Import Content" to add it back, as a link to the existing title
  • delete the unwanted title, unless it magically evaporates when nothing links to it

Appreciate your patience as I learn how to do things here. Fjh (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2023 (EST)

No worries. This is actually easy to fix What you want to do is go to either title record and click on the Check for Duplicate Titles tool. This will bring up a list showing both titles. Check both boxes and then click the merge selected records button. There is another page where you would be able to see conflicts and decide what to do with them. In this case, there are none, so you can just click on Complete Merge. Once approved, both publications will have the same title. For your future information, what you wanted to do (i.e. what would have done this in a single edit) is to use the Import Content tool from the publication record. You would then use option 2 to import an individual title. Let me know if you run into any problems. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:23, 16 February 2023 (EST)
done! that was easy, thanks Fjh (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2023 (EST)

Masque of Mañana; Does the ISBN-13 on back cover barcode count? Note says there's none in the second printing, just the ISBN-10 from the original edition. I just fixed the printing wording in the note to what it really says on the copyright page. --Username (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2023 (EST)

I'd say no. All of the copyright page and the stated ISBNs above and below the barcode show the 10 digit ISBN. That's probably Don's note, and I suspect it was added because this would have shown up on the cleanup report. However, it's long since been marked as ignored, and removed from that report. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:34, 17 February 2023 (EST)

Baby; I made an edit in 2021 for this, you just made an edit, the copy is an uncorrected proof with a higher page count (someone actually wrote in page numbers with a pen), so is it acceptable here to add a link even if it's not exactly the same or should the link be moved to the title record? Because I've seen some other proofs for various books that could be added if it is acceptable. Also, the 1982 Dell PB has been on even longer than the proof but was never entered so I just did that but the 1 copy I can see on Amazon has a totally white cover instead of totally black. Not sure what that means; I doubt they released alternate covers for such a relatively minor work but who knows. --Username (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2023 (EST)

I hadn't realized that the scan was of a proof, which we don't and shouldn't track in the database. I've removed the link and the data added as a result of that scan. I wouldn't add it to the title record. We generally don't track proofs here as they don't meet the definition of published. I did question the note about a publication month that was determined by examining a pre-publication scan. It seems wrong to me, insofar as anything in the proof is merely predictive and there is no way of knowing whether the schedule slipped between when the proof was issued and the book was eventually published. However, the note is likely sufficient to indicate that the publication month we have is unreliable. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:31, 20 February 2023 (EST)

Asimov & Silverberg - Nightfall

Hi Ron, could you check the title of the essay here. Should yours be titled To the Reader (Nightfall)? If so, I'm handling four other titles and can fix yours at the same time. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2023 (EST)

Yes, it is titled "To the Reader". Please go ahead and change it with the others. Thanks! --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:40, 20 February 2023 (EST)
Great, will do. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2023 (EST)

1000 Faces; It wasn't supposed to be a mod note, it was supposed to be a note explaining that the price was changed from what was there before when someone entered the wrong price. --Username (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2023 (EST)

Why would we want that in a publication note? After the price is changed, there is no context to show that the price was ever anything else than what is shown. We don't add publication notes stating that incorrect data was changed and I'm unaware that you've ever done so in the past. That note is totally appropriate for a moderator note, but not for a publication note. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:22, 21 February 2023 (EST)
OK, if you say so. --Username (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2023 (EST)

Boucher - "S-F Books - 1960" or "S-F Books: 1960"?

Ron, could you check your copy of The 6th Annual of the Year's Best S-F to see exactly how Boucher's essay is titled - I suspect it might be "S-F Books: 1960". If it is, and it's ok with you, I'll make the change. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2023 (EST)

Please proceed with the change. The tile with the dash (actually looks like an em dash), appears that way in the table of contents. The title page uses the colon. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:09, 21 February 2023 (EST)

Dark Music; LCCN ID added, publisher was longer, checked FantLab and longer name's on title page so I made it so. --Username (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2023 (EST)

Please don't do that this way. As I know I've explained before, if you change the publisher on the only publication by that publisher, you effectively erase the existing record for that publisher, and all the data contained therein. It's better to update the publisher record directly (or if that's a moderator only function, ask on the moderator board that it be done). I'm going to reject this edit and I'll update the publisher record as to preserve the existing notes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:37, 22 February 2023 (EST)
So you're saying I should have added LCCN ID and then made another edit in the publisher record changing their name? Is that how it's supposed to be done? Also, I did some edits for 2 books by the same author (C. Pallen) from Manhattanville Press, the only 2 books on ISFDB from that publisher, 1 of which started with "The" and the other, published much later, which didn't, so I differed them; since there's no info on that publisher record it doesn't matter that I changed it from within the book record, right? Is that what you're saying? Also, if the Herald info had been lost it would have been a shame since I'm the one who added it in the first place. --Username (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2023 (EST)
Yes, when you change the publisher within a publication record, what you're really doing is removing the existing publisher, and adding a new one. If you remove the last publication to which the old publisher refers, the software will delete that publisher record. So yes, in this case you should have done it in two edits. For your other example, it's correct that it doesn't matter if the publisher being deleted has no additional data. If it had, what you would want to do is to merge the two publishers, which I'm fairly certain is a moderator only function. Even then, if both publisher records have conflicting data, that would have to be resolved during the merge. Hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:10, 22 February 2023 (EST)

Sutro; Transient, couple of titles differ from contents page but I assume you entered them as they appeared at story heads, but "Ships That Pass" says 73, not 23, in copy just added to Dalby's site; Was that an error in book or an entry error here? --Username (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2023 (EST)

Unfortunately, I no longer have that copy. Thus the transient verification. I think it's likely that the page number is our typo, given the record numbers of the individual titles. Please feel free to change that if you'd like. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:14, 23 February 2023 (EST); Fixed page number and another story's date which was actually published years earlier. --Username (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2023 (EST)

Introduction for The Wit and Wisdom of Discworld


you verified two variants of the book ( and I think the title record for the introduction is very likely wrong. It should be "Introduction: Through the Wardrobe Into Discworld". At least for the ebook I'm sure the title should be as said via Amazon LookInside: That would also remove the duplicate title with "&" and "and", as adding the book name would no longer be necessary. Also it would match the German translation title.

Can you please verify if that's true for your copy? --Stoecker (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2023 (EST)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've corrected the titles. I also corrected the book title of the first printing and reversed the parent variant relationship. I'm pretty sure that Doubleday wouldn't have changed between printings, and I'm sure the "and" was introduced because of the cover title. I was also able to verify the Harper trade paperback as having an ampersand for the Amazon look inside version. Oddly, the Harper eBook, uses "and". I suspect some of the other "and" printing are incorrect, but can't find evidence to switch them. In any case, I left the variant of the translation of the introduction to you. Thanks again. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:02, 25 February 2023 (EST)

J.W.; I think co-editor is this guy, --Username (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2023 (EST)

Fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:35, 26 February 2023 (EST)

Futures Forestalled ... for Now: South African Science Fiction and Futurism

I was taking a look at this publication based on this discussion. As far as I can tell, this is an essay (and not a publication) that appeared in the non-genre magazine Current Writing. I wanted to check with you as the processing moderator to see if you saw something I missed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2023 (EST)

Looking at the submission, I probably thought I was skipping it rather than approving it. I never intentionally approve submissions with a image link from a site for which we don't have permissions. I do give deference when the submitter is working from their own copy, but the image warning would have made me think this one should not be approved without contacting the submitter. The verifier was active recently. It may be worth reaching out to them to see what they thought they were adding. It looks like this may need to be converted to an essay in a non-genre magazine. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:28, 26 February 2023 (EST)

Peter Archer (I) adaptations of Oz novels

Hi, Ron. Recently I recognized that your Peter Archer A359605 is distinct from others, so I revised your verified record of The Road to Oz picture book adaptation, in its 3rd printing of 2009 edition P366091, to distinguish the adapter as Peter Archer (I). A second edit/self-approve was necessary for the chapbook title --you probably know; I didn't.

Pursuing Peter Archer (I), I learned that that is a joint pseudonym. More descriptive disambiguators and fewer roman numerals are used here recently (CoViD era, i have noticed since returning). Perhaps "Peter Archer (pseudonym)" would be a better choice.

Byron and Kathryn Jackson are new to the database. (Husband and wife seem likely but I didn't find it stated.) From library records I learned that they adapted at least three Oz novels for Little Golden Books in the early 1950s. Last hour I added the other two as 1952 chapbooks. Library of Congress reports no other Peter Archer adaptations of Oz. WorldCat does not enable any such negative conclusions, as far as I know.

The number of submissions was greater than should have been. If I understand correctly, best practice is to set all toggles {Non-Genre ; Juvenile ; Novelization ; Graphic Format} and set Length if known --all for the child SHORTFICTION created as content of the new CHAPBOOK. Only then, make that one a variant. Then put parent SHORTFICTION in a series, or add title Note or Synopsis, if appropriate. Right?

How many of the 4 toggles and Length should be set for the CHAPBOOKs? Here I made the child CHAPBOOK juvenile. Then make CHAPBOOK a variant. New parent CHAPBOOK gets a Note occasionally; no Synopsis or series.

Your verified Road to Oz contains CHAPBOOK "The Road to Oz (abridged)" and SHORTFICTION "The Road to Oz". I did not name any of the four 1952 CHAPBOOKs and SHORTFICTION "(abridged)". What do you think nowadays?

Take a look at all these Peter Archer (I) records if and when you have a chance. For the next 10 days I will be away from home, and maybe away from ISFDB. --Pwendt|talk 21:18, 26 February 2023 (EST)

I have a larger concern about these records. My understanding is that an adapter should not be listed with an author credit, but should be reflected in the notes only. It appears these records were changed after I verified the copy. I'm going to start a new Rules and Standards discussion to ensure my understanding is correct. Regarding your question about the flags being used on CHAPBOOK titles. Non-Genre seems appropriate for chapbooks, as it would place the title record at the bottom of the author's bibliography. The other flags, to my mind appear to apply specifically to the SHORTFICTION, and not to the container (CHAPBOOK). That's just my opinion, and you could pose that question on one of the community boards to get wider input. I did add the disambiguator (abridged) to the SHORTFICTION title. This especially makes sense if the adapter is not listed as an author. It's partially to prevent the software from presenting it as a duplicate of the novel. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:33, 4 March 2023 (EST)
I have been away for most of this fortnight. Now I have redd that new discussion Adaptations and Abridgements (at Rules and Standards).
For my information, does the 2015 publication update by Mhhutchins [1] show up on your report "My Changed Primary Verifications [New!]" or is the report limited in scope to "recent" updates?
No it does not. The oldest update listed is from October 2016. This may have been when that report or the underlying data supporting it was added.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:06, 11 March 2023 (EST)
I agree that the story title should be disambiguated, such as "(abridged)" or "(adapted)". I guess I would call this one an adaptation but I haven't seen it. With DougH, I would prefer to see those or similar parenthetical notations used when titles do not match.
I'll take your suggestion concerning CHAPBOOK titles as Juvenile, etc. --Pwendt|talk 17:06, 10 March 2023 (EST)

Rohmer's Bast Pyramid Cover; page for this book says J. Lombardero did the cover and I see a little JL on the lower right. I assume if his name was in the book you would have entered it so how should it be entered? --Username (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2023 (EST)

Well your eyes are better than mine. I can't find the initials even with a magnifying glass. Since the artist is not credited in the book, you should add it as the canonical name, i.e. Joseph Lombardero. When you not the source, I'd go with "The Page of Fu Manchu". Galactic Central ( hosts a large number of indexes and bibliographies, so giving the domain name doesn't really give enough information to identify the source. Especially, as in this case, when they are only hosting the site, rather than creating it. Good find. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:51, 28 February 2023 (EST)
OK, I made an edit, but this,, reveals that the other 5 Pyramid covers done by Lombardero for Rohmer have all been entered, but as J. It's a mess, with 1 PV mentioning the artist is credited on the back cover (as J.), 1 non-PV mentioning the same thing, some not mentioning anything, etc. Only 1 has an active PV (I think), MLB, and he doesn't complain much about change these days, so if you or some other Rohmer fan wanted to look at this further I'm sure you could probably improve things. I assume your back cover doesn't say anything; if it does it would probably say J., which means my edit entering Joseph will need to be cancelled. --Username (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2023 (EST)
As I mentioned above, there is no credit on the book, which includes the back cover. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:43, 28 February 2023 (EST)

My Favorites in Suspense; I believe the other copy, which you worked on, is a book club edition. It has the same incomplete copyright page as the one here,; publisher should be Random House / BCE, I think. There's also the question of where external ID's really belong since neither copy is the original edition. --Username (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2023 (EST)

Well, no. this publication record is clearly for the trade edition. The link to the scan was added to the record. The record was not created from that scan. I guess that may be a scan of a book club edition, but there's not really enough evidence to say definitively. It's possible that the copyright page of the trade edition would include a printing or edition statement, or the LCCN. However, there are many examples of trade books that do not. If we were certain that the scan was for a book club edition, it should be removed from this record, but I'm not certain. Feel free to clone that record to create a record for the book club edition, if you'd like. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:32, 2 March 2023 (EST)
Well, OK. At least there'll be another edition here soon once mine is approved. I see there's this, too,, a third printing, so I don't know how many times they printed this thing, but I also found this,, a first printing, so that's likely the original non-book club edition. --Username (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2023 (EST)
And thus you've proven that the title page differs for the first edition. I've removed the scan. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:01, 2 March 2023 (EST)

PKD - Dr. Bloodmoney

Hello Ron, I'm about to add a 2003 3rd printing of your 2004 4th printing and I notice that your novel title is the long version. Is that correct, or should it be just "Dr. Bloodmoney"?

edit... and what about this 1st printing while we're at it? Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2023 (EST)

I've changed the record for my copy. You should contact PeteYoung about the first printing. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 07:19, 4 March 2023 (EST)
Thanks Ron, I've alerted Pete to this. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2023 (EST)

Necronomicon's Reanimator; I corrected a minor mistake (On/One) but noticed that every cover I can see online says $3.95 on the lower right corner, not $3.50. SFE has a clear cover showing the price. Wrong verification or higher-priced reprint? --Username (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2023 (EST)

Chalker/Owings has the price as $3.50. They also note, as does Reginald3 that it was reprinted in 1985 with C/O stating that there were additional reprints after. I would assume that the covers you are seeing are from later printings. Reginald also has a variation in title between the 1977 and the 1985 editions, and I'm still researching that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:58, 4 March 2023 (EST)
I see price is $3.95 now; what changed? Also, you probably know already but there's this, too: --Username (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2023 (EST)
Well, after seeing that the cover included the date, and that it was listed on several sale listings described as the first edition from 1977, I determined that Chalker/Owings were probably in error about the price. Fantlab is for a different printing than the two I working with. Feel free to add it if you'd like. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:47, 4 March 2023 (EST)

Guinever's Gift; I made some changes in case that affects your verifications since this isn't the regular edition. --Username (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2023 (EST)

Please don't make edits converting the publication record of the trade edition of a book into the book club edition. The record you were trying to change is clearly for the trade edition. It includes the ISBN. The linked Worldcat record has the ISBN and notes first edition. The publisher name nor the notes indicate that it is a book club edition. The only piece of data that is incorrect is the link to the scan (which I've now removed). As that link was obtained from a Worldcat record which also indicates that it is a first edition, and upon your further research it is incorrect. The problem with the edit you attempted is that it effectively deletes the trad edition and replaces it with a book club edition. It also would create a record with incorrect external ids as they all refer to the trade edition. I'm going to reject your edit for these reasons. If you wish to add the book club edition, please submit a new edit cloning the existing record, which is a better approach as it doesn't delete the trade edition. Also, if you see a publication record with an incorrect scan, feel free to submit an edit removing that link with an explanation that it belongs to a different edition. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:20, 4 March 2023 (EST)
I added LCCN, cover artist (only photo of full back flap I could find anywhere and even then it's barely legible) and cover image to trade edition; however, I can't find price anywhere since almost every auction online is for the book club, so maybe you or someone can find it. --Username (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2023 (EST)

Dark Carnival Date; I added LCCN and also month/day to reg. title and cover art only to see Wiki says October, not May 10. Did you write the note about where the exact date came from? --Username (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2023 (EST)

I did not, but it is in the LOC Catalog of Copyright Entries on page 192 here. That note appears to have been added by PatConolly on 2019-09-15. My only complaint about your edit is that LCCN numbers of that vintage generally have a dash instead of 0s. I don't know precisely when LOC stopped using the dashes, but is was at the end of the 20th century. Since the LCCN does not appear in the the book, it's a minor quibble. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:53, 5 March 2023 (EST)
I enter LCCN as they appear on the LoC site; as long as clicking the ID link leads to the right page on their site it seems OK to me. If pre-2000 LCCN should have had dashes then somebody should have said something before countless moderators approved the hundreds/thousands of LCCN I've entered in the last 2+ years. I think I'll ask on Community if anyone can whip up something that can automatically change all LCCN entered here with 00 to -; unlikely but you never know. In this case I'll cancel my edit and enter it with the dash since this is a seminal work that should have info entered exactly right. Re: the date, it seems more right to me that a horror collection would be released in the month of Halloween, but then most of what Arkham House released was horror so it could very well have been released earlier like other books of theirs that year; just to be safe I'll remove the month changes and just do the LCCN. If anyone can say for sure what the exact date is then those can be changed later. EDIT: I added LCCN with the dash and the FantLab ID which I've somehow never entered and noticed something: there are several cover photos on their site and it's signed G. Barrows + front flap says George Barrows, yet George Burrows is entered here. --Username (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2023 (EST)
The artist name should be changed. However, it would be best to change at the author level. I'll check with the other verifiers to ensure it's ok to change all instances. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:35, 5 March 2023 (EST)


Re: your rejection, it was discussed with him/her on their board under the title "A Month of Mystery". Usually we wait until they reply before rejecting (which rarely happens because they usually agree with the changes(s) I made). I'm not clear on what you mean about deleting the trade edition, the one that I entered recently. PV edition is book club (fewer pages; and needs BCE in publisher to differ it from the trade edition. --Username (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2023 (EST)

The policy is that you should seek (and receive) agreement before you submit the edit. I know that's how I've explained it to you in the past. The current record is for a trade edition of the book that has been verified by two editors. If your edit had been approved, there would no longer be a record for the first printing of the trade edition. There would only be a record for a book club edition and the second printing of the trade edition. Even if Swfritter agreed that their copy is a book club edition, there would still be a verification for the trade edition that can't be questioned as the editor is no longer active. What you should have done, is to clone this publication record to make a record for the book club edition. Then if Swfritter has the BCE, they should move their verification to the new record. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:51, 6 March 2023 (EST)
I see. OK. I think I'll give up on this particular area of editing; way too many books were PV that have wrong info entered, in many cases this same issue of people not knowing or caring exactly what edition of the book they had, and my trying to fix them is more trouble than it's worth. There's endless other things to be done here. --Username (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2023 (EST)

Stained-Glass World; You're the last person in the edit history so I'm letting you know that when I was adding an link I noticed that even though it says July in book and in note here someone entered the month as April. --Username (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2023 (EST)

Well, since my edit added only Worldcat and Reginald numbers and neither source gives more than the year, I have no special insight as to what the date should be. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:41, 6 March 2023 (EST)

Great Disciple; I made the 1 missing story that I added to this collection a variant of author's parent name but what's the procedure to get rid of the 6 variant titles in the contents? Should I correct the titles under the alternate name as I did for the name used in the book? --Username (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2023 (EST)

I'm not sure I completely understand what you are asking. Are you saying that there are title records in this book that are incorrect? If so, what you depends on whether they occur in any other publications. If not, then you can correct the title record. If the title is in another publication, then you should add a new title to this publication record, and make it a variant to the canonical title. You would then need to remove the incorrect title record from this publication. If you are asking about something else, please explain further. Links to the titles you think are incorrect and what you think needs updating would be helpful. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:04, 8 March 2023 (EST)
I'm asking about the 6 stories in the link that say "variant"; as you know since you approved it, I corrected several incorrect titles but those titles are still incorrect under the alternate name. So how do I get both names to display the same correct title? Do I have to retitle them individually, merge, or something else? --Username (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2023 (EST)
All of the contained titles in that work are variants. However, when a variant differs in title from its parent, it is displayed with both titles. If you updated the canonical title, it would have no effect on the variant title. This makes sense as one of the purposes of variant titles is to show variations in title. Then my answer above is what you want and how you'd proceed depends on whether the variant title appears in other publications or not. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:34, 8 March 2023 (EST)

Hyde & Wintz - Précieuses reliques

Hello Ron, could you process my submission for this title that I asked in the Moderator note to not process. Marty has given me great advice which I will take post approval. I'll fix the titling, "nom" -> "Nom" and anything else I can find. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2023 (EST)

Sure. Done. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:16, 8 March 2023 (EST)
Smooth running :) Thanks. Kev.--BanjoKev (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2023 (EST)

Resurrectionist; Isn't the procedure to unmerge when the artist name is different as I explained in my note, HefferMan vs. HefferNan? --Username (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2023 (EST)

It's easier to remove the incorrect COVERART title from the publication that is in error. Then add a new COVERART title to the same pub. These can be done in either order, but best to explain in the notes to the moderator what is intended for subsequent edits. Of course you'll also have to build the variant relationship once the new title is created. The issue with unmerging, is that until you update the author credit on the unmerged title, it will appear as a potential duplicate both in the cleanup reports and if anyone checks for duplicates. Given that approvals are running two days behind from submissions, that creates a window where the titles could get re-merged. I will note that you could have expanded a bit in your note to the moderator. Maybe specifically stating that the author credit is different rather than listing the two names and expecting the moderator to recognize they differ. Your note left me wondering if you wanted to make a variant between the paperback and hardcover editions because of differences in trim. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:54, 9 March 2023 (EST)

Same or different authors / artists?

Hello, Ron! We have both Tania Ianovskaia and Tatiana Ianovskaia, both did interior art related to Lewis Carroll's work, which brings up the question if they are related, or even maybe one and the same person. They both pop up in publications verified by you, for example here (Tania). Would it be possible for you to take a look into the identities? Christian Stonecreek (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2023 (EST)

Hi Christian
The credits are as they appear in each book. The Annotated Alice has short biographies of the artists and mentions that Tatiana illustrated some Carroll books that were published by "Tania Press". There's also this post from the Lewis Carroll Society of North America that uses both "Tania" in the header, and "Tatiana" in the body of the post. I think this is enough evidence that they are the same person, and I'm going to make the variant relationship. Despite the number of titles that we have, I'm going to make Tatiana canonical. From what I'm seeing, that appear to be how she is most often credited in books which we don't seem to have in the database, but could. Thanks for finding this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:57, 9 March 2023 (EST)
Tanya/Tania is also a very common diminutive for Tatiana in Russian (it is also a name on its own of course). Which also adds to the evidence. Annie (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2023 (EST)

The Minotaur Trilogy

Hello Ron. Regarding this pblication. Cound you ell me if your copy is a limited edition (of 500) signed by Charles de Lint, George Barr, Robert Collins and Mathew Hargreaves. --Mavmaramis (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2023 (EST)

It is. I'm guessing that you are asking because you want to verify the publication? If so, feel free to add notes about the limitation, or I can do that if you'd prefer. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:33, 9 March 2023 (EST)
I will indeed be verifying it once the copy I ordered arrives from the US. --Mavmaramis (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2023 (EST)

Coming Attractions in F&SF July-Aug 2015

Hi, you're one of 2 PVs of this magazine issue. The Coming Attractions seems to have a couple of minor (*) issues:

  • It's categorized as a COLLECTION, should be an ESSAY I think?
  • The "July-June" in the title seems a bit odd, looking at the similar entry in other issues, I'm guessing it should be "July-August"?

(* - minor, but the unexpected type is enough to break some program code I'm working on that is using the short fiction data...)

Thanks ErsatzCulture (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2023 (EST)

Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:13, 11 March 2023 (EST)

Aldiss - Cryptozoic!

Hi Ron, re this 1st printing, am I right in thinking we record the "official" pub date, not when it becomes available? and Amazon date is 2017-11-02. What do you think?

Even worse, Open Library has 2017-03-19. Kev.

My recollection is that there have been several discussions regarding publication dates over the years. I did find a recent update discussion that points to this template (see Discrepancies Between Stated Date and Reality). Looking at the edit history, it appears that PeteYoung changed the date and added that note. You may want to reach out to him to find out what his thought process was. I've no objection if the date changes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:28, 11 March 2023 (EST)
Thanks for taking the time to root out those links for me and I've left a note on his page. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2023 (EST)
As a Transient verifier I'll defer to the PVs. No problem here if the date is amended. Thanks for the heads up. PeteYoung (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2023 (EDT)
Thanks both of you for your help. I've submitted an edit to change the date and expand the notes. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2023 (EDT)


Hello, as you're in the list of moderators handling my most recent submission, can you please comment on --Stoecker (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (EST)

Necropolis;; While adding LCCN and FantLab ID to Arkham House first printing, which you PV, I noticed 1 of the FantLab photos says second printing on copyright page. Second isn't verified here so I don't know if seeing an actual photo would help to add anything. --Username (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2023 (EDT)

I don't read Russian, is the Fantlab record for the first or second printing? Since they are showing pictures of the reprint and show no data that is inconsistent with the reprint, I would assume it's for the second printing. In that case the Fantlab id should be added to that record and not that of the first printing. If that record is for the first printing, then showing only photographs of the second printing is misleading. Please cancel your submission and add only the LCCN to the first printing. You can add the Fantlab ID can be added to the record for the second printing with any additional data that you can find from that record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:46, 12 March 2023 (EDT)
Right-click, "Translate to English". Also, I'll cancel and just add LCCN; there's already a link to an copy of the first printing, so if anyone ever has the second printing and PV it that'll be better than relying on FantLab's usual jumble of random photos without any context. --Username (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2023 (EDT)

Thieves' World Printing; What's the number line in your copy which you said is 2nd printing? Because there's one of those OL-only non-preview copies which has 2 4 6 8 0 9 7 5 3; I think that means 3rd printing, which is not on ISFDB. There are many other Asprin books which are also OL-only. --Username (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2023 (EDT)

That number line, which matches the one in my copy, is for a second printing. You'll note that the lowest number in the line is "2". Sometimes publishers put the odd numbers on one side with the even numbers on the other. My understanding is that number lines were created so that the plates for a printing could be used for a subsequent printing by scraping off the prior printing number. When a number line is done in the manner of this one, it keeps the line roughly centered on the page as each number is scraped off. Hope that helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:44, 13 March 2023 (EDT)
Yes, so I'll add the link to your PV. --Username (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2023 (EDT)

Image delete

Hi Ron, with reference to your approvals 5604143 and 5604180, could you delete the related, old images here and here for me, to prevent them being reverted. The old ones do not have the Haldeman quote. Thanks, Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2023 (EDT)

Done. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:40, 15 March 2023 (EDT)

Asimov G&S; Copy uploaded on in 2014, your PV in 2019, I want to add a link but the front flap price, $50.00, and the back flap month, 0388, are visible along with artist's signature on back cover (good for notes), so I want to enter those, too. Is your copy coverless, which would explain why you didn't enter those bits of info? --Username (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2023 (EDT)

My copy does have a jacket. However, the price is inked out. I suspect that it was originally given as a gift as there is an inscription on the flyleaf. I'm less sure about dating by the jacket date and have started a Rules and Standards discussion to see how we want to treat these dates. However, I was able to get a full publication date from the LOC copyright record, so the jacket date is moot in this case. I generally don't note the source of the artist credit when it is somewhere in the book. If we were to do this for every piece of data in the record, it would soon get unwieldy. I might have done so if the artist was identified by signature alone, since that can be a matter of interpretation. I did add a note about the copyright office, because that source is unexpected. As I approve my own edits, I don't need to let the moderator know where the data came from. It's still a good idea to add such sources in the moderator notes. Thanks for finding the scan. I've also added that to the record. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:37, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

Run; The 1999 date was wrong, as should have been obvious juding by the awards which were for books published in 2000, but apparently someone entered the date long ago from somewhere and never bothered changing it; the HC is 2000, PB is 2001. When I entered the new PB edition the merged title date still said 1999 because my edit changing it to the correct date of 2000 hadn't been approved yet. That's why, so this should be un-rejected so the correct title date is shown. --Username (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2023 (EDT)

My mistake for thinking you were adding a 1999 publication. I'm still not used to the title data appearing on the publication update approval page, which was a recent change. As it was, I had originally skipped the title update as there was no explanation in the moderator notes as to why you were making the change. Even here, I'm not sure that dating based on award years is dispositive. However, I've checked Worldcat and the earliest publication they have is from 2000, so I'll go ahead and approve this one. You frequently add moderator notes, but not always. You may want to add them to more edits, especially, as in this case, when the reasons for your edit are unclear. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:51, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

Dance of Demons; I've been trying to standardize New Infinities books, as I said on Community Portal, and you are the only active PV of the 5 Gord books, but while the other cover images are the same as the covers of the copies the image for Dance of Demons has the same ID on the upper left that I mentioned re: Sea of Death on CP while the copy,, doesn't, and also it has New Infinities and BSM logo while image doesn't. So it seems there are other editions out there. --Username (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2023 (EDT)

I no longer have access to the book as evidenced by the fact that the verification is transient. I don't recall whether that scan was from my physical copy or not. Please feel free to upload a new cover from the Internet Archive scan. Let me know when you've done so and I can delete the old scan. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 09:57, 18 March 2023 (EDT)
Can't do that as it's dark, was photographed badly with lens flare, and has a price sticker on it. There's several copies on eBay. I'm just trying to fix the various publisher names and get them all down to 2, with Ace and without; I get the feeling after I'm done with that some new editions with those ID's on the cover will be added and then cover images can be taken care of for everything. The one New Infinities cover by Gygax that I tried to replace ISFDB's cover with gave me a warning because it's a "nicholls" which is not one of the approved subdirectories on SFE, even though it probably should be because Peter Nicholls passed away a few years ago. Maybe somebody here with some pull can convince them to grant access to more of their images. --Username (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

The One Tree

Mine says:

  • "First Hardcover Edition: April 1982"
  • "First International Edition: April 1982"

Thus seems to indicate a publication date of April 1982 instead of 1983 for del rey's pb edition. I also spot some layout differences on the cover, so maybe this is a different edition? --Spacecow (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (EDT)

Hi Spacecow
You have a different edition. Mine has "First Edition: April 1982" over "Paperback format:" over "First Edition: April 1983". There is no mention of an international edition, nor is the first edition specified as hardcover, though you could assume so as the paperback edition is specified. Hope that helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:53, 18 March 2023 (EDT)
Thanks for fast reply. I'll create a new publication. --Spacecow (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2023 (EDT)

Cadigan - Synners

Hello Ron, can I suggest the pagination for the 1st printing should be xiii+475. Gaiman's introduction finishes on the last numbered page xiii before the novel. And pages 476-477 are acknowledgements and unnumbered. Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2023 (EDT)

I completely agree with your proposed change. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:33, 19 March 2023 (EDT)
And submitted :) Kev. --BanjoKev (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2023 (EDT)