User talk:Stonecreek/Archive1

< User talk:Stonecreek
Revision as of 13:07, 26 February 2023 by Stonecreek (talk | contribs) (→‎Photo of Kir Bulychev: disabling template)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Stonecreek/Archive1, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BLongley 14:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Art in Quest

Hi, and welcome. I have a question and comment about your change to Quest. Is Thomas Thiemeyer also the cover artist, or did he only do the six illustrations you mention in the new note? The "Artist" field is for the cover artist(s). Interior artwork is credited by adding another content entry (as you did for the illustration on p. 6). If you do not want to create one content entry per illustration, you can create on general entry (with no page number) using the title of the book and type INTERIORART, with the artist as author. You do not have to do this, I only mention it because I know the purpose of the "Artist" field is not always obvious. Welcome again, and thank you for contributing! --MartyD 12:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Marty. My real forename is Christian. Thank you for your question. I will change the comment into a content entry. And yes, Thiemeyer is also the cover artist.


Hello. I'm trying to understand the note for deleting Countdown where you said "I found out that it's bibliographically incorrect in the ISFDB to give the original titles of stories instead of the translated (then variant) titles." It appears the title is stated as Countdown on

Is the issue that all of the story titles in the contents are translated? If so, I think it's a little less typing to do edit-pub, add the German titles, "Remove Titles From This Pub", and to select and remove the English titles. One benefit is that you can copy/paste the author names and related stuff on the edit-pub screen as you fill in the German titles. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Marc. My real name is Christian Steinbacher. Thank you for your very useful suggestion. I deleted the old deletion request and submitted a change request. Yes, that makes ii a lot easier. Thank you, again Stonecreek 10:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The ISFDB doesn't currently support translated title records for shortfiction (this feature is planned for the future, but that appears to be far down the road.) I believe Marc may have misunderstood your intentions with the first edit of this record. Shortfiction records for translated works should be entered using their original English title and merged with the title record already in the database. No variant titles records should be created for translated titles. I will reject the submission and restore the record to its original state. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, translations have proved to be a bigger can of worms than expected. On the plus side, I have more time for development now and I am slowly working my way through the accumulated odds and ends, so we are getting there. Ahasuerus 23:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you two. As I understand the background of the ISFDB it is the common policy to give the variant titles of a work. And when Clarke's "The Lion of Comarre" is published as "Der Löwe von Comarre" this is an alternative title. So, why don't we file it as such? What remains to do is to make it a variant title, but this I have seen already hundreds of times and I'd do it, although it means a hell of a lot of work (but I keep notes). Also, there is (as I understand) work in progress to include translators and translations. I can understand that you don't want to have crammed the ISFDB with variant titles on the same level as the original works, but when you make them variant they are pushed to the right and marked as such. I fear that we opened the can of worms when we started working on the ISFDB, what do you think? So, be assured that I am willing to make variant titles when there are variant titles. What does look better (at least for the author) than an bibliography of a work of fiction than this, f.e. (for "Das Jesus-Video" by Andreas Eschbach):

French: Jésus video, translated by Claire Duval. (Edition L'Atalante, Nantes 2001) ISBN 2-84172-167-1 Italian: Lo specchio di Dio. (Fanucci Editore, Roma 2002) ISBN 88-347-0892-X Japanese: (HAYAKAWA SHOBO, Tokio, 2003) ISBN 4-15-041030-5 und ISBN 4-15-041031-3 Polish: Wideo z Jezusem, translated by Joanna Filipek. (SOLARIS, 2004) ISBN 83-88431-98-6 Dutch: Het Messias Mysterie, translated by Peter de Rijk. (Karakter Uitgevers) ISBN 90-6112-043-8 Russian: Видео Иисус, translated by T. Nabatnikow. (Zakharov Publishers, 2005) ISBN 5-8159-0433-3 Spanich: El vídeo jesús, translated by Henrike Fesefeldt und José María Faraldo. (Bibliópolis, 2007) ISBN 978-84-96173-56-9 Hungarian: A jézus-video (Aranyszarvas Kiado, 2007) ISBN 978-963868787-6 Stonecreek 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the nuts & bolts explanation to Ahasuerus, but here's my take. When the structure of the database was designed and built, there must have be a a decision, whether conscious or not, that it was to be an English-language database. The display of non-English language publications was not part of that design. (The I in ISFDB stands for Internet not International.) Now two decades on, there's is a conscious effort to include all spec-fic regardless of language and the pigeon-holing efforts are obviously not working very well. You and other non-English language readers, editors, collectors, etc. have discovered the database and wish to add records for books in other languages. Great. We want your contributions. Should you wait until full support for other languages has been added to the database? I don't know and can't advice you on that point. I doubt that any past contributions can be fixed with a global change, but I'm not a software person and don't know if such a fix is possible. I'd hate to have you add all of these records only to have to go back and fix them manually. As for your question concerning the many translations of the Eschbach novel, you can add them to the title record of the original language. If it's French, then all the pub records would be added to that title, without creating variant title records. That's how the database currently works, and there's not another way around it. Having all translated titles appear on an author's summary page would just be too unwieldy, and not very user friendly. The goal (and Ahasuerus can say more about this) is to let the user have a language preference (or none), so that in any case, he would decide how the records are displayed. How far away that feature will be implemented, I can't say. Until then, it's up to you to decide how much you want to contribute to the database. Mhhutchins 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I can live with that, and will continue my work. Eschbach and anthologies by Alpers are at the time my first interest but English language authors are a future issue, f.e. Aldiss. And while I am at it: there seems to be no entry for Aldiss' Science Fiction Blues, a book I have a question for: It consists mainly of adaptations of stories into short plays. Shall I give the hint (play) in the title of each piece or better file it under the original story without the hint? Stonecreek 11:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
If they are adaptations of his stories, you can add "(play)" to the title. If they are original, just give the title. Leave the story type as SHORTFICTION without a length and record that they are plays in the note fields of the pub and in each story's title record. Mhhutchins 14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ernst Vlcek

Christian, I decided to cancel the author update you submitted for Ernst Vlcek.

You wanted to change the canonical name from "Ernest Vleck" to "Ernst Vleck." The canonical name is used in ISFDB to display author credits. I see that the author name Ernest Vleck is credited for two short stories and both of them appear in a verifie publication. If we changed the author name in this case then the name shown in the publication would also change. If you think the name was credited as Ernst Vleck, or even Ernst Vlcek, in those publications a better path is to have the verifier(s) re-check the publication(s) and to change them.

I saw that we already had a record for Ernst Vlcek and so went ahead with making Ernest Vleck a pseudonym. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Author legal name

A small "gotcha" in ISFDB is that the "Legal Name" field in ISFDB is "Lastname, Firstname Middlenames" which is different than the "Firstname Lastname" format we use everywhere else. I went ahead with correcting the entries you submitted for Thomas Thiemeyer, Michael K. Iwoleit, and Michael Iwoleit. With the latter two I cleaned it up so that Michael Iwoleit is a pseudonym of Michael K. Iwoleit. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Heyne SF Magazin 5

I've had to make adjustments to the update that you made for this magazine. You should always use the original title of the work, even if translated. All pieces originally written in German can retain the German title, but any that were originally written in English, even if translated into another language should use their English title. Also, any nonfiction work included in a larger work (book or magazine) should be entered using the ESSAY type. The NONFICTION type is used for book-length work. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Also when you get a chance, could you record the interior artwork individually giving each the name of the work it illustrates? Page numbers would help as well. This is not mandatory, but it's better to not record them as groups. If you'd rather not enter them as individual records, you can simply remove the group records from the pub entirely. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Der ewige Krieg by Haldeman

You will need to merge the German language title record with the English title record. What is the original English title? Mhhutchins 19:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Korpernikus 1

I accepted the submission adding this pub, but you should change the title records of the translated titles into that of the original titles and merge them with those records already in the database. Or if you can give me the list of original titles here I can simply merge them, which will save some time and several submissions. I'm assuming the Clarke story is "The Lion of Comarre" but am not sure of the original titles by Vinge ("Fool's Gold" ?) or Martin ("The Way of Cross and Dragon" ?). Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Die Rückkehr by Andreas Eschbach

I accepted the submission of this title but you failed to add the fiction content. Unlike submissions for novels where a title record is automatically generated, when adding chapterbooks you must create records for each of the contents including, but not limited to, fiction, essays, and interior art. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Die Falle von Dhogar by Andreas Eschbach

Same as above for this chapterbook. You'll need to add a content record for the fiction. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that I had to create content for chapterbooks. I will fix it until the next day. Stonecreek 11:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Interior Art

You've added several publications giving a question mark for the title of interiorart. These should be given titles, otherwise each of the artist's summary pages would be filled with ?s and add nothing to searches for his work. Unless the artwork is given individual titles (not very common), we give the records the title of the work which it illustrates. If there are more than one piece of artwork, the second record would be given the title with the additional of a bracketed number: "title [2]", the third record would be "title [3]", etc. Mhhutchins 00:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Der Traum des Astronauten

I'm holding a submission which wants to change this record from SHORTFICTION type to COLLECTION type. This is the title record for the story which is included on page 113 of the collection of the same name whose title record already exists here. (I had to re-create the collection's title record because you overwrote it when you updated the pub. That's not a good idea.) Please reject the submission if you feel it was submitted in error. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The publication was falsely indexed as novel. But in fact, it is a collection with 'Der Traum des Astronauten' being also the title of one story. Sorry if I mixed up two things in my submission. I tend to spend more attention into editing. Stonecreek 11:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Your submission corrected the pub's type and I added a new title record. It's in good shape now. I'll reject the submission making the short story's title record into a collection. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia's images

Unfortunately, I had to remove your link to . Wikipedia doesn't allow direct links to its images since they consider it "bandwidth theft". If they find that a site does that, they can block the offending site and we wouldn't want to violate their policies anyway. Ahasuerus 07:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for correcting the fauxpas. I would have thought that there is a working relationship with wikipedia. Stonecreek 14:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


The "new" pub you have submitted already exists [here], with a couple of minor differences. Most of the new publication records are generated by a data-mining robot called Fixer. Since the majority of these come from Amazon, and not just the US site, but the UK one, that fact is left in the notes until someone can correct it from a book in hand. Nearly always the page count is wrong. Even if the date in the book contains only the year, Amazon will fill out the rest, whether correct or not [the month usually is] but that's because their software will not enter a date with zeroes for either the month or day. Since the existing record noted above has not been verified, you could just correct it and submit [change the page count and add the artist and page numbers to the contents]. I wouldn't change the binding to a PB however, as the UK edition is 19.6 cm, making it a trade paperback or 'tp'. Usually we drop the day from the date unless there is some secondary source [a reviewer's slip for example] other than Amazon. As for the note you added, while the UK book is not on the US site, it is on the [UK] site. Thanks for editing! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a tp (not a pb), but what is different is the ISBN and that puzzles me, because I can find the book with the given ISBN at amazon, but not the one I purchased. Stonecreek 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A is for Brian

I've accepted the submissions updating this pub, but I'm a little concerned about the INTERIORART entries. Most appear to be photographs, and I'm not sure if it's ever been decided about how or even if photos should be entered into the database. I'm going to start a conversation on the Rules and Standards page, so please use it to voice your opinion on the matter. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has begun here. Mhhutchins 18:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nova 3 submission

Hello Christian. After some research I approved the addition of Nova 3, but I have a few questions. First, the publisher "Books on Demand". The first two editions of Nova were published by "Verlag Nummer Eins", and I can't find any reference to "Books on Demand" on the internet. Is it really published thus? Second, you have entered the first three editions as anthologies, but according to the publication's website, "NOVA ist ein deutsches Science Fiction-Magazin und erscheint seit Dezember 2002 dreimal jährlich (Frühjahr, Herbst und Winter)". I think Nova should have been entered as a magazine. See thishelp text under pub type. What do you think? If you need help, don't hesitate to ask. --Willem H. 10:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wilhelm. "Verlag Nummer Eins" was an attempt to establish an own publishing house by Ronald M. Hahn, but production and handling was at this point already done by Books On Demand, located in Norderstedt in Germany. With issue 3 of Nova BoD became the official publisher: note the different ISBN (3-8334 instead of 3-8311) for the publisher. Your second question: Yes, Nova calls itself a magazine but lacks some features of it, e.g. a letter column or some regular contributions. Also, it appears quite infrequently, now only about once a year. There is the Heyne Science Fiction Magazin, edited by Wolfgang Jeschke which faces a similar characterization. Stonecreek 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I was just wondering about this. We have another wonderful option to show the publications are connected, the publication series. Want to try that? --Willem H. 16:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion, but in this case there already is an anthology series named Nova, edited by Harry Harrison in the seventies. As I see it, this would lead to a mix-up. Stonecreek 19:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Harrison's Nova is a Title Series, Willem is suggesting a Publication Series. When there is only one publication of a title, then a publication series can be used instead of, or as well as, a Title Series. BLongley 19:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the good idea, you two. I have done it. So this anthology series will not be mixed up with other anthologies. Stonecreek 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this discussion, before creating a title series named Nova (German). I'm inclined to believe this is very similar to other anthology series and should be handled like New Dimensions, Universe, Orbit, etc. Publication series, for me, implies that the content is unrelated and is basically a marketing tool. If you disagree, please consider that Publication series are not grouped on an author's summary page and that Title series are. See how this series is displayed on the summary page for Ronald M. Hahn. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's even better. Thank you. Stonecreek 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, Title Series it is. BLongley 16:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unknown or uncredited cover art

According to the Help page:

Cover artist. Enter the artist for the cover art if known. If not known, leave blank. If the artist is not credited, but a signature is visible on the artwork, this can be used; if you do this, clarify in the Notes where you found the information. If there is both a signature and a printed credit, follow the printed credit. If you believe you recognize the artist's style but can see no actual attribution, make a note in the Notes field but don't enter the artist's name. If you know from a secondary bibliographic source who the artist is, but there is no attribution, enter the artist's name and also add a comment to the Notes field explaining the source of the attribution. Note that entering this information will actually create a "COVERART" content record, behind the scenes, with a title of "Cover: " followed by the title of the publication.

Don't enter "uncredited" as this creates a record for an artist named "uncredited". You can record that the cover is uncredited in the note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, didn't know that. Stonecreek 15:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Designating multiple pieces of interiorart

The help page gives this magazine as an example of entering interiorart. Notice that the first piece that illustrates the story simply has the story's title. The subsequent pieces are given a bracketed number in the order in which they appear in the magazine. I accepted the submission adding interiorart to this issue of Interzone, but the records will have to be amended to conform to the standard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done. Stonecreek 15:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Guardians of the Phoenix

Replaced the amazon scan (it wasn't the correct one) and added notes to your verified here. Hauck 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Interzone, February 1998

The update for this pub was accepted, but there are a couple of areas of concern. You note that there was a review of a recording. This can be entered as a content record under the ESSAY type: 61 - Review of "Talking in the Dark: An Evening of Horror Stories", a recording by Ramsey Campbell and Dennis Etchison - ESSAY - David Mathew. It's not necessary to note the type of recording. Also the standard for entering letters to an editor are such: Letter (<Magazine Title>). So the letters for this issue would be titled "Letter (Interzone, February 1998)". See this section of the Help page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Interzone, May 1998

I accepted the submission updating this issue but have a question about the change of page count from 68 to 66. Ordinarily a magazine's page count would be a multiple of 4 (based on the way most magazines are bound). It is also ISFDB policy to count the covers of a magazine as part of the page count (see here under Pages.) Also, the review of "Albedo One, #15, 1997" a magazine issue, should be made into an essay. If a review is for a series of issues all within a the same year, you could link the review to the magazine's editor record for the year. It can't be linked to a magazine's title record because...well...magazines don't have title records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The change to an essay is underway. I modeled the page count after your verification of the Interzone, August 1998, issue. But if it's correct to count those ad pages, I can change that as well. Stonecreek 09:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The page count on Issue 134 was an error which I'll correct (not sure if at the time the policy about counting covers was in place). The fact that they're ad pages would not have excluded them. There are ad pages throughout which we include in the page count. I just pulled out my copy of the issue and I see that the front cover is the first page in the count. The last numbered page is 66, and then the back cover adds an additional two pages to the total count. Mhhutchins 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded cover images

Hi. I approved a couple of your cover image additions, but they had the wrong page linked. Instead of using the main wiki page (e.g., ''''''), you need to use the link to the image file itself (e.g., ''''''). This like appears immediately below the display of the image on the image's main page. I did fix the ones you submitted, so just please keep that in mind for future uploads. Thanks! --MartyD 16:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I approved your edit to PR#2503 and PR#2295 to show the effect of adding the wrong link. You should use the image link instead of the image's wiki page. Try again? --Willem H. 20:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the links before I read this.Kraang 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Image linking to Wikipedia not allowed

Hi. I approved your edits to von Humboldt, but I removed the proposed image link to Wikipedia (''''''). We are not allowed to make deep links to Wikipedia, as they deem that bandwidth theft. See the "Author Image" section of Help:Screen:AuthorData and also ISFDB:Image_linking_permissions. Thanks. --MartyD 16:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Interzone, July 1998

Sorry, I placed the submission updating this earlier today, without letting you know why...and promptly forgot all about it. My question concerned the overwriting of the record for Dominic Harman's interiorart for "The Barrier". I don't think you meant to do that. You changed its title to the url "" and into an essay by Keith Brooke. I'm not sure what you were attempting here. I did see that you've created three new records for Harman's interiorart, though. There's a lot of new data in the submission that would be lost if I rejected it, so I'm tempted to accept it and then let you straighten it out. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and accepted the submission. Look at the entry on page 44. Mhhutchins 01:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
What happened is that I entered three new titles for the interior art by D.Harman, not aware that there already was an entry for one of them. As I realized the fact, I decided to overwrite the original with the entry for the essay by Keith Brooke, which wasn't in the contents before. Sorry to have caused some irritation, and: seasonal best wishes. Stonecreek 10:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Publication series "Rowohlt Paperback"

Hi Christian, with your latest addition (see this pub) we now have two books by the publisher "Rowohlt Taschenbuch", under two publication series ("rororo sachbuch" and "Rowohlt Paperback"). I'm wondering if these are true publication series, or just imprints of the publisher (Rowohlt). I can imagine a publication series called "rororo" (without the "sachbuch", since these seem to share the "rororo" logo on the left side of the front cover, but I can't even find "Rowohlt Paperback" on the publisher's website. Another thing is, we should keep the publisher as simple as possible. The database now has Rowohlt, the imprint Wunderlich/Rowohlt, Rowohlt Berlin and Rowohlt Taschenbuch with the two publication series. Too much i.m.o. What do you think? Please read this before responding. --Willem H. 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Willem, I still think that at least Rowohlt, Rowohlt Berlin and Rowohlt Taschenbuch are separate publishers, although presumably owned by the same holding company, because of the different ISBNs. Wunderlich/Rowohlt may be regarded as just an imprint. Wunderlich was a publishing house of its own before being bought by Rowohlt. If "Rowohlt Paperback" is a publishing series: I will check if those paperbacks have their own numbering. Stonecreek 08:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Just looking at the book shows that there is no numbering at all (apart from ISBN), as opposed to the normal paperbacks, i.e. pocket books (E.g. "rororo sachbuch" (= rororo non-fiction) has its own numbering). I'd still say that it is a publishing series, alas not devoted to sf, because of the unusual format and the printing of PAPERBACK near the spine. Though, there will only be sporadic books of interest for us. What do you (or anybody) suggest? Stonecreek 13:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If you think it's a publication series, it should be entered thus. I was just wondering about this, and searched the Rowohlt website. Looked like one publisher to me, with a number of imprints. It's your call. Thanks for explaining. --Willem H. 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Title in Vonnegut collection

Your update of this pub changed the story The Cruise of "The Jolly Roger" to The Cruise of. This may be an old bug that keeps popping up in the system. Were you trying to change the quotation marks from double ones to single ones? If so, that's unnecessary. It's considered a printer's choice, not an author's or editor's choice, and should not be used as a basis to change a record or to create a variant. The biggest question is how were you able to change a title record that belongs to several different pubs all from a change in one pub. Ordinarily the content title record would be grayed out and could not be edited from a pub record. Do you recall the circumstances around changing the title record for this story? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have solved the mystery, but not yet fixed the bug. See here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this insight into complicateness - this time I was completely innocent ;-) . Stonecreek 09:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Der Staubplanet

I approved your edit of this pub. The submission page showed that you wanted to change the ISBN (probably because the checksum was wrong), but the new number was the same as the old one, so the checksum is still wrong. Can you check the number again? Thanks, --Willem H. 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I already thought that this is not the right ISBN, but that's what the copyright page says. I think that it has to be 3-426-05727-1 (in accordance with the publication series no. 5727). Would it be right to change this presumably false ISBN? Anyway, read you in 2011! Stonecreek 11:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This is one of those things the help pages have no solution for. In general, if you enter another ISBN than stated in the pub, this should be explained in the notes, but we only do this when a Google search for the right ISBN results in a lot of hits. In this case, Google has only 9 hits for both the right ISBN and the one stated in the pub, so we should keep what's in the database now. To get rid of the ugly red warning, it's best to add the prefix (#), and add a note about the ISBN having a bad checksum. Anyway, thanks for checking and have a good New Year's Eve! --Willem H. 12:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Ganz schlecht mein Deutsch ist, aber "Vorwort" bedeutet "Foreword", nicht? In Bruderschaft der Unsterblichen, you did "Nachwort (Bruderschaft der Unsterblichen)" for the afterword, but just "Vorwort" for the foreword. It is up to you, but I would be inclined to include the same parenthetical title on it, too. I like consistency. --MartyD 1 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome in 2011! You are absolutely right, I should have thought about that myself. Stonecreek 15:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Heyne Science Fiction Magazin 5

I have placed your submission to change this pub from anthology to magazine on hold for now. It is probably a valid submission, but the pub is also part of a publication series (Heyne Science Fiction), and I don't know if that wil cause problems to the database. I will ask the other moderators what to do next, and will let you know. By the way, best wishes for 2011! --Willem H. 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there's no problem with having a magazine as part of a publication series. I did experiment a bit too much however, and had to create a new record for the publication and delete the old one. See the result here. I'm afraid you'll have to redo your primary verification, and please check the pub for missing items (there shouldn't be any). Thanks for the patience. --Willem H. 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts, I haven't been online ever since. I just decided that this is a magazine after all. Stonecreek 14:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Guardians of the Phoenix

Expanded the notes somewhat for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong URL

You gave the URL of the image's wiki page for Die Feuerschneise. Here's the correct image URL. Mhhutchins 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just tend to get unconcentrated after some time of work, but I have corredted this fault. Stonecreek 13:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Das Jesus Video

Hi, I want to change in your verified pub the publisher from "Knaur" to "Droemer Knaur" because it is used from the publisher Droemer Knaur himself. Rudam 23:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have checked my copy and found that it bears only "Knaur" as publisher. Are you sure that this is the same pub? (Because the pub i verified was only distributed via a warehouse - see notes.) I will put an image upload later this day as verification help. "Jesus-Video" was in fact published also by "Droemer Knaur", but this would be a different publication. Stonecreek 12:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have your specific pub of "Das Jesusvideo". But there are a lot of books from the publisher "Droemer Knaur ", who are only labeld with Knaur or with Droemer. You verified this book Das Cusanus Spiel. I also own this book and my copy stated only Droemer. I found no Knaur inside. You labeled it with Droemer Knaur. Rudam 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I see from the cover you added to the record that it gives the title as Das Jesusvideo. Does the interior title page give the novel a different title? Mhhutchins 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Adressing Rudam: OK, since "Knaur", "Droemer" and "Droemer Knaur" share the same ISBN it's better to mark them as the same publisher. I'll change the Eschbach book. And the dustjacket states "Das Jesusvideo" but the title page gives "Das Jesus Video", which is what I used. Stonecreek 15:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
So the record's title remains the same. But...the sharing of ISBNs should not be the rationale behind merging of publisher records. A publisher may have several distinct imprints which should be preserved (Baen, Pocket, Archway, Washingto Square, Timescape, Summit, Poseidon, Fireside and Simon & Schuster all had ISBN 0-671- at one time). If it can be shown that the publisher credit is arbitrary (e.g. Pocket vs. Pocket Books) then a name should be arrived at by consensus. Mhhutchins 16:48, 11 January 2011

You're right, but in this case "Knaur" and "Droemer" really can be regarded as imprints of the greater publisher. See this pub as example, where "Droemer Knaur" is given as publisher on the title page. Stonecreek 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If they're truly imprints (and not publication series, which is handled in another field), then they should be kept separate, e.g. "Knaur / Droemer Knaur" and "Droemer / Droemer Knaur" in the publication field. I'm beginning to think the Continental and American definitions for "publication series" might not be EXACTLY the same. If not, this discussion should be moved to the Rules and Standards page. Mhhutchins 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In my understanding, for example "DAW sf" would be a publication series, as "Knaur Science Fiction". I have the impression that it's unusual for American publishers to give an ongoing numbering to such a pub. series (which would make it quite easy to distinguish), whereas over here it's the common usus. Stonecreek 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Except that "DAW SF" and "DAW Fantasy" share the same series numbering. I would not consider either to be a publication series, but closer to an imprint (but not exactly). Actually many American publication series give numbering: here, here, here, here. I have a feeling there's going to be even more debate when/if we ever implement a separate imprint field. I'll accept the submission since you've got the actual book, have verified it, and am willing to place a publisher's name into the field that's not printed in the book itself. Mhhutchins 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Die Rolle des Religiösen in den Romanen von Kurt Vonnegut

I have a submission that wants to change the title record of this pub from NONFICTION to ESSAY. That's not a good idea. Because the pub is typed as NONFICTION, doing this would leave the pub without a matching title record, creating a stray publication. Now you can add a content record that is an ESSAY with the same name, which is what I think was your intention. If this was what you wanted to do, cancel the submission, then resubmit an update which adds a new content record, leaving the title record intact. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now what you were attempting to do. There were TWO records with a NONFICTION type and you're changing one of them to an ESSAY. The moderator's page only shows the one record, and there was no way to tell if it were the content record or the title record. I'll accept the submission. Mhhutchins 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Interzone features as series

Hi. I noticed you have been adding content for what looks like some recurring features to various Interzone editions. A technique that has been used for such features with some other magazines is to place them into series representing the feature. See, for example Mathoms for Tales of the Unexpected or Editorial (Theaker's Quarterly Fiction). As with titles, the practice is to include the magazine's name if the series name would be generic (e.g., "Editorial" or "Letters to the Editor"). Seeing "Spinoffery" several times made me think of it. Doing this is completely optional; I only mention it so that you are aware of the possibility. --MartyD 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this possibility. It will sure look more nicely. I'm in this with Hauck, so I will propose your idea, which looks very good to me, to him. Stonecreek 17:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pagination / Page Count

I'm confused about the pagination and page count for this issue of PR and am holding a submission that changes the pagination for the stories to "36+1", "36+2", "36+10". What do these numbers represent? The field is for the page on which the piece begins. If it begins on an unnumbered page after the pagination ends, you can count forward and give the page number in brackets. For example if a story begins on the tenth page after the last numbered page 36, you should enter [46] in the field. The page count is also confusing. "36+12+36" indicates that the pub has 36 numbered pages, and the pagination goes back to 1 on the 37th page, then after twelve numbered pages (on the 49th page of the book), the pagination returns to 1. Is that the case in this book? If there are 72 numbered pages with a 12 page insert in the middle (between pages 36 and 37), the page count should be entered as "72+[12]" and the note should indicate where the pages are inserted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I referred to the description of how to enter unnumbered pages. Citation: "Sometimes a publication will have unnumbered pages before page 1. You may record this by entering the count in [brackets]." The 12 pages have their own numbering. But you're right that 36+12+36 myight be confusing, so I will change it to 72+12 and mention the exactbeginning in the notes. Stonecreek 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
But thinking of the consequence this would lead to the 36+1 notation, because 1 wouldn't be significant. I will move this discussion to the Perry Rhodan talk page. Stonecreek 14:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the 12-page section has separate pagination "72+12" would be correct, with a note about where the section is located. If you want to give the page numbers for pieces within that section it's going to be hard to get the system to place them in any kind of order. This is a software display issue and that's out of my league. Do you wish to cancel the submission, or would you like me to hold it? Even if the submission is accepted. the pagination you're giving is not going to display correctly. I could approve it and let you see what it looks like. Heck, I'd like to see what it looks like! Mhhutchins 19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's give it a try. If it works out, we could stick to it, else I will enter a new submission according to your and Willem's proposal (assigning the contents of the extra pages with i-xii). Stonecreek 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I approved the submission and the record's a mess. Let's try the Roman-numeral method next, that can't be any worse. Mhhutchins 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Record(s) changed (#2402 had the same problem). Thanks for the try. Stonecreek 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #2400

I approved the addition of #2400. The result is here. Also added the novel to the series "PR Zyklus 35: Negasphäre". You can now see the difference when a novel is entered in the series (compare Robert Feldhoff with Ernst Vlcek. Feldhoff now has two entries for the series, one for the novel, and one for the short fiction. This is new for me too, but it looks allright. Aside from this, I have now entered at least one title for each cycle (see here. It looks awful, but there is a feature request to be able to manually sort sub-series. When that possibility is open, we can put them in the right order. --Willem H. 17:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noted that you put some research into the Zyklen. You think it's looking awful? I think, it begins to look great! Stonecreek 18:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a while since I looked at the sort-ordering in displays, but even if we just made it alphabetical, then adding leading zeroes might be a quick fix? Date is another option of course - but the ideal of being able to order sub-series, and sub-sub-series, and place titles in multiple series, is probably a long way off still. BLongley 18:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Would this be a possibility? I can't say, because I don't know the programming background. But thanks for the idea, maybe Willem can make something out of it. Stonecreek 18:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe both of those are quite possible but would require significant work (especially titles in multiple series as some data would have to be removed from one table and stuffed into another and all the scripts updated to understand the new linkage). Uzume 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The feature request is here. It has no high priority, but eventually .... --Willem H. 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

German Currency

I've seen quite a few variations in how Deutsche Marks are entered into the database. Examples: DMX.XX, DM X.XX, and DM X,XX. Is (or was) there a standard way to present the figure? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. Although DM X,XX should be out of the league, if there ever will be a statistic (is it possible to determine who entered this pub to inform him or her?). I tend to use DMX.XX (according to the general standard?!), but not in the case of the Perry Rhodan magazine, where the established standard was DM X.XX. From my humble beginnings, there will still be some diversions from that rule. Thank you for your open eyes. (I changed the two pubs with a deviation from the standard.) Stonecreek 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If DMX.XX is preferred, I can change the Perry Rhodans of course. When I started with them, there was no German editor active, so I took the way they are presented on the magazines (DM X.XX). I have no problem one way or the other. --Willem H. 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it matters only if there are any statistics planned (and if it is a problem to run those with one or the other format). Stonecreek 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't think that a publication or series should have its own standard, but it should be determined by whatever the general consensus was during the years when the Deutsche Mark was used. The price of many US pubs were given in cents but we've determined for the database to convert everything to dollars. Some pubs may have even given a space between the dollar sign and the amount, but that's not the US standard of no spacing after the dollar sign. Mhhutchins 17:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Checking several German websites, I see many uses of the comma instead of a period. (See Bibliographie deutschsprachiger Science Fiction-Stories und Bücher which uses the comma throughout, and was the source of several of my own entries.) Is this ever an acceptable alternative? Mhhutchins 17:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I will always prefer this version (DM X,XX or € X,XX) because it is the common standard für german publications. The price is always written on a german book cover with a comma. Which "general standard" states that you have to use a period? Rudam 22:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Since one goal of entering the price is to run statistics on it, I'd think it is more comfortable or even only possible if there is one standard. I am not sure if there is any actual problem with commas but would say it's at least easier if all prices are entered with one of (comma,point). If it is a problem to have a blank inside: I don't know. Who does? Stonecreek 16:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I think this calls for a general discussion on how to deal with non-English currency. The help text (under Price) sais only For books priced in other currencies, use an appropriate symbol, and to put the symbol before the price. Nothing about periods, commas or spaces. Shall I move this discussion to the Rules and standards discussions? --Willem H. 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be appropriate. Stonecreek 13:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is here. You are invited to participate. --Willem H. 15:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

incomplete note in Das Science Fiction Jahr 2001?

Hi. I approved your latest additions to Das Science Fiction Jahr 2001, and I noticed an item in the section list in the notes: "◦ Bücher (reviews) pp." seems incomplete. I thought I'd mention it while noticing. --MartyD 11:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll correct it. Stonecreek 18:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #127, #128, #143 interiorart

Hi. Do you have PR #127? I have your interiorart credit change on hold. Perrypedia claims "Themistokles Kanellakis" (the credit you propose changing). I am no Perry Rhodan expert; I just wanted to make sure this isn't a mistaken edit. Thanks. --MartyD 12:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also #128 and #143. --MartyD 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Marty. I have none of these issues but Willem and I agreed that Kanellakis has to be false. See here. If Johnny Bruck is actual the interior artist remains to be verified, but it is very, very likely, since he draw all interior art at that time (1964), if there was any (and I came across none early issue so far without one). Stonecreek 13:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I accepted them. Since this is an assumption and does not match what the only cited source says, I think you should add a note to each about that credit. --MartyD 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Le Sceptre du hasard

Hello, I approved your sub of this pub here (then I corrected the french title with hasard not hazard) but IMHO It's not satisfying as it looks like that there are two novels in this book. I think that the german title should simply be made a vt of the french one. Hauck 18:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for approving. It was my intention to enter the German title as vt of the French, didn't quite work out. But I'll fix it. For the original french title: the German edition said 'hazard' while Clute's 'Illustrated Encyclopedia of SF' said 'hasard'. Not able to decide the matter, I stuck to the title found in the book. Thank you for correcting it. Stonecreek 13:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Gérard Klein

I have your proposed pseudonym on hold. I think those two author records should be merged (which I will do, if you agree with me). Do you see a difference between the two names? Thanks. --MartyD 14:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there seems to be no difference. A merge would be perfect, thank you. Stonecreek 14:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I found it. The one-work entry is (was) in there as Ge&#769;rard Klein, the other Gérard Klein. --MartyD 11:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe the cryptic Gérard Klein is from an earlier time, when special letters weren't supported as thy are today? Stonecreek 17:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, or perhaps one of the crawling 'bots captured it that way and failed to decode it. I am happy it was easy to figure out, and I expect we will find another instance like it someday and can put the knowledge to good use. --MartyD 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Der Schwarm

Did the price really not increase between 2004 and 2009? BLongley 17:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it did. Thank you for your open eye. Stonecreek 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. BLongley 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Interzone 144

I accepted the submission updating this issue but have questions about a couple of changes. You changed the page count from 66 to 68. Most saddle-stapled magazines (like Interzone) should have page counts in multiples of 4. Remember that you should count the covers. Another thing, your entry into the pub format field is not one of the seven choices currently accepted for magazines (see here). I admit that this list is not exhaustive, it doesn't include "quarto", Locus's designation for 8 1/2 x 11 saddle-stapled magazines, but I don't believe the field should be used to record dimensions only. Feel free to bring this up for discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. In my humble opinion, 68 pages are a bit closer to a multiple of 4 than 66, ;-). The chosen format stems from a verified pub, verified by one person quite close to you (again ;-) ). See INTZJAN03. But I can change that format: would you say that "quarto" is the format nearest to the dimensions of IZ? Stonecreek 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the bad math regarding the page count. But I know I didn't put those dimensions in the record that bears my verification. I can't say how that happened unless another moderator accepted a later submission updating the pub. About "quarto", it appears that most of those who were working on Interzone chose to use the British designation "A4". Even those issues that you verified up through December 1998 (#138). Did the size change in January 1999? Mhhutchins 18:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with the January, 1999, issue the dimension grew a bit smaller. Stonecreek 18:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ask User:BLongley about the dimension thing. It looks like most of those issues for which he did a secondary verification during those years have the dimensions. I'm going to let the rest of you figure out what the "pub format" field should be (one thing I do know is that it shouldn't be the dimensions). It's ISFDB policy that the fields of verified pub should not be changed without notifying the verifier, so I'm going to remove my verification of Issue #185. Mhhutchins 18:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have put the proposed edits to #148 on hold, specifically because the binding/format is supplied as dimensions, which is contrary to current ISFDB standards. I can see that other edits have been accepted with that, but since it didn't get discussed and agreed to, I'm going to hold this one until it's resolved. --MartyD 11:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only have other edits been accepted with this dimension, but also verified (and I don't mean the one verified by me). For magazines it seems to be fitting in a way to use dimensions, because it gives you a tight description, doesn't it? Anyway, I will ask Hauck about his opinion, too.Stonecreek 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the only way to be completely precise about the dimensions (which, according to the help seems to be the main caracteristic of the "Pub Format" field for magazines) is to give the precise measures of the copy. For exemple, IZ#100 (I have it just here) is not exactly an A4 format (height is about 1 cm shorter). Add to this the fact that there are some slight variations (it's, as you stated, the case for IZ), so the correct filling of the data field is going to be a chore. (And I won't go into the fact that there is only one official unit of length which is not the inch and on the difficulty of finding an inch-graduated rule in continetal Europe). So personaly I tend to leave this field blank when entering data as there seems to be no real consensus. That is also perhaps why I probably approved some exotic values. Hauck 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
We're really bad at updating help. I think even "A4" and "A5" were comparatively recent additions, used mostly for British fanzines (which used to be excluded). One more format for magazines shouldn't be too awkward. BLongley 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
IMHO there is perhaps already too much formats, for exemple the distinction between Bedsheet (8.5 x 11.25 only in the US) and A4 (8.3 x 11.7) is very slight and liable to cause some confusion for a 0.2 difference. Hauck 06:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have moved to Rules and Standard Discussions. Stonecreek 10:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I approved the submission as-is, while the discussion rages. Sorry about the delay. --MartyD 12:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Der Zeiter

Hi. I have your submission wanting to make this Der Zeiter a variant of this one on hold. I'm not sure what you intend. Variant relationships are for different attribution (either in title or author's name) of the same work, not for different contents. If the title does not differ and the author attribution does not differ, then making one a variant of the other is not appropriate. When the content differs, you are forced to judge whether the two published forms should be considered the same work or different works. If they are different works, then the author would have two identical titles in the bibliography, and you'd want to put notes in each title to prevent someone else's trying to merge them. Here, where two collections differ by one story included in one and not the other, I would consider them the same work and simply merge the titles. You have covered the small deviation in the note in the publication that's missing the story. --MartyD 12:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Marty. If you can merge the two to one, this would be most appreciated. I have put some crap before into the two, marking them as 2 different titles (aka Der Zeiter, 1970, and Der Zeiter, 1973) and tried to undo that. Guess what, it didn't work out. Stonecreek 10:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I rejected the variant submission and merged them instead. I think what you have there is fine. If you really want to, you could add a note to 1228196 stating that the collection was re-published in 1973 without "Der Riß im Berg". --MartyD 12:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for merging the unmergeable (at least for me). I will add that note, thanks for suggesting it. Stonecreek 13:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Der Entropische Zyklon

I'm holding a submission from another editor who wants to change the series of this title from 35: Negashpare to #36: Stardust. Is the record correct as entered? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I am afraid that the Zyklus #36 begins only with #2500 of the series. The editor may look at the overview page for further guidance or ask either WillemH or me. Stonecreek 18:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The title had #2518. I corrected this to #2418. The submission should be rejected. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

New Perry Rhodan editor

I accepted submissions adding three new PR titles: #2578, #2579, and #2580. The first was entered as a novel, the other two as magazines. The author of the novel was entered as the editor of the magazines. This contradicts earlier issues. Can you look them over, see if they conform with the other PR issues, and fix them if not? And then talk with the editor WeAreGray about PR standards? I know absolutely zero about PR and will leave entry concerns to those who do. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. We will take over. Stonecreek 18:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Good job. I added one more message to WeAreGray's talkpage, and corrected the new pubs (I can't expect this from you ... yet :-). --Willem H. 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking reviews

I see you're updating the titles under review in Interzone that are not linked. This won't automatically link the reviews to the title records. That only occurs when a review record is created. Once it exists, you have to manually link them to the title record. Click on "Review" which brings up the review record, choose "Link Review to Title" in the editing tools menu, enter the number of the title record in the "Parent #" field and enter. You can get the parent number by going to the book's title record and recording the number after "...cgi-bin/title.cgi?" Let me know if you need assistance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it worked. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Do the titles of the review and the original title of the book have to be identical, or is a part sufficient? Stonecreek 11:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
They don't have to be identical to link manually, in fact they don't have to match at all. If you want the system to link them at the time the review record is created they have to be identical, every character and space. But as I said above, once the review record is created it's all manual. Mhhutchins 19:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

New titles and sourcing data

Can I assume that you will be doing physical verifications of this pub record and this one? Neither submission gave a source for the data, so you must have a copy. Right? Mhhutchins 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I have copies of the pubs. Stonecreek 19:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging editor records

I approved your submissions. It's not necessary to merge them one at a time, you can do them all in one edit, just select more checkboxes. --Willem H. 20:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I still keep learning. Stonecreek 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Life gets easier once you achieve moderator status. You can then spot (and correct) your own mistakes. The catch of course is, that you first have to learn most of the tricks (took me a year and a half). --Willem H. 20:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


Hello, I'm in the process of veryfing in second the batch of IZ you've already verified. I'm going to replace the external scans by internal ones and doing some cosmetic changes that I'll try to list here : adding Interaction for #116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128; replacing _The Mind-Splice_ by _The Mind Splice_ in #117 (per title page); changing a [3] by [2] in the illustrations for _The Rust island_; adding the essay _Party Time_ in #118; replacing Pete Crowther by Peter Crowther (#118); replacing Holly by Molly in Amery's Title in #118; replacing _Thigmoo_ by _ThiGMOO_ as per title page and logic of the story; changing title of Merril's interview in #126; adding article and dropping comma in Langford's story in #126; modifying title of Knight's essay in #127. As I don't know if you're a "touchy" kind of contributor (some like to be informed of every comma displaced in the data they entered), just tell me if you really want to be notified of such small changes. Hauck 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. In general, you don't have to inform me about additions I failed to include or mistakes I made. Only if there's something major going on, please ask. Stonecreek 11:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's do it that way (I confess it gives me less work as the notification phase is sometimes longer than the correction phase). Hauck 12:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Interzone 160-162

I see you've skipped these issues. Would you like me to update and verify the current records using my copies? Mhhutchins 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome in this regard by me. But I think that Hauck is currently at work in the year 2000, I have only verified #157 so far. Stonecreek 09:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd thought both of you had skipped these, but Hauck tells me he'd only got up to #159 so far. I'll hold off entering anything and do another primary verification when you guys have finished. Mhhutchins 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


The date for this record should be zeroed out unless you have more concrete evidence of the publication date. We try to record what's stated in the book, and then fall back on secondary sources for any missing information. Purchase date isn't a good indicator of publication date. You can give your estimated date within the pub notes until something more concrete comes along. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable. Stonecreek 08:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Notes" by PKD

Concerning your submission crediting two additional authors for this work: It seems strange to me that this ambiguous title appears in 21 (!) different pubs, 8 of them verified. I can't see any circumstance in which all of the books contains the same set of "notes". It appears that someone merged all of them into this one record, probably because those who initially entered them into each of the pub records failed to disambiguate the title. I think we should hold off updating this title record until we've determined the extent to which the "notes" are the same. That's going to involve cooperation between you, the verifier of the Gollancz editions, and Bill Longley, who verified the Millennium editions. I can see no clearer way to do this than to delete this record from all 21 pubs and start from scratch. What do you think? Mhhutchins 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Locus1, none of the notes that originally appeared in the source publications (the Underwood-Miller editions) were credited. Even this one which is credited to Dick, Rickman and Williams in your verified record but doesn't appear in Bill Longley's record for the paperback reprint. Mhhutchins 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I will reject the submission because the changes may not apply to every publication of the title. Mhhutchins 23:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ahasuerus is currently testing a fix I proposed that means unmerging content titles should no longer lose length or page numbers. If it works, then unmerging all 21 and retitlng and remerging as necessary should be OK. BLongley 01:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Good. I didn't know such a fix was possible, but glad to hear that it's being worked on. It would save tons of work necessary to straighten out this situation (and many others that may occur down the road.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm happy to recheck the PKD books I verified in 2007. I think I even know which room and bookcase they can be found on now! :-) BLongley 01:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'd done was this: I found the "Notes" in different pubs that all turned out to be part of Dick's Collected Stories, though the pubs beared different names/titles. Since Rickman and Williams are mentioned in every of the five introductions to the Notes in the Gollancz edition as responsible for the chronology, I decided for my edit. I would have found it nicer to mark them individually as in: Notes (The Father-Thing), but found that this wasn't possible, because all five of them were denoted as 'Notes' and verified/uneditable. Stonecreek 09:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is: are Rickman and Williams credited for the notes too or are the chronology and the notes the same work? In any case, all of them will have to be unmerged before we make any changes in any of them. Once that is done, they must be disambiguated parenthetically by adding the title of the collection. After that we can determine how they're credited. If the books don't actually credit them, they should we credited to "uncredited". I'll leave that up to those of you who have the actual books. Mhhutchins 17:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed all but the verified pubs that were linked to this content record. It's in your and Bill's hands to do the rest. Mhhutchins 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you've been able to remove all of the Notes from the Gollancz editions and that you've created new records for four of the five books giving Rickman and Williams co-credit (only Beyond Lies the Wub credits Dick). I did the same for the Underwood-Miller editions but credited the notes only to Dick, based on the Locus1 listing. Above you say Rickman and Williams are credited for the chronology in the Notes introductions. That doesn't seem to explicitly credit them with the writing of the notes, only the order in which they appear. Or have I mistaken your meaning here? Mhhutchins 19:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I missed the update here. I'll go have a look at my Verifications in a day or two. BLongley 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rickman and Williams did write the chronology of the stories: when and where they were published (that's not such a formidable task), but more importantly, when they probably were written and when they were received by Scott Meredith's agency. Thanks to them it's possible to put into context a story published in 1959 but already written in 1953. And no doubt they digged the so far unpublished stories (i.e. 'Stability') and dated them. Stonecreek 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response and only thought about checking back now. Despite your explanation, I must respectfully disagree that Rickman and Williams should be credited as co-authors of the notes. I'm not denying or denigrating the value of their work, but they did what thousands of uncredited editors do. I don't have the books, but on the first page of the notes (from a Google snippet) I see that the editors state that "All notes in italics are by Philip K. Dick" and "...research for this chronology was done by Gregg Rickman and Paul Williams". In other words, they didn't write the notes and credit themselves as the editors of the notes. The Google preview doesn't go into further pages of the notes, so I'm not sure if there are any unitalicized notes, meaning notes that were not written by Dick. Are there any? If so, I would drop any objection to the editors being credited.
I think our biggest disagreement here is how the role of editor should be credited. Unfortunately, there is no separate field for the editor role in the ISFDB software. If there were, we would not be having this discussion. My conclusion is to drop the matter and let you as the verifier of the pubs have the final say. I only ask that you not merge these title records with those of other publications of the same titles, whether they're verified or not. Perhaps you can continue the discussion with Bill Longley who has verified the Millennium reprints. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The role of the editor is not the biggest disagreement. I'd say the disagreement is mainly in the definition of a note. As you cite correctly, "All notes in italics are by Philip K. Dick". But: About half of the text of every of the five volumes isn't in italics, and that is the part of the notes that was written by Rickman and Williams. In 'The Father-Thing', for example, a typical entry is: NULL-O ("Loony Lemuel") 8/31/53. If, Dec 1958. (No italics: no comment or note by Dick).
So you get the information of a) the title of the story, b) an alternative title, c) the date, when the manuscript was received by SMLA, and d) date and magazine of eventual first publication.
Of the 23 shortfictions in this particular volume, only five have notes by PKD (and even these have - naturally - additions in regular typing).
So, I would differentiate the Notes into comments by PKD (on one side) and information on publication on the other side. This view would lead automatically to the addition of Rickman and Williams as co-authors. Stonecreek 17:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
So don't we basically agree that the Notes, as few as they were, were written by PKD? A chronological listing of titles that gives dates and sources of publication is very close to the acknowledgements page found in hundreds of publications. That's what an editor does. The typical entry that you've provided makes it even more clear (at least to me) that Rickman and Williams are not the co-authors of the notes. They created a list which acknowledges the original publication of the stories with occasional notes from previously published sources by PKD himself. If you want to see story notes written by an editor check out any of the volumes that Paul Williams edited of The Complete Stories of Theodore Sturgeon. I'll leave it at that as it appears we're not going to come to any agreement. Mhhutchins 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
1) Again the question, what to make of the two kinds of notes, one being the comments by Dick, the other being the notes on publication. Why should only one be credited?
2) Yes, you are right: It is the job of the editor to supply information on publication of the texts, and normally this is given on the copyright page(s), and we don't take notification of it. But this is not the case with the Collected Stories of PKD. We have a considerable amount of text in the Notes (at least half of it) that was not written by Dick and that he can't be credited for. So the authors who are credited in the opening paragraph for this text should be held responsible for it, I think.
3) And as I check the book again: Dick is only credited for the notes as Rickman and Williams are - in the introductory note at the beginning of Notes. At least that's the case in the Gollancz edition, this may vary in other editions. Stonecreek 18:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking reviews

Review records can only be linked to title records, not pub records. It appears you wanted to link this review to this pub (#344291). Instead you linked it to this title record (#344291). I've linked the review to the correct title record, so you can reject the submission on your side. Mhhutchins 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do so. Thanks for the clearance, ever learning. Stonecreek 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


Should the currency on the price in Der letzte Tag der Schöpfung be "DM"? --MartyD 15:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am afraid not. That one is a pub from the last days of the GDR and as far as I know they called their currency only 'Mark', so M seems to be appropriate (as I haven't found any other pubs from that deceased country). Stonecreek 10:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I was just making sure it wasn't a typo. --MartyD 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


In my copy of this pub Das Cusanus-Spiel there are only 703 pages. Typo or two different publications? 13:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did look it up and the pub had an edit with 703 pages, or did you change it already? Anyway, you are right. Thanks for your open eye. Stonecreek 10:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan: Jupiter

Hi Christian, I approved your "Perry Rhodan: Jupiter" edits, but then moved them to a new subseries of Perry Rhodan Universe I called it "Perry Rhodan: Jupiter", but you can change the title of course. The parent series should i.m.o. not be used for individual stories, but only for the sub-series. What do you think? --Willem H. 17:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely approve your edit. Although, there are quite a few solo pubs: Foremost I am thinking of some novels from the early 2000s (the years) by the likes of Frank Borsch ('Fleisch der Erinnerung'), which weren't part of a sub-series. They are not yet entered but eventually will. There also were some illustrated books (i.e. 'PR Weltraumatlas'). Stonecreek 10:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Schluck = Thomas Schlück

I rejected the submission making the pseudonym and merged the records under one name. It appears to me that the lack of diacritical marks is a typesetter's choice, not an authorial or editorial one. All but one of the letters appeared in pubs that I had verified, so I chose to change them to the corrected German spelling of the name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, you're the verifier but I have to disagree that "Thomas Schluck = Thomas Schlück". Search for the former and you won't find the latter. (In fact, in Advanced search you don't seem to find either.) Definitely software problems, but ones we might have to work around for now. By the way, can anyone say if "Agentur Thomas Schlück" is the same person? I have no German skills but it looks like "Agentur" means "Agency" which would make it a company rather than an artist. (I don't like putting companies in the Cover Artist field as that makes us treat them like real human beings.) BLongley 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any software that can give the results for either name? Why does "Philip José Farmer" come up in the current software when I search for "jose" or "Élisabeth Vonarburg" when I search for "elisabeth"? Can the software be changed so that the a search that includes "u" results in names that contain the umlauted "u"? I don't know why some letters with diacritical marks are treated differently than others. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that our current software could do better on searches if we configured the MySQL implementation better. Remember, we currently have a SWEDISH search! It would be/will be one of the biggest changes we could make and so far nobody seems willing to risk it. BLongley 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Since Schluck and Schlück are the same person, it makes sense to make them one author. Agentur Thomas Schlück is in fact an agency owned by Schlück, but since he isn't an artist, it wouldn't make sense to credit him as person for the art. So the agency should remain as an entry of its own in my opinion. Stonecreek 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd move it to Notes and leave the Artist field for the human being that actually did the Art - but it's not my Verification so I won't interfere. BLongley 19:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Same here. I personally do not credit corporations or agencies, and have just left the field blank (now artists' co-ops and studios are different). I've seen cover art credited to film studios! Mhhutchins 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
One of the things I've deliberately NOT done in the proposed Moderator Data Clean-Up Searches is to make exceptions for websites or agencies in the Cover artist field - I've allowed Doctors to keep their " M.D." or ", Ph.D." suffixes for instance, but any Mod using such will keep being nagged about "N.A.S.A." or ".com" entries. A subtle protest that will easily be overturned if another developer disagrees and Ahasuerus prefers it, but it's all I'm doing for now. I don't want to abuse my Developer status and already worry about abusing my Moderator status. (I normally let disagreements fizzle out on the Wiki pages.) BLongley 20:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't enter one of the pubs with either Agentur Schlück or Agentur Thomas Schlück. Since in one of them an actual cover artist is credited (John Harris) it would seem appropriate to delete it. But the verifier (Phileas) hasn't answered on his talk page since May 2010. Do you know anything about his whereabouts and/or how to proceed in such a case? Stonecreek 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea where he is now, but I hope he's OK. (We've had Editors die on us before.) But certainly after such a long absence I'd make the change and leave a message, rather than wait for a message to be answered. BLongley 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Change approved, but the Publication Update was enough: the Cover Update was automatic. BLongley 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


In your last bunch of edits (all aproved) you palaced "Folge 298" in parentheses in this title. I assumed you meant to remove the parenteses for Folge 297 (makes more sense i.m.o., and surely makes Heidrun Scheer's bio page look better), so I removed them from both titles. Can you re-submit if the edit was intentional? Thanks, --Willem H. 17:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit was intentional: I looked up on perrypedia the article on the Lexikon, and according to that the numbering was forgotten for these two 'Folgen'. I'll submit it again. By the way, wasn't these the issues you guessed that they were published within one week? What has been your clue in this? Stonecreek 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Re-submissions accepted. Thanks for the explanation, and indeed, those were the two. It was you who set me on the trail of the wrong publication dates actually, noticing the date on #650. I checked back from #650 until I found #578 and #579, both published on September 29, 1972 according to Perrypedia. Later there were some other moves in the publication day (friday to tuesday to thursday and back to tuesday). I hope I have the correct data in my spreadsheet now, but if you see other inconsistencies, please tell me. --Willem H. 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Beyond This Horizon anthology

According to your notes, Helmut Wenske's name is misspelled throughout the book. If so, the record should reflect that, with variants made for the correct name. Mhhutchins 19:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In this or similar cases I'd say that it is not a pseudonym. Does a mere misspelling really justify the installation of a deviant name? Most likely the editor read about Wenskes work in German, when it would have been Wenske's work in English, and assumed that Wenskes was the surname. Stonecreek 14:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The average reader, picking up the book for the first time, would have no reason to believe the author's name is misspelled. If they searched for it on the ISFDB, they wouldn't find it, and correctly assume that the record was in error and would try to correct it. I can see no other way around the problem. What would you suggest otherwise? Mhhutchins 01:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
In this case it's not important if it's a misspelling or if it's intentional or not. The rules of the ISFDB are The name should be entered exactly as it actually appeared in the publication. This includes pseudonyms, abbreviated names ("I. Asimov" instead of "Isaac Asimov", "Robert Heinlein" instead of "Robert A. Heinlein"), etc. As with the title, take the name from the title page in preference to the cover or spine of the book. However in a collection or anthology, take the author for individual stories, essays, and other short content from that listed at the start of the story or essay, if such a listing is present and differs from the table of contents or title page. See here under author. --Willem H. 16:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, the arguments of yours have turned around my opinion and I will succumb :-) .Stonecreek 09:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

PKD: In His Own Words

In your submission updating this pub you overwrote the container title record with the record for Rickman's introduction. If I accept the submission, it will wipe out the pub's link to its title record, and someone will have to go back in and create a new container title record. If I reject the submission, all the new content records will have to be recreated in another submission. Which would you prefer? (I'd personally go for the first as it would be simpler that the latter.) Rule of Thumb: Never overwrite a content record when updating a pub record unless you're absolutely certain how the changes will affect this pub and others. If you're not certain, create a set of fields for a new content record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ashes on my head. I thought about that possibility (that I made a serious mistake) only after submitting (in fact only when I lay in bed), but decided it was too late for any correction. Thanks for giving me a choice on the matter: I would prefer the first possibility, too. In future submissions I will take more care. Stonecreek 12:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I've accepted the submission, but before we make any corrections, I'll let you take a look at the results. Looking at the pub record, you'll see that there is no title reference (the link that goes back to a pub's title record). If you click on the second content item ("1 • Philip K. Dick: An Introduction • essay by Gregg Rickman") you'll be led back to the original title record but now updated. The reviews and awards that were linked the original title record are now attached to the record for Rickman's introduction. It's going to take a few submissions to correct the problem. Would you like to try and would you prefer that I fix it? If you want to try yourself, the first submission would update this title record back to its original state. Change the title back to Philip K. Dick: In His Own Words and make the title type "NONFICTION". Then just update the pub record adding a new entry for the introduction. Mhhutchins 13:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to fix it. Thank you for your help. Stonecreek 13:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks in good shape now. Thanks. (I've been out of town the last couple of days and am trying to catch up on any issues I may have left hanging.) Mhhutchins 14:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

SF Almanach 1981

Your note in this record gives the author as "Elisabeth E. Lynn" while the content record is given as "Elizabeth E. Lynn". I need verification before approving the submission making a pseudonym of the name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth it is. Thanks for keeping an eye. Stonecreek 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Darwins Welt

I'm not sure that this would be eligible for inclusion in the database. It doesn't appear to be spec-fic related, and is written by authors who have only one piece of fiction in the database. Do you have a stronger case for its inclusion? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Two cases for inclusion: a) a review of this title in Das Science Fiction Jahr, and b) that I plan to edit their Collected Works into the database, which contains some of the strongest examples of Science Fiction in Germany. Stonecreek 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Good enough. Submission accepted. Mhhutchins 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Stonecreek 18:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan, #745: Die Letzten der Koltonen

I suspect this may be #744. Mhhutchins 14:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you are right. I changed the title record, thanks. Stonecreek 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth

Just a note that cities/towns are entered based the way they were known when the person was born. Thus Stanislaw Lem's birthplace is listed as "Lwów, Poland" rather than "Lviv" or "Lemberg". Ahasuerus 18:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't sure about that point, so I decided to put both names in. I'll try to improve on my edits. Stonecreek 17:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing an anthology record to a magazine

You'll now have to change the original title records of each of the anthologies into editor records. At the same time you have to place the series data back into the record. (You didn't have to remove the series data from those records as they would have automatically became editor series.) Let me know if you need help. Mhhutchins 18:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I will try my luck (and then maybe need some help). Stonecreek 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. If you want this title to appear on its own magazine grid, you have to place the editor records of each issue into a series (as I mentioned above, this could have been done with one submission per title.) Mhhutchins 19:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dick poem

I moved the note you added to this record from the synopsis field to the note field. Mhhutchins 19:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps it is time to come to an end for today. Stonecreek 19:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Breaks before a note

I'm not understanding why you're placing a line break before notes. When they're displayed (as in this case), they don't line up with the "Note:". Mhhutchins 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it became a habit. I think it better to have the notes aligned when there are more than one, but if there is only one it is in fact surplus. Stonecreek 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


I had to disambiguate the series name, because one by the same name already exists. Mhhutchins 18:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Unter Meinem Dach

Is the cover art credit in this pub correct? Mhhutchins 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the 'cover artist' stated on the copyright page. I'll upload the image, so you may see that it is not a painting. It'd be possible to give the name of the two people who ran the publisher instead, though. Stonecreek 11:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Many publishers copyright their in-house covers but we normally don't credit the company in the artist field unless a specific person is named. I know you'll find corporate entities given credit in ISFDB, but I don't think it's a good standard to follow. I will usually record such credits in the note field. There hasn't been much discussion about this, nor do I believe that's an established rule about it. (You shouldn't give the names of the publishers unless they're specifically credited, which is the ISFDB standard.) Mhhutchins 15:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Die Negane Stadt" edit

Hi. Your submission for updating Die Negane Stadt made no changes. I accepted it, but I can't tell what you intended, so I don't know whether the title is now the way you want it to be or not. --MartyD 15:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Something was wrong on Saturday in parts of the db: at least for the Perry Rhodan issues it seemed it was the state of two or three months ago. But at editing this issue I wasn't sure about that. Stonecreek 14:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Title page credit vs. copyright

Who is credited on the title page of Letters from Home? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As editor: nobody. The title page only says: 'Letters from Home' (over) Stories by Pat Cadigan, Karen Joy Fowler, Pat Murphy (over) The Women's Press. As another indication for Lefanu the copyright page also says: Sarah Lefanu would like to give special thanks to Uwe Luserke for his enthusiastic help in initiating this project. Stonecreek 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Anthologies without editor credit should be "uncredited" unless the authors are named on the title page, in which case the anthology is credited to them. The OCLC record credits the three authors. I believe the record should remain as credited. I'll keep the submission on hold if you wish to start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Mhhutchins 06:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Just hold it a little longer, because I think it's an interesting case of known editor given in the copyrights vs. editor not stated on the title page. Stonecreek 09:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent) It looks like I accidentally (momentary lapse of reason?) approved your edit of this pub before I saw the Rules and Standards discussion. It should i.m.o. have been put on hold during the discussion, to prevent mistakes like this. I changed the credits back to the way they were originally (replaced Sarah LeFanu with the three authors). I agree with Michael Hutchins on this, if you're sure Sarah LeFanu is the editor, and there's no explicit credit it should be entered as by "uncredited", a pseudonym of Sarah LeFanu and the three authors should stay in (only my opinion). Sorry about the trouble. Please take another look and re-submit. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To credit our hero 'uncredited' with this anthology would be fine for me, since actually nobody is credited anywhere in the book (Sarah Lefanu would be i.m.o. the only reasonable person, but Michael and you are right that this would be a deduction). I'll wait for the submit until tomorrow, though, for any second thoughts. Stonecreek 12:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Stray Kurt Brand titles

As an editor familiar with Perry Rhodan, you might be able to help me decide what to do with the shortfiction titles on Kurt Brand's summary page. None of the seven titles have a publication associated with them. I'm thinking that the titles may have been removed from US printings of the magazine version and varianted into the German publications but I can't find anything that matches. Do you think they should they be deleted? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A printed bibliography of Brand's work led to no clue, although the one title with 'Thomas Cardif' in it seem to suggest that it is part of the Perry Rhodan Universe but I can't find anything that matches, either, so from my p.o.v. it'd be okay to delete them. In the worst case they have to be entered anew. Stonecreek 18:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed 3-way merge of "The Psychologist Who Wouldn't Do Awful Things to Rats" art

Hi. I have your proposed merge of:


on hold. The first two have Racoona Sheldon as the artist, but the third has James Tiptree, Jr. Also, that third one is the parent of the first one. Perhaps you meant to merge just the first two Sheldon ones? Or am I missing something? --MartyD 01:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Marty. I thought this was the right thing to do, since it said on the Tiptree author page that this artwork only appeared under the name Raccoona Sheldon. If this was false or led to undesired results, than I do want to merge only the two Sheldon titles. Stonecreek 09:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
When merging, you usually should only merge titles where the title text and author credits are identical. If either of those things is different, you should make a variant (the rare exception is when one of the titles/credits is wrong, and you mean for it to be eliminated). Here, Sheldon is a pseudonym for Tiptree. While the artwork only ever appeared as by Sheldon, we make it a variant of the same title credited instead to the author's canonical name so that it appears in the canonical author's bibliography display. That display annotates each title ("also as by" means it appeared credited to the canonical name and to the cited name; "only as by" means it never appeared credited to the canonical name, just to the cited name; no annotation means it only appeared credited to the canonical name). Anytime we have a title credited to a pseudonym, we make that title a variant of a parent title credited to the canonical author, regardless of whether the work ever appeared credited to that canonical name. Does that make sense? It's definitely confusing.... I will reject your merge and merge just the two Sheldon titles. --MartyD 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I see that it makes sense to feature a work under the canonical name also and not only under the pseudonym. Stonecreek 14:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Susan Schwartz

I'm holding the submission adding an essay by Susan Schwartz to this pub pending the response to this inquiry. It appears to be the only extant record for "Susan Schwartz" as a pseudonym for Susan Shwartz. Once that's determined we can decide if the author of your essay has to be disambiguated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it is not a pseudonym for Susan Shwartz but for the German author Uschi Zietsch. That is why WillemH.(I think) introduced the notation (3-8-1961) for disambiguation. She had quite a few novellas in the German Perry Rhodan series, none of them already entered. Stonecreek 16:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It was a pseudonym because there was a record by Shwartz in the database which was incorrectly credited as "Schwartz". Now that the record's been corrected there is no reason to disambiguate her names as "Susan Schwartz (3-8-1961"). It can be entered simply as "Susan Schwartz" and then you can make it into a pseudonym for Uschi Zietsch and variant the title record. I'll accept the submission and let you make the corrections. Mhhutchins 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thank you, that's even better. I will submit the necessary edits. Stonecreek 11:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"An All-Day Poem" in The Right Way to Figure Plumbing

Should Disch's "An All-Day Poem" be a POEM instead of an OMNIBUS, in your proposed content addition to The Right Way to Figure Plumbing? --MartyD 13:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I guess so: 14 pages are a little short for an OMNIBUS. Oh damn, how did that happen again? Stonecreek 14:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The choices are next to each other in the menu. It is easy to choose the wrong one. I accepted the submission and changed the type. --MartyD 14:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Search for Philip K. Dick

I have looked up this book in OCLC and corrected the number of pages. Also, when library catalogs put "c1995" in the date field, they are referring to the copyright date. Copyright dates are not always the same as publication dates, so I documented what we know in Notes. Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for expanding my knowledge on library catalogs. Stonecreek 13:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction Eye #2

I accepted the submission updating this pub, but made a couple of changes. Page count was changed based on ISFDB standards for magazine entry (with an adjustment of the note in the note field). The title of the book reviewed by Ted White was changed from "Only Apparently..." (the review's title) to Only Apparently Real: The World of Philip K. Dick, and then linked to that book's title record. Thanks for adding the interior art credits which was not a priority when I added the pub four years ago. Mhhutchins 21:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan, #603: Planet der Ritterspiele

I added the CID (image data and license tag) to this image. Mhhutchins 01:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Sex and the Black Machine" by Aldiss

I've added a cover image to your verified record of this pub. Mhhutchins 00:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Russ letter

Is the date that you appended to the title of this record the actual title as presented in the publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it has the date from 1984. It is not actually stated in the introduction, but it seems to be published for the first time in 1995 (no earlier publication indicated). Sorry for the late answer, I have been on a short vacation over the long weekend here in Germany. Stonecreek 16:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Herbert W. Franke's Der Auftrag

You verified this pub which contains Der Auftrag (1960 ss) and this pub which contains Der Auftrag (1982 nt). Is the second one an expansion of the first? Or are these actually the same? Thanks. --JLaTondre 17:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would treat it as a different work of fiction, since the later work was written as a radio play. Are you further interested if it is actually adapted from the earlier short story? In this case I'd have to read the play. Stonecreek 16:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope, that's fine. Thanks. --JLaTondre 23:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unendliche Grenzen

I added a cover image, and corrected the ISBN number, for your verified copy of this publication. Chavey 05:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael Marrak by Lord Gamma...or Lord Gamma by Michael Marrak?

The author and title of this record appear to be reversed. Mhhutchins 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I made a corrected submission. Stonecreek 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The note on this record says there's no given series, yet it was placed into one. What does the note mean? Mhhutchins 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I intended the meaning that neither a series editor nor a title editor were given. Should I make it more clear in the note?Stonecreek 21:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, adding that extra "editor" after series makes a whole new meaning. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ypsilon minus

Re the update to this title: We consider a novel's title date to be the date of its first book publication, regardless of a previously published serialization. Mhhutchins 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed it back. Stonecreek 19:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis or note field

You've made a few title record updates in the past hour or so that records a story's first appearance. Some have been placed in the Synopsis field and others in the Note field. Given a choice, I think they should be placed in the title record's Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. In the title edit screen the synopsis field is so huge that I don't see the note field at once. Will do my best to avoid this fault. Stonecreek 19:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Moloch, by Peter Crowther

I added a cover image, from Amazon, to your verified copy of this book. Chavey 03:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I must have missed out on this one (and the other Crowther edited anthology).Stonecreek 13:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SF Eye #11

Update of this pub was accepted, but I wonder about the "c"s that start the note field. Mhhutchins 02:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They must have crept in via the paste & copy edit. I'll change it.Stonecreek 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I also accepted the submission updating #9 but gave the more complete title to Westfahl's essay as it appears on the story's title page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. Anyway, I wonder if it is more an essay or a story; I tend to the first. Stonecreek 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ihoka's Cure

Please re-check the ISBN for this publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I re-checked and it remains the same, and I can't find it in the Library of Congress Online Catalog. It remains a mystery. Stonecreek 18:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Because it's not a valid ISBN, I've placed "#" before it to avoid the error message, and made a note to that effect in the note field. Mhhutchins 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Public Eye

I added more info from the OCLC record for this publication. Also changed the binding to "hc". All dealers give this ISBN as hardcover. If the SF Eye review gives it as "tp", perhaps they may have reviewed the ARC. Mhhutchins 18:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, tp was a guess by me, deducted (wrongly) from the price. There should be given a type of binding by the editor of ISFDB, shouldn't it? Stonecreek 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
In 1990, $20 was a typical hardcover price. And to answer your question about a source of the binding, did you state in your original submission that the binding was guessed by the ISFDB editor? :) I've added dealers as the source for the binding. Mhhutchins 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

PR 1024

I'm holding what appears to be a duplicate submission updating this publication. Can you verify that all the changes you wanted is in the current record? If I accept the submission, all of the contents will be duplicated, which would involve a lot of removing and deleting of content records. I don't know how this happened, but it appears to be a system glitch. The first submission and its acceptance isn't even showing up on the list of Recent Integrations, even though the pub appears to be updated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When I look at the pub there's only the novella by H. G. Francis as content. Maybe this won't be so in an hour. I propose to try it again, I'll leave a message so that you could accept the submission (or not). Stonecreek 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Try refreshing your cache. My view of the record shows 17 content records and the cover image. Mhhutchins 16:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, now my view is up to date, too. This is the complete set of contents. Please reject the double, thanks.Stonecreek 16:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Der Auftrag" by Herbert W. Franke

You've verified two records that appear to be different stories with this title. The first (1960) is only three pages long, and the second (1982) is 40 pages long. Are they related? We'll probably need to disambiguate them or place something in their title record's note field so that another editor won't come alone and merge them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do so. The later one is a radio play, so I'll add this information.Stonecreek 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Date for Stadt wischen den Planeten

I changed the date on this pub from 1960-00-06 to 1960-06-00. I apologize if that's not correct. --MartyD 11:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is not correct. I intended this date only for the correct display of the pub. series, but don't be afraid, I will submit anew.Stonecreek 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You should at least include a note about why the date is the way it is. I know one editor/moderator in the past has done something similar with using the day of the date to indicate a printing. I don't agree with the practice, as I think the date should just be the date and not have any other meaning. But I don't know what our actual policy is, so I will leave those edits for a moderator who knows better. But if you're trying to fix the order in the Publisher Series, all you need to do to get it to sort properly is to zero-pad the shorter numbers. For example, the sorting (if they all have the same date) is "Z 10", "Z 13", "Z 4", but would be "Z 04", "Z 10", "Z 13". --MartyD 12:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thank you, didn't know that. But with a little help from my friends it is so much easier (if I would stress my brain a little bit, there could creep out some equally good ideas). I will gladly use your proposal in the future. Stonecreek 12:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
If you'd like, I can accept the submissions, change the dates to "-00", and change the series numbers to 02, 04, 06.... If you want them to be that way, it is faster for me to do it. Let me know. --MartyD 13:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
That'd be a fine doing. Thank you very much! Stonecreek 13:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The doing is done. See what you think. --MartyD

13:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! Looks a lot better, without compromising the date field. Thank you! Stonecreek 13:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Das Science Fiction Jahr Ausgabe 1990

I see that you've dated several of the reviews in this year book prior to this book's publication. I'm assuming these are translations of earlier published reviews and you gave them the date of their original publication. Does the book acknowledge the source of the original publications? If so, it would be nice to record that info in the note field of the review's title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hilfe aus Zeit und Raum

After approving the changes to Hilfe aus Zeit und Raum, I noticed that we now have two 792s in PR Zyklus 12: Die Aphilie. Could you please double check? Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your open eye. It had to be #791 in one case and I submiited the correction.Stonecreek 05:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 06:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Heyne Science Fiction [& Fantasy]

Should the publisher series on Zwei von Ihnen be Heyne Science Fiction instead of a new, Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy? --MartyD 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I did see you added some others to that new series, so never mind.... --MartyD 12:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan, #2486: Wispern des Hyperraums

I noticed that you didn't change the language to German in the submission of this issue. Are you aware of the change in software that allows the submitter to set the language of the publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, this can only be done when adding new publications. The newly created title record gets the language designation, not the pub record. Mhhutchins 16:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I seem to have not recognized this feature when entering the last pubs. I'll gladly use it in the future.Stonecreek 17:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates to Foundation

Thanks for updating the stub issues that I entered of this title. What is the source for your data? Also, I see you're adding the issue number to the title field, which is good because they're more known by issue number than by date of publication. I also noticed that you're placing commas both before and after the issue number. Was that intentional? When we updated Interzone from the date only title to the issue number & date title, we placed a comma after the title with only a space between issue number and date. Do you think we should be consistent or that this title should be handled differently? Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it seems I remembered falsely the format of IZ titles with two commas - better to check it out before editing.
I found that the price information I added is only the price for a one year subscription. There is only a price for single back issues mentioned (not for the topical issue), but this price may be a reduced price. Should I enter this price with a remark in the notes?
I enter from the actual issues of Foundation. No. 15 is the earliest I have, and I have no complete run (#20 is missing, for example). But I own the most issues up to around #50.Stonecreek 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a few issues myself, and it looks like I avoided the price issue entirely. We should probably only give the subscription price in the note field and leave the price field blank (when or if an individual price is ever stated, not a back issue price.)
I'm holding a submission that adds over two dozen more reviews to Issue #15, which seems to be pretty full as is. I think there may have been a conflict in timing, as several reviews are duplicated in the new submission. Also the cover URL is in the cover artist field. Do you want me to accept the submission? If so, you'll have to remove and delete about a dozen duplicate records. Mhhutchins 18:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please, accept it. Better to remove and change a bit than to enter them anew. Stonecreek 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Submission accepted. Remember, once you've dropped the records from the pub, you'll also have to delete each one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I still don't get why these double submissions occurred. Somehow it seems that after p. 94 (review of Aldiss' Last Orders) the mistake happened, because it was twice there but Aldiss wasn't mentioned as author in the first of them and after that page there was only one of each title. Mysterious, mysterious. Stonecreek 19:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If you entered partial contents in a previous submission, it's possible that in your second submission you updated from a version in your browser's cache, and not from the record in the database that you'd already updated with partial contents. (The previously entered contents may not even be visible on the page.) Whenever I'm entering a publication with many content records and have split the entry into several submissions, I always make sure I go directly to the database record, and not mistakenly use the browser's back button (although I admit doing that more than once and winding up in the same position as you are now.) Mhhutchins 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Recent Integrations list shows a submission that updated the record last night [2011-06-26 21:44:56 1637185 - PubUpdate Stonecreek Mhhutchins Foundation, #15, January 1979] and then today [2011-06-27 13:20:21 1637683 - PubUpdate Stonecreek Mhhutchins Foundation, #15 January 1979]. I can't tell what each of them consists of, but the scenario I gave above is not likely because of the number of hours between the two submissions. So that still leaves the doubled contents a mystery.
A few years ago there was a period when I was getting many duplicate submissions, which I narrowed down to a mouse that double clicked when I didn't want it to. It got to the point that I was so paranoid that I never used the mouse to click on the submit button, but used the keyboard's "Enter" button instead. I got into the habit and 90% of the time I still don't click submit! Mhhutchins 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it may be the mouse. Normally I also use the Enter button. In the first session (2011-06-26) I entered only the feature articles and a few reviews, and in the second session I submitted the rest of the reviews. But on the other side my keyboard has the 'ability' to fix on a button (for example getting 'vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv' when using the Ctrl+c and Ctrl+v combination. Still another mystery is why the addition of the review of Aldiss' Last Orders was accepted without the author of the book. But now on to rectify Foundation #15.Stonecreek 09:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hm, that sounds like a bug since it shouldn't be possible to create a pub with an author-less review. There were some problems in this area a while back, but I thought I had them resolved. Perhaps not... Ahasuerus 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There are definitely oddities still. I don't think it's down to the submitter - the XML looks good. However, if the approver doesn't get the whole thing approved in one attempt, then there may be a partial update that gets through and then the second attempt at approval duplicates all the bits that got through before the failure. For Techies: check "MyISAM" versus "INNODB". If I'm right, I can't see any way around this except to build in proper transaction processing, which is a massive task. :-( BLongley 23:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Books Received

Hi, I changed "Books Received February 1998" to "1999" in this issue of Interzone. Jonschaper 05:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Author initials

I approved the changes to The Lunatics of Terra and then changed "JT Lindroos" to "J. T. Lindroos". This is a somewhat grey area and Help is ambiguous on the subject:

  • Initials should normally be entered followed by a period and a space as "Gordon R. Dickson" or "K. D. Wentworth", even if period or space is omitted in the publication. However, when it is clearly the author's choice to omit the period, or when the author has a single letter name that is not an initial (e.g. "Harry S Truman") the period should be omitted. In the very rare case where an author prefers two (or more) initials as if they were a name (such as "TG Theodore"), without period or space, and is so credited, we follow the author's preference. A possible clue to such cases occurs when most authors have initials shown with period and space, but a particular author is handled differently in a magazine or anthology. Checking other sources, such as a Wikipedia article or the author's web site, is a good idea. Such non-standard forms should be mentioned in a publication or title note.

As an aside, we should really clarify Help to explain that this rule was originally put in place so that we wouldn't have to create pseudonyms when publishers try to get fancy, e.g. "robert a heinlein" instead of "Robert A. Heinlein". The "author preferences" clause was an afterthought to account for authors who consistently use a non-standard form of their name, a different issue.

In this case, we already had a J. T. Lindroos Summary page and the artist's Web page suggests that he uses both forms of the name, although "JT Lindroos" seems to be preferred. I think we'll want to stick with "J. T. Lindroos" for now and see how it evolves. Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I see Ahasuerus has caught it before me - and probably explained it better. I must go check the "Julia Lindroos" I verified - "Juha" seems more common although it's not a forename I recognise. BLongley 23:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
And I see Ahasuerus has also identified an email address, which someone with more time than us might like to chase up. So many things to do, so little time - but that's why we have Editors! ;-) I do find that when I chase down a little known Author or Artist they're quite appreciative of the publicity we're giving them though. BLongley 23:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifying! I wasn't sure how to edit JT Lindroos, because that's the name given and the other Lindrooses weren't pseudonyms at that time. But hey, Juha may even be a misreading of Julia on the side of the publisher. Stonecreek 13:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Julia is a misreading of Juha rather than vice versa. He appears to be male, with a Finnish name. BLongley 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I especially want your comments

On ISFDB:Community_Portal#Design_for_phase_4.28.3F.29_of_foreign_language_support, and on phase 3 too. BLongley 00:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Freas Cover

Just an FYI that [this] cover is re-cycled from [this] older cover. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

SF Times

You'll need to manually link the reviews to the titles that they review. If the German language title isn't in the database, you can link them to the English title record. A question: did Rainer Zubeil review his own novel? Mhhutchins 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, he didn't. Thanks for finding the fault. The linking is under way. Stonecreek 05:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kopernikus 4

How certain are you that the interior artwork and introduction that was supposedly commissioned by the SFBC (US) in 1996 for their stand-alone publication of the Tiptree story was the same artwork and introduction that was published in a 1981 edition of a German-language book? Mhhutchins 19:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain (that they are not part of the book). I just wanted to grab the novella by Tiptree without having to link it afterwards and thought that a chapbook would be the brightest idea. But, alas, there still remains work to do ;-). Stonecreek 05:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
On second thought it may have been wiser to use the Export Content device, wouldn't it? I will try this one on another item.Stonecreek 08:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That didn't do the trick, either.Stonecreek 14:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it would have been just as easy to 1) create a new content record and 2) merge it with the existing one. Exporting single records just isn't very efficient. You end up having to make just as many or even more submissions that you would have otherwise. I only use Import/Export to duplicate the entire contents of a book, but that's my personal preference (and from someone who's been around awhile, it's something to take into consideration.) Mhhutchins 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It'd be only efficient if a chapbook has only one entry (the one you would want to include), I think. Stonecreek 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
True, but you chose a chapbook with three content records, which meant you had to made an additional submission to remove the two records you didn't want. Why take the chance that you would forget to come back to the pub record to remove the extraneous records? Both methods required two submissions. When faced with a situation where there are two choices, each requiring equal effort, it's better to choose the one with the least possible complications. All my humble opinion, of course, and Occam's. Mhhutchins 05:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed Cartier = Edd Cartier

I have submissions that want to merge records with credits by Ed Cartier with those by Edd Cartier. Were these records incorrectly credited? Mhhutchins 20:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they were credited to Ed Cartier in the copyright informations, but I don't think that they are worth a new pseudonym. Stonecreek 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll accept the submissions. Be sure to record the actual credit in the pub's note field. Don't be surprise if other editors disagree with this choice. Mhhutchins 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Reinmar Cu[n]is

I changed the author credit from "Reinmar Cuis" to "Reinmar Cunis" on your Der Mols-Zwischenfall submission. It looked like a typo to me, and I figured I would save you an edit-and-approve cycle. I apologize if that was not correct. --MartyD 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much, indeed! That was a typo on my behalf. I guess a second look on the submission would have some merits. Stonecreek 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing the credits on editor records

I have three submissions that want to change to editor credits for Perry Rhodan, years 1985 - 1987. You want to drop Günter M. Schelwokat and add Horst Hoffmann on all three. Will you be updating the pub records with the same substitution? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will. It's in the pipeline. Stonecreek 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
During your inactive time, we added a field labeled "Note to Moderator". Use this field to supply addition information about the submission (not about the publication), especially if you anticipate a moderator having to ask you a question about the submission (such as the one I just asked). This note does not become part of the record, and disappears after the submission is accepted. Thanks. Mhhutchins
And please let me know of any other kind of edits where a "Note to Moderator" will be useful - I'm aware I've missed a few. I can't promise when they'll go live, but after some painful editing sessions recently I would like to relax with a bit more coding. :-/ BLongley 01:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In general, I'd say that it could be useful in any possible submission, though the ones where something is about to be changed have priority, at least in my opinion Stonecreek 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks as though Ahasuerus is testing such for Making or Removing a Pseudonym, which could be useful given the amount of Author work going on at the moment. BLongley 18:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jager / Hunter

I have a submission on hold that wants to change the title of this record to "Hunter", and the language to English. According to the pub (Ganymedes 1), it is a Dutch original story. The note you want to add, "Ominously, this title was translated for the Dutch anthology Ganymedes 1 (translation by Les Cornwell)." makes no sense to me. Where does the information come from? --Willem H. 18:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is from that anthology. It's an information given at the end of the story (on p. 30, to be exact). And there's another story in it that is also translated. Stonecreek 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Amazing. But I still have to reject your submission, since it wants to change the title of the Dutch version. Instead I made it a variant of a new title record and added your note to the translated title. Thanks! --Willem H. 18:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Experiment mit nicht steuerbaren Folgeerscheinungen

I have a submission on hold that wants to turn the language of this title to Russian. It's the German translation, so I think it should be German (you already made it a variant of a Russian record). Could you also change the canonical title to Russian (not the language, but the title itself)? Thanks, --Willem H. 19:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but it will be my transcription of the title written in Kyrillian. I have my doubts that it will be correct, so I hesitated in entering. Shall I proceed nevertheless? Stonecreek 10:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess so. It just looks strange to have the original Russian title the same as the translated German. You might ask Ahasuerus to take a look, his Russian is far better than mine (= nonexistent). --Willem H. 18:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Done! And Russian is not too bad if you don't mind spending twenty years getting comfortable with its perfective and imperfective aspects :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahasuerus (talkcontribs) . 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I knew there were better things to do with my life. Learning to decipher the Cyrillic alphabet should have been my first priority. Too late now, alas :). Shall I reject your submission, or do you want to withdraw it? --Willem H. 18:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I have cancelled the submisson. Thank you both. Stonecreek 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Die Elianer

I approved your edit to number "Die Elianer" as a sub-series of "Stellaris", but I don't think the result is what you expected. Numbering sub-series does just that, numbering sub-series. It doesn't place a sub-series on that position of the items in the series. Take a look here and you'll see. --Willem H. 15:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that really isn't what I had in mind. Would a numeration as #22-#24 of the three individual parts of the serial help?Stonecreek 16:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, numbering them only defines their order in the sub-series. I don't think we have a way to place a sub-series between the numbered items. Sorry. --Willem H. 18:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Eine Reise zu John Brunner art

Did you mean to change the art numbering from 12, 13, 16 to 2, 3, 6 as you submitted, or 2, 3, 4 on " Eine Reise zu John Brunner" (this) in Science Fiction Times #150? --MartyD 10:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it should have been 4. I have no idea how 12, 13, 16 got into it the first time. Shall I resubmit?Stonecreek 13:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No, that's ok, I will fix it. I think the original numbers were the page numbers. Thanks. --MartyD 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Paddy Chayevsky / Paddy Chayefsky

Hi, you verified this review with the sole occurence of Paddy Chayevsky, while all other publication from or about this author are for Paddy Chayefsky. Is yours a typo or a different transcription? Can you perhaps change the author name in the review and say in the note that the spelling in the review is slightly different from the usual? This saves us a lot of extra authors created from typos and different translations or so I've been told. --Dirk P Broer 18:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As I remember it, this was the spelling in the review, but I will look it up - probably tomorrow. Stonecreek 19:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The cover image shows "Chayevsky" so it's likely to be a different transcription. But we try to avoid reviewees being pseudonyms when a note about the different spelling in the review record would suffice. When you've got 80,000 authors to cope with you really don't want too many extras! BLongley 21:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I know the problem of those transcriptions. I also keep speedskating statistics, and all hell breaks loose when I get Chinese names through Russian channels. There is even difference between the Norwegian, English and German way of transcription from the Russian Cyrillic to Roman script. --Dirk P Broer 21:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It's worse than that -- check out this table. Even the English speaking world can't agree on a single standard :-( And to make things even more "interesting", historians usually make exceptions for "well known individuals" like Trotsky... Ahasuerus 00:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't scare editors off just as we're about to blackjack them! ;-) Christian is already up for approval as Moderator, and Dirk isn't far off I think. Although I suspect User:P-Brane is probably going to become our native(?) Russian expert eventually. I have enough problems with diacritics and accents and all sorts of things non-ASCII that I want to encourage them - if it wasn't for me liking the "£" sign to be represented correctly I'd go for a good old-fashioned "seven-bits with parity" option. ;-) BLongley 01:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sternträumer by Cordwainer Smith

I believe the contents of this collection is sufficiently different from the English collection that it should not be under the same title record. Only three of the eight stories appeared in the earlier collection. If you agree, do an umnerge from this title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. Actually, 'Sternträumer' is regarded as original edition in Germany, I only did otherwise because 'Stardreamer' is given as original title. Thank you for clearing it up. Stonecreek 17:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks like you unmerged both the English and the German pub records from the title record. If I accept the submission you'll have to merge the two English title records back together. Your call. Mhhutchins 17:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, oh, seems I misunderstood the unmerge window. I'll resubmit. Stonecreek 17:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a note on the new title record to warn other editors not to merge or variant this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Gates of Creation

Did this publication retain the English title? Mhhutchins 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, in the moment of submitting I already realized my omission, I will correct it. Stonecreek 16:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Planer der schmelzenden Berge

Is the cover artist's name hyphenated as shown in this record? If so, we need to make it into a pseudonym and create a variant record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I also believe the first word in the title is misspelled. Mhhutchins 18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and yes: you're right on both points, but I changed the name to Morris Scott Dollens. In the German books he is the cover artist of (and that I have), he is credited without hyphenation, so I don't think it is worth a pseudonym. I will put a note into the pub record, though. Stonecreek 16:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think you're ready to be a Moderator?

Hi Christian, I've been following your progress on the database since you first started, and in a recent discussion your name has come up as a potential moderator. Multi language skills are more and more appreciated these days. I've had no problems with your submissions for some time now, and think you're at least ready for self-approval. Take a look at the Moderator Qualifications and the Moderator Helpscreen, and let me know what you think. --Willem H. 19:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Willem! I don't know if I am ready to be a moderator, even if it's only for self-approval. There does creep the occasional typing error into my submissions, although I strive for more accuracy in this field. Having somebody taking a second look isn't too bad. As I realize, it would take on the other hand some workload off the shoulders of other moderators, especially in the German Perry Rhodan universe. Stonecreek 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if you just self-moderated your Perry Rhodan entries that would save us a lot of work! An "occasional typing error" is normal - look at any Moderator's talk-page and you'll see we do check on each other and point out (sometimes embarrassing) mistakes still. It would be fine if you started with your own edits, and you can still leave any questionable ones to the rest of us to have a second look at. It's not a case of "Mods should know everything" - we'll support a new Moderator as much as, if not more than, a new Editor. BLongley 18:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess you are saying that nobody is perfect (I certainly am not). So, yes, if there'd be enough voices in favor of me getting into the task, I wouldn't say no. (But I'd forward my submissions without it, too.) Stonecreek 18:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Becoming familiar with the Moderator Qualifications and Moderator Help pages should inform your decision. It's not as daunting a task as it may first appear. Moderating your own submissions and questioning other moderators about unfamiliar procedures is the best approach. Mhhutchins 18:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This looked like a "Yes I Do". Thanks for your honesty Christian! I'll start the process. --Willem H. 13:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


I'm assuming you don't have copies of this periodical (the page numbers aren't given.) If not, please note the source of your data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Michael. I am assuming you refer to this pub. Alas, I don't know anything about it. Could it have been submitted by Dirk P. Broer? Stonecreek 17:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. I was handling yours and Dirk's submissions at the same time and confused his with yours. Pardon. Mhhutchins 17:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Birthplace of Stefan Grabinski

Do you know in what country was Kamionka Strumilowa in 1887? Mhhutchins 18:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not now, I planned a research for tomorrow. Now it is part of Ukraine, but in the history of this country and Poland there were quite some changes, most of them courtesy of Germany, alas. Stonecreek 18:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It's near Lviv (then Lemberg), so it must have been a part of Austria-Hungary in 1887. (Coincidentally, another SF writer, Stefan Grabinski, was also born in Kamionka Strumilowa.) Ahasuerus 00:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Woman Space submissions

Hi Christian. Yesterday I approved your edits for this title, but after this changed the credit back to "uncredited", and copied your note about 'The New Victoria Collective' to the title record. This has no effect on the review here. Hope you can agree. --Willem H. 15:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, I just thought it'd be better even to have an 'institution' as editor than 'uncredited'. Stonecreek 16:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


Saw [this] post, so dug for my copy. Page numbers do not match, but that's irrelevant. First piece: Adult Movies/Live Girls Nude on signs in background; piece two: rope bridge with planks; piece three: figure with arm out on posts wired together, pointed on top; piece four: falling figure into snake's mouth; piece five: figure with knife in right hand, jungle background; piece six: two smaller figures, large one with hole in chest [?]. Go for the gusto on adding/merging/all that stuff we do! ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Check! The artwork is in the same order as in my edition (should be, because it illustrates the text). Thank you for taking not one but six looks! Stonecreek 13:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

William Moy Russell

I approved your submission to make this title a variant of this one. Remember that a second edit is necessary to make W. M. S. Russell a pseudonym of William Moy Russell. --Willem H. 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done. Stonecreek 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
And approved. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


Congratulations, you are now a moderator! When you get a chance, please take a look at Help:Screen:Moderator -- there is quite a bit of useful information there, especially re: moderating automated submissions. Ahasuerus 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome! Have fun with your new powers. --Willem H. 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome aboard! Remember you're not being thrown in the deep-end, you can still ask us for advice and help. But I look forward to not having to deal with your Perry Rhodan Title updates any more... ;-) BLongley 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for trusting one imperfect guy! I'll try to get a bit deeper into moderating next week (it's a long weekend over here and I'm out for a prolonged visit), but to be able to approve your own edits feels great. Editing Perry Rhodan even gets somewhat on my nerves - and I have some interest in the series. Stonecreek 14:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Alien Contact #36

I happen to have a copy of this German language publication because it prints a translated excerpt from an essay by Michael Bishop about Brian Aldiss that is used as an introduction to an excerpt from Aldiss' biography. Well, I thought I'd try my hand at entering it and you can see the results. My biggest problem was that the titles under review were all capitalized, so I couldn't tell which words in the titles had initial capitalized letters. Also, there's a credit at the end of a review as simply "cak." which I assume is an abbreviation for a common German word. Do you know what this could be? I linked the reviews to the English language title records, but there are a set of reviews for German language books, most of which are not in the database, thus unlinked. I'd appreciate your looking over the record when you get a chance to tell me how many mistakes I made. :) Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Michael! I happen to have this pub also. You did quite well in entering the reviews and the rest of the publication! As you suspected there are a few faults in the titles of the reviewed books regarding some initial capitalized letters. If you don't mind, I'd correct them to the German spelling (although I have to research the Kim Newman novel: it could be 'Der rote Baron' or 'Der Rote Baron'). There seems to exist no English version of 'Bären' by Diane Duane, which astonishes me (but it's possible). And regarding 'cak': it is most surely an abbreviation for somebody, maybe Carsten Kuhr, who did a lot of reviews in German fanzines and magazines. That remains a speculation nevertheless, because he is not mentioned in the pub. Probably it'd be better to leave it at 'cak'. Stonecreek 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it over. Please proceed to make the necessary corrections in capitalization. (There must be rules to German capitalization, but I just can't seem to get the knack. And those umlauts really pop up a lot, too!) The Duane story threw me for a loop as well. I kept looking for a statement about its original publication in English but never found it. And use your newly acquired power to moderate the submission. Congratulations! Mhhutchins 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the Duane story was the first publication of this story. I'll try to see if there was an earlier English publication. Mhhutchins 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I found the original English version of the story using the Wayback Machine on It has a 1995 copyright but no statement about any original publication. This page was pulled from a 2003 scan of Duane's older website. So now we know the story exists in English, but now I have to look for an actual publication... Mhhutchins 16:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, because 'Bären' is the translation of 'Bears'. Maybe it wasn't published before: at least over here only small presses tend to publish shortfiction, the big publishers nowadays go only for novels & serials. If she hadn't found a publisher before, ebooks could be a clever way out.
Thanks for the congratulations!
For the German spelling: unlike in English titles (only) nouns are capitalized - with quite a lot of exceptions (who would've guessed otherwise?).
I'll do the edits, after checking the one exception mentioned above (or more, if they creep up). Stonecreek 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Images without licenses

I noticed that you uploaded five images yesterday without a license tag. If you didn't use the semi-automated "Upload Cover Scan" function from the database side, and uploaded them on the wiki side using the "Upload File" function, these images will not automatically have the image licenses attached to them. As an example, you can see that this wiki page for one of the images is "naked" (without a license explaining our fair use rationale and a data tag which gives a link back to the publication record, as they appear on this page). You can add a license to these images by editing the page and using this CID1 template in the edit window:

{{Cover Image Data
|Title=<publication title>
|Edition=<date and/or publisher>
|Pub=<the publication record number or tag>
|Publisher=<Name of publisher>
|Artist=<name of cover artist>
|Source=<origin of image>

Replace the parameter, as well as the angle brackets (< >), with the image's data. If you need assistance, just ask. Mhhutchins 06:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for this fault. I clearly forgot the legal side of adding cover images. Thanks for the reminder. Stonecreek 12:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Die Linien der Zeit

Hi Christian, I saw you added this pub to the database. I have a question about this one. The Dutch edition states that the novel was written in German, and after publication by Ullstein was translated to Dutch by the author. What does your edition say about this (if anything)? One thing is certain, the German edition was published first and should probably be the canonical title. --Willem H. 20:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the canonical title: I'd say that the German title remains the variant. Because: the original Dutch title is given and it is stated that the author translated it from the Dutch (that is the other way around as stated in the Dutch edition - but I think that this statement was perhaps only on the side of the publisher). Regrettably, we can't ask the author anymore, but for me the most probable scenario would have been that the author at first couldn't find a Dutch publisher, translated it for the German publication and that made things easier to publish it in the original. After all - as an example - 'He Walked Among Us' by Norman Spinrad should have in the other case also the canonical German title (although Spinrad didn't do his own translation). Or one story that I can think of by the editor in question, Ronald M. Hahn, was published first in Dutch, as I recall it. Stonecreek 11:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I can live with the Dutch version as canonical (of course). It was the statement that the novel was written in German and later translated in Dutch that triggered me. I added a note to the (Dutch) title record about this.
There are more titles with a first publication in another language of course. One of the most extreme is Caroline Oh! Caroline, written in Dutch, but the only known edition is in French. Anyway , thanks. --Willem H. 12:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Patric Bernauw vs. Patrick Bernauw

Hi Christian, you have a Patric Bernauw as writer of 'Abno', but I think it is Patrick Bernauw and here, and that get's verified here, can you please check it?

You are right, it's Patrick Bernauw. I entered this name from the contents page (where he is spelled Patric), but on the first page of the story it's Patrick. I will change it.
I have one problem with the publisher(s) of the Ganymedes series of anthologies: I happen to own four issues of it, #1 & #2 are published by A. W. Bruna & Zoon, #6 is published by Bruna Pockethuis, but copyrighted to A. W. Bruna & Zoon (#7 is still to be determined by me). They differ in the ISBN, though: The first have 90-229-, #6 has 90-449-. Do they qualify as separate publishers or shall they be entered as one and the same? Stonecreek 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I would say Willem H. is far better able to answer that question than me, but on forhand I would say yes. The (zwarte beertjes) series numbering is continued. --Dirk P Broer 19:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If I'm getting the question right: You don't have to standardise a Publisher name to create a series - the reason they are called "Publication series" is because we recognised that series will move publishers at times, e.g. Arrow and Hamlyn for Venture SF, Gollancz and Millennium for the Masterworks etc. If I'm getting the intention wrong, just ignore me and go on with your European expertise. BLongley 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, you asked me for my opinion. There are a few things I would like to say about this. First the publisher; I'm all for standardization, so i.m.o. it should be "Bruna" or "A. W. Bruna" but not both, and certainly without "en Zoon" or "Pockethuis" or any other addition (there are more, believe me), no matter how it's stated in the publications (variants could be mentioned in the notes). The only exception would be books published after 2010, when Bruna was taken over by WPG Uitgevers, and became an imprint.
Second, the Ganymedes series is, of course, a title series. I created the series, and added the three already existing editions to it. I'll verify them, and add the others (there are 11) sometime in the not too distant future, if someone else doesn't do it first. I also changed the publication series for #6 from "Bruna SF" to "Zwarte Beertjes". I hope you can agree with this. (by the way, can you actually read Dutch?) --Willem H. 18:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You two have absolutely the last say in this - and I also tend more to have one publisher instead of a lot in this case, I just wanted to ask you. And I started to learn Dutch two years ago by reading it (with Ganymedes #6 by the way, because short stories don't require as much standing as a novel for beginners). I still have to read it as if reading aloud, then many words become meaningful to me as a German. I also still have to look up quite a lot in the dictionary, though. Stonecreek 18:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed :-). Sounds a bit like my learning Portugese. When I read it real slow, and search for the gibberish in a dictionary, I can understand most of the meaning. But I only do that on vacation, not really for fun. --Willem H. 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, vacations are the time to read it. I liked 'Coriolis' by Gerben Hellinga very much, and learned that there is a sequel of sorts to it that never was published in German. Together with some good stories by various authors this was a major drive. Stonecreek 19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Robinson Sixty Days and Counting

Can you confirm a few things about the data in this record? Is the publisher given as "Harper" (a US imprint) or "HarperCollins"? Does it print the ISFDB-10 or ISFDB-13? Is the page count 504 or 512? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 23:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just discovered that HarperCollins has used the "Harper" imprint in the UK as well, so that may be as stated. Mhhutchins 23:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is stated Harper (over) An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers on the copyright page. On spine and title page is only 'Harper'. The page count is 504 (with six unnumbered pages preceding the novel and two after it). This edition only prints the ISBN-13. Thanks for the task. Stonecreek 13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

Thanks for the pointer. It looks as though it would be easy to add an "Other Sites" link to them, e.g.
Other Sites.jpg
Would this be useful? If so, can you check their conditions to see if ISBN-10 or ISBN-13 links are preferred, and if there are any restrictions on use we should be aware of? BLongley 18:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been testing it out, and think it shows that Plasmawelt should have a "978" ISBN-13 prefix rather than a "979" one? BLongley 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that both ISBNs are possible (some authors have 'links' from the German wikipedia), although it may be that older books only have a 'link' provided through ISBN-10. And yes, such an "Other Sites" link would be quite useful.
The 978 prefix is the right one. Stonecreek 08:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've submitted the "Deutsche Nationalbibliothek" link for consideration, when Ahasuerus gets some time to test it. I did try and find a Dutch equivalent to help some other editors, and came across The European Library - which seems to be a general site more suited to Europeans than Worldcat is. Have you come across this before? It seems quite useful (getting us to British Library prices for instance), although I'm not really qualified to test much else out. BLongley 02:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Njet, I haven't seen that one before, but in afterthought it seems quite logical for the EU to build a site like that. It should give us really some backup for research. Stonecreek 10:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

PR #2600

Is Christian Montillon interviewing his own pseudonym in this issue? If so, we have to give the interviewee as the canonical author's name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked into the magazine and yes, Montillon interviews himself, i. e. his real self (because Montillon is the pseudonym). But it would be totally misleading to make Dittert into the canonical name: All his genre fiction was published under Montillon. And this seemingly exception is none: the interviews in PR#2600 are all on work outside of the Perry Rhodan universe, and in this case even outside all fantastic genres. Dittert has published a juvenile mystery (the ??? should be or should have been quite popular in the US, too - were they also published as by Alfred Hitchcock?) and around this novel the interview revolves. Stonecreek 18:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Michael is suggesting Dittert as the canonical name, that's fine. It's just that an interview of Christoph Dittert by Christian Montillon will only show up on Dittert's page, not Montillon's. Our current workaround is to make sure the interviewee is given as the canonical name, so in this case an interview of Christian Montillon by Christian Montillon will put things on the right page. BLongley 18:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that makes some sense. I'll see to put it into this rightful meaning. And, as I just learned, the German ??? (Drei Fragezeichen = Three Question Marks) originated as the Three Investigators. Stonecreek 19:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a Cleanup Script that finds potential problems - "Interviews of Pseudonyms" is the fifth one. I don't know how often they are run, but they're often a nice mini-project when you're tired of other work. BLongley 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It was Bill's cleanup script that brought this situation to my attention, and, yes, I meant that the interview record's interviewee be changed, not the canonical relationship between the two names. I go through all of the cleanup scripts about once a week. Maybe I'm the only one's whose doing it, because I find there are about 10-20 problems each week that I "cleanup". Mhhutchins 20:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad someone does use them! I get very little feedback on software changes that mean more work rather than less, even if it improves our data. And I'm happy to take requests for improvements or additions: Ahasuerus may not be so keen as he has to test them all, and he's overworked already. But I can also post mini-projects to wiki pages if desired: it just takes a fairly clear definition of what's needed. So for instance, if someone wants to work on "Meisterwerke der Science Fiction" publication series and has a list somewhere, I can knock up a quick page of publications that may or may not qualify. I suspect they're best left till we get the next round of language support improvements in, but if people want to do it the hard way in the meantime I'm happy to let them. BLongley 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm barely proficient at English. No way I'm going to tackle a foreign-language series! Mhhutchins 01:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Aw, you wimp! I failed my "English Literature" exam while acing "English Language" (couldn't appreciate Jane Austen, still can't, even with added Zombies) - so apparently I can write but not read my native language. I didn't even attempt German, I took Latin and failed that instead. I did do three years of French at Junior School (very progressive!) and then another three at Secondary School which was so repetitive I lost interest. I have tried to learn a little French and German so that I can leave moderating such to the experts, as I'm never going to be one. BLongley 02:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Guess I'm too old to learn another language. But my two years of high school Latin taught me more about English than any English grammar and composition course I ever took. And they've stood me well for the past forty years. Mhhutchins 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

On "Meisterwerke der Science Fiction": Yes, please! I have some (about 10) of them in my collection, but didn't start to collect them all, since I already had the most in English or German. The new bibliographies in 'Das Science Fiction Jahr' do not show the publication series anymore, so it remains a bit of guesswork. Alas, 'Perry Rhodan' seems to be more time-consuming than I thought before, so all other projects take so much more time. Stonecreek 11:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I had a stab at Meisterwerke der Science Fiction but I'm very suspicious of the Amazon data I used. BLongley 23:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, but no: a first glance is very satisfactory. The publication dates at least do look very promising, since the series started at the turn of the millenium - and that is the first point of doubt for amazon data (but it seems they are not too reliable in that regard with older publications). The second point of doubt is the supplied cover image (also more for older pub.s), but I'll take a look while working through the series. Anyway, thanks a lot for supplying the data! Stonecreek 10:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Cover image for PR #2507

I see you've uploaded the cover for this issue twice: here (without a license) and this one (with a license), both within minutes of each other. Did you intend on deleting the first one? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea (that is: no remembrance) how that could have happened, but I deleted the image without the licence tag. Thank you for finding this! Stonecreek 20:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

PR #2502

Are the two books reviewed in this issue SF-related? None of the four authors are in the database currently, and coming up as stray authors on one of the clean-up scripts. This can be corrected by adding the books to the database (if they're SF-related) and then linking the reviews to the new records. If the books are not SF-related (and not eligible for inclusion in the database), the reviews should be turned into essays. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Better late, than never: I've done it (but had to look after my copy of the magazine because I weren't sure if one of the reviews in question was relevant). Stonecreek 14:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello Christian. I found in this pub Science Fiction Story Reader 3 that you record "Maximovic" with a acute accent. But here Maximovic is written without the accent. What is correct? Rudolf Rudam 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rudolf! I decided for Maximović as canonical name so far, because most publications have this version. Another matter is how we treat his collection, because there he even is written Maximovič, another possible variant. I haven't found this spelling somewhere else so far, so I think it's a Suhrkamp thing. (But do we treat this as variant? What do you think?) Stonecreek 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Christian. I researched his name and found three variant spellings. In the publications from Moewig, Fischer, Suhrkamp and Ullstein he is written as Maximovič. The 'Encyclopedia of Science Fiction', the 'Lexikon der Sciecne Fiction Literatur', the 'Reclam Science Fiction Führer' and the Heyne-Anthologies spell him as Maximović. Wikipedia, other biographical internet-sites and also his own(!) SF-magazine PARSEK spell him only as Maximovic. It is difficult to decide, because every decision means a lot of changings and a lot of variant titles. If we want to have the most correct way then Maximović is canonical and all other spellings are variant titles. What do you think? Rudam 14:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
That's perfect for me, let's do it this way. On PARSEK: I think about entering this magazine sometime in the future, but I don't know if there were two or three isues published (or even more?). I have the first two issues but have found the information that #3 was published, although only in an advertisement in SF Times; I have no hard evidence that this issue was published, do you? Stonecreek 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. Let's start. I own also only the first two copies of PARSEK and never heard about a third one. Rudam 16:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Der Clewiston-Test

This German language title record should probably be merged with The Clewiston Test? Fsfo 12:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You're completely right about that. I guess it's one of those cases where you plan to do something and then there comes something focusing your mind in another direction. I'll do the merger, thanks for your open eyes! Stonecreek 13:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Planet ohne Hoffnung

A little hint. I also own the anthology Planet ohne Hoffnung but this novella Planet ohne Hoffnung is from Vonda McIntyre. Rudam 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this must have happened as I tried to unmerge the novella. This doesn't seem to be a good idea for contents of anthologies, collections etc. Stonecreek 17:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a known bug in umerging content titles (as opposed to container titles). There is a fix awaiting testing but as you know Ahasuerus' time has been rather limited recently. And I'd like to see him test that before I submit "Unmerge foreign title" for consideration, I wouldn't want to propagate the same bug to a new feature. BLongley 18:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Bill. I suspected that it wouldn't be possible, but still I had to try what would happen. I really am quite happy with the possiblities we do have right now! Stonecreek 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm really happy with recent changes but a bit frustrated that there aren't more! I'm working with a (potential) version of the software about 5 months ahead of what's currently live and can't wait to share the improvements. BLongley 19:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Irrgarten des Todes

Can you have a look at Irrgarten des Todes please? I found one pub left behind on the English title, unmerged it and remerged it and am not sure which of the third(?) editions to keep. BLongley 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this surplus publication! I deleted the one with less commentary and pumped up the page count from 223 to 224 pages, which should be the right number. Stonecreek 13:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Carroll story

Is the story on page 39 of Phantastische Begegnungen titled "A Lick of Time" or is that an English translation of the German title given in the book? And should we make it into a variant translation of the story in this anthology (page 103)? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better to state the given German titles instead of the English ones (it's on my todo list, but I'll check if these two stories are the same or not). Stonecreek 18:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a German language record, but the title is in English, which is what prompted the question. I wasn't sure if you'd had a chance to change these records to the current standard. I was cleaning up Jonathan Carroll's bibliography and noticed the two similar titles. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
They are one and the same (translated, that is). So I'll make it into an alternate title. Stonecreek 18:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Foundation #93, A Celebration of British Science Fiction

Thanks for approving this submission, it was a bit of a toss-up between listing the publication as a magazine or a one-off book in the magazine 'series' as it has both ISBN and ISSN numbers. However one thing is bothering me (just a little) the more I think about it, namely that I entered the ISSN in the ISBN entry box. The ISBN section of the Edit Title Help page referring to magazines indicates it should be the ISBN there. It's a sad fact that any non-fiction publication with more than 15 long-winded academic titles is liable to scramble any editor's brain, so I'll fix it if you think it's necessary. Thanks. PeteYoung 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a weird coincidence of book and magazine, but since it would otherwise disrupt the magazine series I'm all for keeping the continuity. Well, it'd be better though to enter the ISBN, just to have this vital information.
And for scrambled brains: that's exactly what I felt when I entered the few issues of 'Foundation' I own into the system (a few more are in the waiting line). Stonecreek 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've got another 16 issues here staring at me from the shelf, all saying "Go on, I dare you..." PeteYoung 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I am tempted to say "Go on, I dare you...", but I'd have to say the same to myself and there's too much to do right now. I've scheduled this in my mind for February but since schedules are postponed with 99.9 % probability this doesn't mean that this will be the actual month. Stonecreek 20:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Foundation is definitely worth recording, so go for it. I doubt we'll get Andy Sawyer submitting the data himself (although if he does, I'm willing to take his place looking after all those books in Liverpool!) BLongley 01:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy

I've just saw that you renamed Heyne Science Fiction into Heyne Science Fiction & Fantasy. But now we have two series with the same name. How could we merge them? Rudam 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I hoped that it'd be possible to merge them (it is possible for publishers). I'll consult the help pages and/or someone with more knowledge. Stonecreek 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It's possible, but only by Ahasuerus (or Al von Ruff) at present. If such a merge is often desirable then I can develop the ability for Mods, but it would still require Ahasuerus to test and approve such. I suspect the European use of Publication Series might make it a lot more desirable, but I'm only English, so not very European. ;-) BLongley 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but that you are not so very European is only some temporary impression, I think. Just look at the interweavings between English, Latin, Dutch, French and German: some momentary disruptions can't shake the foundations! And even on the continent it's quite uncommon to rename a publication series every few years. Heyne is special in that they opened the door for fantasy in Germany but couldn't realize in the beginning that it'd be huge enough to sustain a series of its own, let alone a whole subgenre. Stonecreek 09:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There were only 82 pubs involved, so I changed them manually while the weekly backup file was being generated. Ahasuerus 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very, very much for your effort! We promise to keep those tasks near to nul in the future. And if you need some support in the future, please let me know! Stonecreek 15:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ahasuerus! It was very kind of you that you helped us with our problem. But it was a little embarrassing for me that you changed this pubs manually. Of course we would have made this work for you! Rudam 09:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope you two continue working well together - we're rather relying on the newer mods to suggest the even-newer ones, us older ones aren't necessarily any better when it comes to non-English languages. (In fact, I don't think I'm actually older than more than one of you anyway, and I'm certainly less language-proficient.) Keep up the good work! BLongley 01:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Interior art standards

The ISFDB standard is to enter frontispieces, maps, back cover art, and other interior art records as "TITLE OF WORK (type of interior art)". So the frontispiece in this record would be "Der Zeiter (frontispiece)" and the back cover art would be "Der Zeiter (back cover)". I'm not sure if this standard is a stated policy but a quick search will reveal this is the de facto standard. The same standard would apply to the interior art records in this pub, this pub, and this one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There's probably a bit of wiggle-room left - I have no idea what "frontispiece" or "back cover" are in German. But please do disambiguate titles, and help us explain the rules - which are a bit fluid while we adapt to multiple languages. BLongley 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I will change the denominations to the common standard. "Frontispiece" is very similar: "Frontispiz", but "back cover" would be something like "hinterer Umschlag". Stonecreek 08:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark van Oppen / Marvano

Hi Christan, you verified two pubs with illustrations as by Mark van Oppen, Heyne Science Fiction Magazin, #1 and Framstag Sam. Nearly all his work (in the Netherlands) was published as by Marvano, so I'm going to move the author data there, and make Mark van Oppen a pseudonym. Can you confirm that he was really credited as Mark van Oppen in those two pubs? Thanks, --Willem H. 10:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Willem. Yes, he is credited in both publications as Mark van Oppen, on the copyright pages. There are more illustrations by him upcoming in the near future: he did some more vignettes for Heyne Science Fiction Magazin and did the interior art for one edition of The Flying Sorcerers. Stonecreek 03:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I'll variant the existing titles. --Willem H. 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

New German Mod?

Do you think Rudam (or any other German Editor, for that matter) has reached the level at which he could at least self-approve? I'm keen to get more non-English experts involved here, but I'm rather unqualified to judge their abilities. The first Mod for a different language is easy, they just have to be better than me, but when we have an expert in another language I bow to their superior knowledge. Which in this case means you. ;-) BLongley 11:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! But there's still so much I have to learn: I wouldn't call me an expert, except perhaps in the pub.s I have (and even with those...).
I think there is nobody that understands the whole of ISFDB nowadays - not the founder, not the other bureaucrat, nor any moderator. And I speak as someone that's spent five years learning how to edit, moderate, and even program this stuff. You don't have to be perfect to be a moderator, just someone active, communicative, and getting far more edits right than wrong. BLongley 16:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say Rudam has earned enough merits (and collected enough knowledge) to promote him to moderator, but the same holds for Dirk P. Broer, I'd say. What do you think? Stonecreek 14:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Rudam strikes me as worthy, he's been around a long time and he rarely submits something I disagree with. Dirk I'm still a little ambivalent about - I see him submitting a lot of Author updates, but not much in the way of other types of edit. But maybe he's gone through his own collection and is doing useful but minor stuff. I'd like to see him push the boundaries a little more. BLongley 16:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
But I think it's very useful for us to have somebody who updates the author informations like he does. I haven't his discipline and am a bit sloppy in this regard. And he has understood the secrets of (for example) merging the right things and has shown on the whole a responsible editor's soul, as I have seen in the edits I moderated. Stonecreek 18:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it's certainly useful - and he's already Number 3 in the Author updating. But over half his edits are Author updates and I'm not seeing many other types of edit now. If he's finished his own collection and is looking for other things to do, that's fine - but I think he's claimed over 3000 SF pubs but has verified less than 2000, so might still have some primary work still to do? I'd like to catch him before he gets bored with us though. Moderators never get bored, they just get stressed. ;-) BLongley 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes! This rings a bell, reminding me of postponing tasks for other, more pressing tasks. Well, OK, let's start with Rudam to sustain our ranks. Stonecreek 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you want to ask him if he's willing, or shall I? BLongley 19:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll do it. Stonecreek 19:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cover images for non-genre magazines

I believe you may have accepted the submission adding the cover image to this record. If so, please look at the message I left on the editor's talk page. If not, never mind. Mhhutchins 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I accepted this submission - didn't know of this policy, but won't happen again (at least for the cases I know to differentiate). But in any case I'll be more careful. Stonecreek 11:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Eine Handvoll Venus und ehrbare Kaufleute

This record shows up on the Stray Authors list because the authors credited on the pub record don't match the authors of its title record. Can you re-check the book to determine if the author credit is correct and, if so. unmerge it from the title record and make it a variant title? This record also showed up on the list, but it's not verified so I can't know who may have created it. Since it's from a different publisher, it may not have the same credit as yours. If you had nothing to do with the latter record, I will do some research to see how it's credited. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 01:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I created those publications in one session. In the first edition (Heyne) Kornbluth is credited with his full forename on the title page, whereas in the earlier edition from 1973 he is credited only with his initials - but it is essentially the same title (same translation). Would it be better to file another title? (Same question applies for the East German edition). Stonecreek 12:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Dumb question, that last one. It's the only logical thing to do - so I'll do it. Thanks for the hint. Stonecreek 14:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Variant of a variant

Can you take a look at the title record for Mutprobe in der Hensonröhre. It's currently a variant of a variant title record. The only publication is in one of your verified pubs. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 02:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for that. I'll take a look on this matter and the one above. Thanks for finding this Stonecreek 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Magazine Editor

Hi Christian, I've just entered Perry Rhodan NEO. It was no problem to enter the publications and to make a fiction series. But I despair of developing a "Magazine Editor Series". How can I change the "container" of a publication and how can I make here Sternenstaub a new "container", whom I've deleted? Rudam 10:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Christian is not here today, I'll try to help. Only the first issue is lacking the editor record. You'll have to add this manually. Edit the pub record, and add a content item (you can't choose "Editor", but essay is good enough for this step). After approving, you edit the item you just added, and change the type to "EDITOR". Next you go to the summary bibliography of one of the editors, under editing tools choose "show all titles" and merge the three 2011 "Perry Rhodan NEO" editor records (you can see the type there) any of the three titles is ok. Then you change the remaining title record to "Perry Rhodan NEO - 2011" and add a series name (you already used "Perry Rhodan NEO", so choose another name, like "Perry Rhodan NEO 1st Aufl." or something). After that things should be fine, and for following issues you only have to add the novels to the "Perry Rhodan NEO" series, and merge the new editor records with "Perry Rhodan NEO - 2011" (for 2012 you create a new record of course). More questions? Just ask. --Willem H. 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I really get it! Thanks Willem Rudam 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks very, very good. Thanks for entering this issues! Stonecreek 04:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks from me too! If it wasn't for new Mods like you the rest of us would have burned out long ago. :-/ BLongley 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
But no! We new editors are the lucky ones to get so much support from you much more experienced ones. It's this input on every level that keeps us going! Stonecreek 04:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I can only agree you Christian! Rudam 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryszard Głowacki 's "Paroxysmus No. minus eins"

I was processing User:Zoltar's submissions and saw that he was having trouble with "Paroxysmus No. minus eins", a German translation of "Paroksyzm numer minus jeden", which appeared in your verified Heyne Science Fiction Jahresband 1990. It turns out that this anthology was originally entered using the old rules back when we used the original title record for translated short fiction, so this novella appeared as "Paroksyzm numer minus jeden" rather than as "Paroxysmus No. minus eins". Since Zoltar wanted to create a VT for the German title record, I have changed it to match the new rules and it now reads "Paroxysmus No. minus eins". I also changed the associated INTERIORART records, but didn't touch the rest of the stories. Hope everything is still OK! Ahasuerus 07:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! All your changes are perfect! I am currently at work to change the titles entered earlier, but haven't reached this anthology so far. Thank you for changing this novella: it's one less to change for me. Stonecreek 09:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Ahasuerus 21:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Der Traum des Astronauten Jörg Weigand 1983

Added cover for this pub BarDenis 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lexikon der Science Fiction Literatur 1988

Added cover for this pub BarDenis 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the two covers. Whereas I clean forgot to add the image for the Weigand collection my copy of the Lexikon looks (and is) much used. So I didn't want to add it. Stonecreek 09:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi, you destroyed the data belonging to "Kuczka Péter"s author page. with your renaming all the Hungarian references disappeared from his page. On the other hand instead of renaming a pseudoname should be created for the English version of his name. But the main page should be the Hungarian one as "Kuczka Péter". The pseudoname should be "Peter Kuczka" if you have English translations from his works. Please try to revert somehow your modification and reestablish the destroyed Hungarian links. Thanks in advance. BR. GaborLajos 10:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Gabor! My action had a grave effect I didn't intend! But the data isn't lost, take a look here. I'll do my very best to restore the status quo in the course of this day! Again, sorry! I'm still not used to this convention. Stonecreek 10:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Des Erdenmannes schwere Bürde

Please see this discussion. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Submission to change cover art credit

I was holding a submission that wanted to change the cover art credit of this record from Tim White to Don Maitz, and left a note on the submitter's page. It's been a couple of days and I've not heard back from her, but I'm pretty sure the cover is by Don Maitz. It's identical to this book's cover. I'm going to remove the hold and let you, as the primary verifier of the record, handle it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Tim White is in fact credited for the art, but when I look again at it, it surely looks more as to be in Maitz' vein. So I'll change it and add a note. Stonecreek 08:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi Christian. I've just asked Bluesman [1], but he can't help me. Can you content my curiosity? Rudam 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rudolf. I'm sorry, but I didn't add either notes, nor the pub., nor cover image. (I did use this sort of style for my notes only for the last two months or so.) Still, it should be possible to sustain the month of publication from 'Lexikon der Science Fiction Literatur 2' (1980), as there were 12 books published in 1963 in this pub. series and this book was the tenth. Maybe someone just counted. (I used this for the books by Franke, I think, and there is the remote possibility that I did this for this book also, but this would have been at the beginning of my ISFDB stunt and I honestly don't remember). Feel free to comment or change. Stonecreek 07:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It probably remains a mystery. I'll check the other titles of this series, if another title has a month of publication. Rudam 19:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Planet Story title change submissions

It looks like the "Planet Story" interiorart title change submissions would affect your verified Planeten-Story, so I left them for you. --MartyD 10:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Marty! The changes are not quite what I'd intend. Stonecreek 13:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Das neue Atlantis'

Just a note that your verified Das neue Atlantis has been upgraded to the new data entry standard for translations. Hopefully the inhabitants suffered minimal damage during the transition process :-) Ahasuerus 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it's perfect! Stonecreek 09:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi Christian! I've noticed, that you named the author of this pub Eine Handvoll Venus und ehrbare Kaufleute as Cyril M. Kornbluth, but on the cover he is spelled as C. M. Kornbluth. Rudam 16:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there's a difference regarding cover and title page, see also this item. But as I understand the rules, we go for the title page rather than covers; quite often Herbert W. Franke is named only H. W. Franke on the cover of his pub.s, but (nearly) always with his full name on title page. Stonecreek 09:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! Rudam 16:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Heyne Science Fiction Jahresband 1980

Uploaded new cover art for this pub. BarDenis 13:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Stonecreek 09:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

All About Emily

Hi Christian. Thanks for adding the interior art and note(s) to All About Emily. I had to change the pagecount back from 97 to 96 however. We use the last printed pagenumber for the pagecount (unless there's text on following unnumbered pages). In this pub, the text ends on page 96, and there's an illustration on the unnumbered page 97. --Willem H. 20:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Willem! Good that you are back and getting healthier!
I learned about the correct way of entering the page count only quite recently, so thanks for correcting my fault. Stonecreek 09:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

SF international I

When you have a few minutes, could you please review SF international I to make sure that all stories have been successfully transitioned to the new standard for translations? TIA! Ahasuerus 05:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do, as soon as I find the book. I'm at work to enter the rest of Franke's books, so thanks for your effort to make his bibliography that more useful. Stonecreek 08:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thankfully, it still (or again?) lay around. You did a perfect job finding out about Krzysztof Boruń's story first German publication (at least I don't remember knowing about that). Thank you very much: it's very encouraging to have such support! Stonecreek 08:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! I was poking around the Web looking for more information about the stories in SF international I and found this site about SF in DDR. I have added it to the Sources of Bibliographic Information page since it seems useful. Ahasuerus 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the SF in the GDR was quite interesting, even a sort of refuge for critics of society. Regretfully, I don't have a greater collection of it - but the site you found will be useful. Thanks for finding and adding it. Stonecreek 07:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi Christian, I've just changed the language in this pub Sternträumer and changed in this context your verfied pub Sternträumer too. Can you please check, wether have I caused any damage? Rudam 13:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rudolf! Thank you very much for your effort! Looks perfect to me, no damage done :-). There's obviously still a bit work to do on older submissions. Stonecreek 14:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocking spammers

Thanks for keeping an eye out for the recent spamming attacks, and blocking the users. It's also better to delete the talk page rather than "undo" it. Deleting the page obliterates all traces of the ID they created. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 15:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Will keep my eyes open in the future, too. I guess there's no way to hinder any such attacks - other than to have a moderator on duty and keeping an controlling eye on new guests? Stonecreek 15:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There must have been earlier precautions for which this particular spammer may have found a way around. This latest series of attacks appears to be from one source as all of the user names have a similar pattern. Mhhutchins

Periods in titles

As a result of our discussion, I'm looking through the ISFDB for titles and publications where periods appear as separators between a main title and a sub-title. This happens in some of the books you have verified (apparently, some older verifications). Consequently, I have changed the periods to commas in these books. If I am mistaken about this, and the period is used differently (i.e. the period really does exist in the title printed on the book), please let me know and I will revert those changes. The books I've found so far are:

(I may add more to this list as I complete my search.) Thanks, Chavey 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those two, although in the latter case the period was correct (1000. meaning thousandth). I will change it back. Stonecreek 16:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

New Worlds 3

Hi, could you please check the title of story by Stross and Ings on page 105 in this verified pub. I believe it should be "Tarkovsky's Cut" rather than "Tolkowsky's Cut". Cheers, P-Brane 04:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Hi, I checked and it still stays as "Tolkowsky's Cut" (on contents page and title page of the story). What source told you otherwise? Stonecreek 14:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Homepages of both authors claim it as "Tarkovsky's Cut" (which makes sense). Now I am intrigued! And need to read tit! Cheers, P-Brane 00:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
In fact, Stross has it available on his homepage as "Tarkovsky's Cut". Cheers, P-Brane 00:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Fanzines vs. Magazines

You rejected a couple of my submissions that tried to merge fanzines from different years, based on the way magazines are usually treated in the data base. I've discussed how fanzines differ from magazines with at least two other moderators. Fanzines seldom meet consistent production schedules; some will come out 6 times one year, then only once the next. Some (REH: Two-Gun Raconteur as one example)skip many years. Many of them only publish for a few years in any case. Since the purpose of gathering magazines into annual bundles is to reduce clutter on the editor's page, that strategy may not be useful for many fanzines. Look, for another example, at George Scithers' page "Weird Tales" is gathered by year as usual, but "Amra", his earlier fanzine, is grouped differently. There are some fanzines where annual grouping makes sense (The Fantasy Fan, for example, which maintained a regular schedule), but many more will not. I'm not at all sure that collecting the fanzines whose merges you rejected in any kind of grouping makes much sense -- neither editor has a lot on his summary page. But I have no objection is someone else wants to group them. Bob 20:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still do believe that fanzines should be in most ways treated as a magazine: there are too many magazines that are produced on a non-commercial basis (like fanzines) or fanzines that look (and are) like magazines. Not to speak of fanzines making the step towards a magazine (like Locus). There may be differences between the two, but I don't think that the way our publication order is organized should be one of them. You may want to make it into an issue for Rules and standards, though. Stonecreek 21:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Blumen wachsen im Himmel", by Hellmuth Lange

You had this book entered with a publisher of "Minerva". Unfortunately, that put it in with an English publishing company. To disambiguate this publisher, I changed its name to Minerva (Germany). The WorldCat record lists it as from "Minerva-Verl.", and so I wonder if a better disambiguation might be "Minerva-Verlag", but I'll leave that for you to decide. Chavey 12:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for changing a misleading entry. Minerva (Germany) is just fine. 'Verlag' gets no mention with other publishing houses, too. Stonecreek 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Down to a Sunless Sea"

Somehow Genevieve Linebarger is solely credited as the author of the story in its original appearance. I just pulled out my copy of that issue and she's not mentioned once in the whole magazine. The record should be credited as it's stated in the publication: Cordwainer Smith. She's also solely credited in the three records for The Rediscovery of Man. Unless her name is given as the author on the story's title page in that edition, Smith should be credited as the author. If no author is credited on the story's title page, ISFDB rules state the author of the collection should be credited as the author of its contents. Just because an editor credits her as the author in his introductory note doesn't mean the ISFDB record should. You can always do a variant to give her credit as the sole author (which it appears someone already has.) There are also three other records which give her printed credit: here and here (both unverified records) and another one here. The last one is verified by Hauck, and I'll leave a note on his page to ask him how the story is credited in that collection. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact - and we do try to give facts, don't we? - is that Cordwainer Smith (P. M. Linebarger) had nothing to do with writing this piece, it was a matter of convenience to publish it under his name. I've put a bibliographical note on his summary page and it'd be nicer if it wouldn't be as hidden as it is, but I've found no reasonable better way.
It is not an editor but the editor of the complete short fiction of Smith who stated this.
The right thing to do - for that shortfiction - would be to make Cordwainer Smith into a pseudonym of Genevieve Linebarger. But would that be what we'd want in the overall picture? Stonecreek 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, time is running out in front of my upcoming vacation. I tried to fix the problems you had in varianting the appearances in MFSF and other pub.s. - they all should look better. In fact, I don't know what exactly went wrong with my varianting; it worked well with some publications, for example Terry Carr's 'Best Science Fiction of the Year', 'The Rediscovery of Man' and non-English ones. Why it didn't work out with others still puzzles me (and it seems I checked only those and not all appearances - sorry for that). It still remains to determine if there's a pseudonym to be set up. I trust in your decision and I hope you can live with my changes. Read you in August! Stonecreek 19:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with who wrote the story, just as long as the record reflects the way it was credited in the publication. If Genevieve Linebarger's name appears under the story I have no argument with the record showing her as the credited author. But I know for a fact that she was not credited for the story's F&SF publication, and that had to be changed. And, no, we don't have to make Cordwainer Smith into a pseudonym for Genevieve Linebarger. If he didn't write the story then it shouldn't appear on his summary page. BTW, "the" editor of the collection makes him "an" editor of the work, along with several other editors who have reprinted it, no matter how you look at. "The" editor of the work was most likely Edward L. Ferman who first published it. Mhhutchins 04:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Back cover for Di Filippo's After the Collapse

You'll need to add a license tag to this image file. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Same situation with this file, this one and several author photographs which use a different license than cover art. Mhhutchins 03:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

License for author photographs

I've discovered to my surprise that we do have a license to attach to photographs of authors. Here's a link to the template. I have applied it to image you uploaded for Jihanna Sinisalo. When you get a chance, please replace any of the "unknown" parameters with any that you know. This may not protect us if the image is challenged by the photographer, but at least it will show an attempt of trying not to violate copyrights. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done the same for Denis Scheck. The data will have to be updated. Mhhutchins 22:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also added a license to Doris Lessing. Michael Weisser, Robert A. Heinlein and Oliver Scholl. Each of these will have to updated to show the source and other data that I've entered as "unknown". Mhhutchins 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for adding these templates! I didn't think that we do need a licence tag for this author photos: They all are from wikimedia commons & free of copyright for use. Only in the case of Denis Scheck the photographer liked to be mentioned. Stonecreek 05:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the source. We do need a licence for photographs, even more so than for cover art. We can always claim fair use for cover art because we're using it as a visual representation of the work. That can't be as easily claimed when it comes to photographs, which is almost always the exclusive property of the photographer and our fair use claim is very tenuous ("visual identification" of the individual). By getting permission of the photographer, or only posting photographs that have been released under a Creative Commons attribution (like those on Wikimedia Commons), we're protected from claims of copyright infringement. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 06:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


I uploaded a better resolution scan and added a few more notes to 2312. Albinoflea 05:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Added to the notes and uploaded a cover scan for Ganymedes 1 and Ganymedes 2. Thanks, --Willem H. 08:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Deus Irae

Angus McKie's thus far tentative credit for the cover of Deus Irae is proven correct at this on-line gallery. I've changed the Note to reflect this. Horzel 12:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Stonecreek 18:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled Fragment

You rejected my submission to remove "ss" from Untitled Fragment ("Beneath the glare..."). I've resubmitted the change. A fragment is not a story, it is not a short story, a novelette, a novella or a novel. Neither is a synopsis. Both are short fiction, though. Since it is a fragment, there is no way to tell how long the completed piece would have been if the author had completed it. The only way to categorize either a fragment or a synopsis that I can see is as shortfiction. This particular fragment was taken by Robert M. Price as the basis for a novelette he "finished" titled "Black Eons". But I don't see that the fragment should be called a novelette, it clearly is not. Bob 17:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The sole definition for SHORTFICTION types is the length in words. Take a look at the Help screen for editing. There is stated: The length of the item in words. (...). The options are:
sf - Shortfiction - This is the default story length for shortfiction and means the length is not defined.
ss - Shortstory - A work whose length is less than or equal to 7,500 words. (Roughly, 20 or fewer pages in a book.)
That means that shortfiction is only an option if we don't know the length of the SHORTFICTION, so I have put your submission on hold. You may bring this up on a discussion page, but even if the day comes when we know the length of the complete piece the fragment would be made into a variant title and still have its length as a short story. Stonecreek 17:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to agree with Bob here. Even if it's not spelled out in the rules, it has been a defacto standard ever since I can remember: all excerpts are entered as SHORTFICTION without a length designation. Perhaps it should be codified, but a discussion on the rules page will make it clear which moderators follow this unwritten standard. Mhhutchins 17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Michael - the defacto standard for excerpts has been "sf" for quite a while. We do need to codify some other (mis?)uses of the length field at some point (think Novelizations, Juvenile books, Omnibuses) and it would be possible to add excerpt as a length option. But we probably want to clarify the relationships between titles a bit more clearly, so that we can cover "expansion of", "abridgement of", "excerpt from", etc. Let Ahauserus catch up on his sleep and coding backlog and we might start fixing these things. BLongley 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know about this standard, so I'll approve of your sub., Bob. Sorry for the inconvenience! Stonecreek 18:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A duplicate of Fugue for a Darkening Island

Christian, Michael believes we have created duplicate verified records for Chris Priest's Fugue for a Darkening Island (mine, yours). A couple of differences: mine's a tp (correct), yours is a pb; mine has a foreword running to "ix" pages, yours to "x" pages (in my copy the supposed 10th page is blank). The notes are obviously different; yours is more comprehensive. Could you check your copy with an eye to deleting either of them? Thanks. PeteYoung 07:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the notes for 'my' publication could be pasted into 'yours'? If so, I'd delete mine and verify yours. The pb could have been there from the start - without me entering it. Stonecreek 09:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Done now. Here's the remaining pub, if you want to do a P2. Cheers! PeteYoung 05:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Die Tage sind gezählt

Hi Christian, where necessary I added the German titles to this pub, and varianted them to the Dutch originals. Please check for mistakes, even copy-paste can't always be perfect. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Willem! All seems quite perfect! I deletd the now superfluous list of German titles. Stonecreek 08:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hönne / Gebrüder Zimmermann

Regarding our discussion about Raubvogel der Sterne on Willem's talk page, you mentioned that "Hönne(-Verlag) was an imprint of Gebrüder Zimmermann". I checked my book, and Gebrüder Zimmermann was listed on the copyright page, so I changed the "publisher" to the standard "imprint / publisher" format. We had three other books listed under Hönne, none of which were verified, so I changed them to the same format. (And added a publisher link to the Gebrüder Zimmermann web page.) Thanks again for the help! Chavey 18:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information! Stonecreek 09:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What If Our World Is Their Heaven?

Christian, I've added a Canadian cover price to this verified pub, but can you please check your US cover price? My copy is $14.95, 1st printing. Do you perhaps have a later printing with a different price? Thanks. PeteYoung 21:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Pete! That was completely my fault: not really taking a look at the copyright page. I have changed my verified pub accordingly and already cloned a new pub for the first printing. Please take a look at the notes, especially at the printing statement. Thanks for finding this.
From one Dickhead to another: any chance that you would attend this conference? I think I'll go, at least for the weekend. Stonecreek 10:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, the Note was fine except for the Canadian cover price.
Re. the PKD conference, I'm not sure yet but it's possible I may be around. I'm certainly interested in attending, but is it actually a free conference? The registration form says they won't take a registration fee from attendants, and I couldn't see a price anywhere. PeteYoung 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it certainly looks like they won't take any fee. I think there'll be more readers of Dick attending than they do expect. It'd be nice to see you, or any other contributor. Please take also a look on my answer to Michael's suggestion: your input is wanted. Stonecreek 08:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
A question for you guys: is there a sufficient amount of contributions by PKD for him to be co-credited? This title does not appear on his summary page, and it seems strange that only the editors are credited, if at least some or most of the wordage comes out of brain of PKD. Mhhutchins 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You are right, Michael. The question remains how to enter the conversations - as one loooong interview or would it be better to enter the sections that are on different themes as separate interviews? Stonecreek 08:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
A book-length nonfiction work (as opposed to a nonfiction collection) doesn't have contents, except for introductions. We don't create a content record for the main body of the work. This is similar to a novel record's "content" being the novel itself. In this case, it appears that the interview is the work, regardless of how the editors broke it up into sections, like a novel broken into chapters. If you feel PKD should be credited, it would have to go into the author field of both the pub record and its title record. Mhhutchins 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I added Dick as co-author in title and the three known publications.Stonecreek 09:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for getting back to you late – I see you've just made the edits. Yes, it's definitely credit-worthy: the majority of everything that's said in the book is by Dick. And I remember thinking, years ago when reading it, that Gwen Lee appeared to know nothing about him when she interviewed him! Cheers. PeteYoung 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Das galaktische Imperium by Isaac Asimov

You've helped me out in the past when it came to German editions of books that I own. So here goes. I would like to enter this volume but I'm unsure as to what on this book I should enter.

So here's what I see on the copyright page:

•Heyne Allgemeine Reihe Nr. 01/6607 (Repeated on the back-cover-MLB)

•Deutsche Übersetzung von Heinz Nagel

•Deutsche Ünschlagbild schuf Jim Harris (Book editor? Cover artist?-MLB)

•Redaktion: Wolfgang Jeschke (Translater?-MLB)

•Copyright 1985 der deutschen Übersetzung

•Printed in Germany 1990 (So what edition would this be? Do German books have numberlines?-MLB)

•Umschlaggestaltung: Atelier Ingrid Schütz, München

•Gesamtherstellung: Presse-Druck Augsburg

So here's what I see on the title page:

•Isaac Asimov: Das galaktische Imperium: Roman (This is also on the book's cover, but "Roman" is left off the title on the book's spine.-MLB)

•Deutsche Erstausgabe (Also found on the back-cover. "German translation"?-MLB)

•Wilhelm Heyne Verlag. (Heyne Books?-MLB)

So here's what I see on the contents page:

•Five parts: Erster Teil: Aurora, Zweiter Teil: Solaria, Dritter Teil: Baley's Welt, Vierter Teil: Aurora and Fünter Teil: Erde. I really don't need a translation, but, does "Teil" mean "Part", as in Erster Part/First Part: Aurora?

Here's what I see on the back cover:

•DM +014.80 (Deutchmarks?, and if so, what is the symbol for a Deutchmark?-MLB)

•Ein Heyne-Buch

•T 3-59-30

•1480 (This is on the spine over the Heyne banner. Is this the 1480th Heyne book, or book in this series? Although I suspect that this is not the 1480th book in Asimov's Empire and Robot series.-MLB)

Thanks. MLB 23:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I forgot, I posted some images of this publication here: MLB 11:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)MLB

Hello MLB! Christian seems to be on vacation and I own this book too. I'll try to answer your questions in italics, who are relevant for entering the pub.
Heyne Allgemeine Reihe Nr. 01/6607 (Repeated on the back-cover-MLB) (pub series: Heyne Allgemeine Reihe and the pub series number is 6607)
Deutsche Übersetzung von Heinz Nagel (German translation by Heinz Nagel)
Deutsche Ünschlagbild schuf Jim Harris (Book editor? Cover artist?-MLB) (Cover artist is Jim Harris)
Redaktion: Wolfgang Jeschke (Translater?-MLB) (the editor is Wolfgang Jeschke)
Copyright 1985 der deutschen Übersetzung (copyright year of the first german translation)
Printed in Germany 1990 (So what edition would this be? Do German books have numberlines?-MLB) (year of the printing ,no numberline in german books, according to Deutsche Nationalbibliothek it's the fifth printing "5. Aufl.") [[2]]
Isaac Asimov: Das galaktische Imperium: Roman (This is also on the book's cover, but "Roman" is left off the title on the book's spine.-MLB) ("Roman" is an explantion that this book is a novel)
Deutsche Erstausgabe (Also found on the back-cover. "German translation"?-MLB) (First german edition)
Wilhelm Heyne Verlag. (Heyne Books?-MLB) (publisher: Heyne)
Five parts: Erster Teil: Aurora, Zweiter Teil: Solaria, Dritter Teil: Baley's Welt, Vierter Teil: Aurora and Fünter Teil: Erde. I really don't need a translation, but, does "Teil" mean "Part", as in Erster Part/First Part: Aurora? (you've translated it correctly)
DM +014.80 (Deutchmarks?, and if so, what is the symbol for a Deutchmark?-MLB) (It's the price: DM 14.80)
1480 (This is on the spine over the Heyne banner. Is this the 1480th Heyne book, or book in this series? Although I suspect that this is not the 1480th book in Asimov's Empire and Robot series.-MLB) (It's the price again)
I hope I could help as well. Rudam 15:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out, Rudolf! I'm back from my vacation and may help from now on any questions I'm able to help. Stonecreek 14:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Der Neue Adam - S. G. Weinbaum

Hi, do you perhaps heve access to this S. G. Weinbaum (according to the cover) title? If so, can you check whether the title page states Stanley G. Weinbaum, as the corresponding OCLC number suggests? --Dirk P Broer 21:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Rudam already answered this, stating "on the front cover is stated "S. G. Weinbaum", but on the title page and the spine is stated "Stanley G. Weinbaum". So no need to take further action for you. --Dirk P Broer 19:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Eclipse One

Added notes to Eclipse One. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Kir Bulychev

I added the proper image license to this image file. ISFDB rules require that all images uploaded to the ISFDB server have a license tag. Please update the record to supply the missing data (remove as many of the "unknown"s as possible). If you have a question about how to add image licenses to files, just ask. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Will add the information. Thanks for adding the template! In fact, I still haven't figured out how to add this thing, so help would be welcome. Stonecreek 05:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlike the automatic creation of image licenses that occur when you do a cover image upload using the "Upload Cover Scan" link on a publication record, all other image licenses have to be manually added to the file. After you've uploaded the image to the server go back to its wiki page and edit the page. You should add the template provided on this page for Author images. Here is the raw template:
  • {{Author Image Data
  • |Name=<Name of author> (person shown in picture)
  • |Photographer=<Person who took the picture>
  • |Source=<where did we get the image from>
  • |Publication=<Where and when was this image published>
  • |Portion=<How much of the image was used, if not the whole>
  • |Replaceable=<Why this image can not be replaced by a freely licensed image> (example: "The person is dead.")
  • |LowRes=<YesOrNo>
  • }}
After adding this template into the edit box, you replace the info in the paramater fields with the proper data, that is everything inside the angle brackets (removing the brackets as well). An example:
  • {{Author Image Data
  • |Name=John Smith
  • |Photographer=Philip Smith
  • |Source=Snagged from the author's website:
  • |Publication=Not applicable
  • |Portion=Image cropped to just show the author's image.
  • |Replaceable=Yes
  • |LowRes=Yes
  • }}
The example license will display like this:
  • {{Author Image Data
  • |Name=John Smith
  • |Photographer=Philip Smith
  • |Source=Snagged from the author's website:
  • |Publication=Not applicable
  • |Portion=Image cropped to just show the author's image.
  • |Replaceable=Yes
  • |LowRes=Yes
  • }}

Hope this helps. Let me know the next time you upload an author image if you need help. You have to be sure that the photograph isn't copyrighted by the author, publisher, or photographer. If it is, you have to get permission from the copyright holder and use this template. If there is no copyright notice on the website, feel free to use the above template. I would be more careful about scanning photos from jacket covers which are very likely copyrighted even if the notice isn't present. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A review of Philip K. Dick: Electric Shepherd

Christian, I'm entering data for issues of PKD Otaku, some of which contain reprinted reviews. #12 has a review by Angus Taylor of Bruce Gillespie's Philip K. Dick: Electric Shepherd, which it says first appeared in your verified pub Foundation #10, although that pub at the moment has no record of it. Can you please check? Thanks. PeteYoung 05:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am in the process of entering the contents of this issue. The review is in this issue and should be in the ISFDB this evening at latest. Stonecreek 08:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Entered - though the issue still isn't complete: the review appears at the end and got pre-entered. I also merged the two reviews. Stonecreek 08:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much. :) PeteYoung 09:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Submissions to update records for Hunters of Gor

You accepted ten submissions on 2012-11-06 at 14:37 to update records of this title. There's no way of knowing what these submissions actually updated, but looking at the records it appears that publication dates were added to undated reprints of the title. It's possible that these may very well have been correctly dated, and the submissions may have been proper, but none of them show the source of the data. The editor who made the submission has had difficulty in understanding the need to provide a source for her updates. She's also had problems with responding to messages left on her talk page. One of these updates was for a verified record for which she left a message on the verifier's user page. It was this improperly posted message that brought the situation to my attention. It is not ISFDB policy to enter "rough" publication dates based on unsourced data. When handling this editor's submissions, I have found it best to be even more careful than I would with other editors. Thanks for understanding. Mhhutchins 15:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right: I hoped that the editor would do as proposed, that is: update the records. If you do think it is better to be more careful then I will be in the future. Thanks for keeping eyes open! Stonecreek 15:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I'd missed the message you left her here (it was in the body of another message I'd left earlier.) I'll let the other primary verifiers handle the changes to their records, especially Marc Kupper who is very particular when it comes to DAW Books and his verified records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Linking to book dealer listings

When you get a chance please take a look at this discussion concerning the linked source for German editions of Edmund Cooper titles that Dirk submitted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Nova, #1"

Would it be safe to assume that the language of Cartoon: no caption (Nova 1) is German rather than English? Ahasuerus 06:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course! I have changed it accordingly. I must have switched it to English in a dark moment when I thought all untitled interior art should have English as language, in case they were or possibly would be published in English. Stonecreek 18:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hauptmann & Kompanie vs Hauptmann und Kompanie

Hi, did you know that you have verified both Hauptmann und Kompanie Werbeagentur and Hauptmann & Kompanie Werbeagentur as cover artist?--Dirk P Broer 16:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dirk. Thank you very much for catching this one: I can't say if there was a change in crediting by Heyne or if it was my fault, since two of the books are packed away. But I'll change the lonely one. Thank you again! Stonecreek 16:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Schlüssel zur anderen Welt"

Could the above be translated as 'Ring Around the Sun'? I ask because Tuck has a title Ring um die Sonne for a '62 edition by Zimmermann but under the same title has a '64 Moewig edition in the Terra series #329. The only record I can find for that series number has the title as in the posting header, as by Simak. But there are at least four Simak titles from Terra, see [here] not all of which I can match to English titles. Any help would be appreciated. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. No, because it would be literally translated as 'Key to the Other World'. But yes, my bibliography of Simak's german publications - part of 'Bibliographisches Lexikon der utopisch-phantastischen Literatur' - says that it is a translation of 'Ring Around the Sun' and is its second german edition: it even states the translation as being the same (as by Heinz Zwack) and it is Terra #329. Hope that helps. Stonecreek 07:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! I'll create the second [record/Variant]. Much thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
On the OCLC page linked, there are three I haven't made records of. Terra #523 is mentioned by Tuck as containing three Simak stories, but he gives only the English titles and doesn't say if only Simak stories are in the edition. #269 Der Mond-Prospektor is maybe a translation of Cosmic Engineers?? And Terra-Nova #28 might be a translation of the novelette Physician to the Universe or another short collection? Neither of the latter two is mentioned by Tuck. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, #523 has the title Nacht über dem Mars and does indeed contain three shortfictions by Simak: Physician . . . translated as Ärzte des Universums, Skirmish translated as Vorpostengefecht, and Seven Came Back translated as Nacht über dem Mars. My bibliography has this as original collection (I even do own this one, but I am still in the process of determining the relatively exact date of publication, this is why I haven't verified it yet).
Tuck and OCLC give 1967; [entered]
Correct, but as there were occasionally previews preceding the fiction content that linked the Terra digests to the 'Perry Rhodan' digests I hope to determine at least the month (or even the day), because for this latter magazine we have the pub. dates - I just haven't found the preview suggesting the dates for #523.
Der Mond-Prospektor is a translation of The Trouble with Tycho.
Wouldn't have thought of that one! [entered]
Probably it is because Tycho is a crater on the moon - you really have to think around some bendings to catch it. Stonecreek 20:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
My bibliography has #28 of Terra Nova as a selection from Worlds without End, containing two shortfictions: Worlds without End translated as Die Gilde der Träumer (which is also the title of the digest), and Full Cycle translated as Die fliegenden Camps.
My German really stinks .... lolol! I was sure 'Träumer' was physician ... ah, well. [entered]
'Träumer' would be 'Dreamer'; both seem to share the same root (a few hundred years back).
That was my first thought but couldn't find a Simak title with 'Dreamer' as a part, next idea was 'trauma', hence physician. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I hope this will help. Stonecreek 19:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Much thanks, will use the data provided to add the records and make the necessary variants. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Interzone pub binding format

I am in the process of changing the stated binding format of "8½ in x 10¾ in" to "A4" in about two dozen issues of Interzone in order to conform with the other issues for the time period. Mhhutchins 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That is a worthy task and I appreciate it. Stonecreek 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

illustrations from Drawing Down the Moon

I'd added some notes to Hand in With Fairy Grace, And for Her Sake I Did Raise the Child, and Titania that you rejected for "No answer to my request, so I am rejecting" , but you asked questions about another book and had these on hold to "get my attention" and I answered your question about the Tim White art book -- why did you reject these three? There was nothing questionable about them as far as my talk page. Ofearna 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the reject but as I saw it there was no answer to expect anymore, because you already archived the message in question: there were open questions and I can only recommend to read the messages before archiving them. It had nothing to do with getting your attention: it was another problem entirely.
I am sorry, but what should one do other than addressing a problem on the user's talk page? Stonecreek 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice for entering German pubs

Hi. At the current pace I will probably be ready to tackle the German publications in my collection in a few more weeks. Originally I didn't intend to enter data for those books, but now that you and Rudam are around for a bit of coaching ☺ I feel more comfortable with the idea. I have noticed that non-English publications are added under a variant title, and that the title record has a language setting. Are there any other major things that you can think of that I should be aware of when entering my German stuff? The main bulk of what I will enter is a complete collection of Heyne's "Bibliothek der SF-Literatur". Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just chiming in to suggest that you may find Help:How to enter foreign language editions useful :) Ahasuerus 23:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, the bulk of the Bibliothek has already been entered (not by me, but by Bill Longley - BLongley. That was really very kind of him), but some of them still have to be verified and updated (looking for the right date of publication; it stems from amazon and amazon isn't really reliable; adding contents and metadata). My way of doing it may be seen here or here. At the least there should be the mention of the translator, information if it's a german first publication or new edition (what is stated in the publication), the printing no. and information on credits for the cover art.
You may have to be a bit more careful with pub.s by Bastei Lübbe from ca. 1980 up to ca. 1985. We have spotted really a major number of miscredited artists and some mistakenly announced firsts. But if you start with Heyne, it seems to me that you'll be on the safe side. Stonecreek 10:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
My best advice to Herzube is to first check to see if there is an existing German-language title record in the database. If not, use "Add New Novel" function and then afterward make its title record into a variant (if the original was an English-language title). If the German-language title record exists and the pub record doesn't, use the "Add Publication to This Title" function. If the pub record exists, update it if necessary and then verify it. If you're working on the Heyne series, it appears all you have to do is the last step. Mhhutchins 18:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Vecer u Gradskoj, s Lidijom u mislima

Your verified Nova, #11 contains the Croatian story Vecer u Gradskoj, s Lidijom u mislima. However, the publication notes state "Ziljak's story translated by Thomas Brem as 'Ein Abend im City-Café, die Gedanken bei Lydia'". This implies the story should be entered in this publication as "Ein Abend im City-Café, die Gedanken bei Lydia" and varianted to "Vecer u Gradskoj, s Lidijom u mislima". Would you mind checking and reconciling the disconnect (add the variant or clarify the note)? -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this! I think all attempts to completely cover the mistakes one has done in the course of time are forfeit. I added the variant. Stonecreek 19:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Die Matriarchen von Isis

Hello, the cover of this pub looks a lot like this one. Hauck 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed! Thank you very much for this great find, Hervé! This is exactly why this site is the greatest! Stonecreek 13:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello, in the note field for Metatropolis that you have verified it is stated that the book is the translation while contents have all titles in English. Could you please check what's correct. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 00:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

Will do: the book was entered at a time when there were no different languages supported. Stonecreek 09:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

Lo specchio dei sogni

Can you tell me how 07242.jpg is a better image than LSPCCHDSGN1994.jpg, which you rejected as a replacement for Lo specchio dei sogni? Ofearna 16:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it is clear enough to see that the fantascienza image has brighter colours, isn't deviating from the rectangular and shows only the book cover, not the table cloth under the book. Stonecreek 09:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Removing the images... To answer: to me, the colors match the original better in the larger photo than in the small oranged-pinked fantascienza scan, but oh, well. I tried to find a clearer scan that wasn't itty bitty . I'll bow to your expertise . O'Fearna 04:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Erweiterte Synopse der nicht beendeten Revision des vorliegenden Romans

Hi. Your verified Der unteleportierte Mann contains Erweiterte Synopse der nicht beendeten Revision des vorliegenden Romans, which has the note May be identical to or derived from 'The Missing Pages of The Unteleported Man by Philip K. Dick' by Paul Williams but isn't credited as such and has to be determined. Since I have the PKDS Newsletter with that text, we can check if they're identical. I rather think they're not, because The Missing Pages ... is not a synopsis, but the content of four rediscovered manuscript pages that were missing, and which were responsible for three gaps in the 1983 publication of The Unteleported Man. The last two sentences of The Missing Pages ... are "But the choice; that remained totally with him ... and with the other humans involved. For better or worse." Darkday 22:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that much wanted information. It now seems that the two texts don't are identical, variants or extracts. Instead, I think it is something else - naming the german text as 'Synopse' was a fault right from the start, because this word has a different meaning. They are in fact additions & changes to the novel but seemingly not the ones published in the PKDS Newsletter. I'll change the text accordingly. Thank you, again. Stonecreek 09:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Held submission

This has been on hold for more than a month. At this point, there's really nothing the editor can do from his end other than cancelling the submission and entering again using the proper function. Alternately, you can either accept the submission and then merge the title records, or reject it. Your call. I have noticed that the editor has begun using the "Add Publication to This Title" function instead of "Add New Novel" in his latest submissions, so your message has gotten through. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Die Linien der Zeit ISBN

Your verified Die Linien der Zeit has a non-numeric character in the ISBN. I believe it should be 3-548-31095-8? -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, you were right. Thanks for catching the mistake! Stonecreek 06:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Literary MTV" in English or auf Deutsch?

Is Literary MTV in your verified Das Science Fiction Jahr Ausgabe 1991 in English? If so, I think it should be merged with this one. If not, then I suspect its language should be set to German. Thanks. --MartyD 00:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Marty! It was published in german, so I'll set it to that language. Maybe someone thought it had to be English, judging from the title. Stonecreek 05:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Submission by Valis

I've removed the link to the cover image file on Wikipedia that was given in the submission for this record and have asked the submitter to provide a source for their data. Mhhutchins 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael! I hadn't looked into the exact link: got to remind me to that in the future. Stonecreek 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Author photograph

If you can tell me who this is, and the source for the photograph, I can add the proper image license. Thanks. Mhhutchins 08:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's Jeff Duntemann. I asked for permission to use the photo from his website and he gave permission to do so. And I have now added a template, hope it's sufficient. Stonecreek 11:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Interzone #190

Hello Christian, based on a remark by ForJohnScalzi, I've simplfied the data for this story by compacting the title and deleting the "part Two". Hope you'll agree. Hervé Hauck 06:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Project Barrier

Hi, I found cover artist Bill Botten for this Sphere 1970 publication here. Thanks. Horzel 12:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you perform the update. Apparently I'm not allowed to, when I don't PV, see 'Changing a primary verified publication, again' discussion. Thank you. Horzel 11:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, for reminding me! Well, it may seem frustrating, but it does have some meaning - though it would be okay for me to have a change by somebody like you accepted after notification. I will add the artist; thank you very much for the addition! Stonecreek 13:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Image linking

Christian, when you get a chance please see this message (about Best SF) to a new user concerning their linking the ISFDB record to a non-permitted server. You probably overlooked the URL when the submission was accepted. It wasn't a very good image to begin with, so there's not much loss from my deleting it. I'll try to find a better one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded to the ISFDB server a much better cover image. Mhhutchins 17:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Title field dating of periodical publications

I've noticed a series of records which were entered with the dates given in the format "1/83". It is ISFDB standard that The date part of a magazine title should be given after the title, following a comma and a space. The month should be given in full and then the year in full. So "1/83" would be entered as "January 1983". At the time this rule was adopted and codified, the dating of non-English publications may not have been part of the discussion, because they were not eligible for the database. (I don't know because it happened before I entered the picture.) If you feel there should be further discussion of the matter, feel free to start a topic on the Rules & Standards discussion page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, in this case I took the part the magazine cover and the heading on the contents page are about equal in priority as guide. Since there is no heading on the title page, I took the cover as the main source and here taking the emphasized (bigger) date, understanding '1/83', '2/83' ... as a form of month and year. After all, the help text doesn't say it should be entered exactly as stated, but leaving some room for variation: after all, you would have some more difficulties with determinig the months: 'Août', 'Settembre', 'März' come to mind from different languages. I really do think that the chosen format is within the boundaries outlayed by the help text and think it is sufficient. Stonecreek 19:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I would have to disagree that the format you've chosen to use follows the standard that "month should be given in full and then the year in full". In several discussions over the years, the conclusion was reached that even though the actual publication might state "Jan 83", "Jan 1983", "January 83", or "1/83", that there should be a consistent format, and that format is clearly given in the current standard. You're right. Nothing in the standard for this field implies that our "enter data as published" rule be followed. That's why the standard format was established regardless of how the publication is dated. As for non-English months, it was determined that once those publications were eligible for the database, that the English language be the database's standard language. Otherwise you would be entering the notes in the language of the publication. Mhhutchins 19:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but somehow this passage is hidden or misplaced. There wasn't something like given in full in the help text for titles of magazines. It is only to be found if you scroll down to the Missing or variant dates section, and that isn't a section that came to my mind as worth reading in that regard, because the date isn't missing and also not an exact variant (under which I would subsume something like 'second half of 19..' or 'Spring 20..'). Sorry about that. But we still have two conflicting guidelines: the first to enter the title as near as exacty as stated (which would lead directly to the use of non-english months in my opinion) and the standard which was established for English magazines. In short: Ithink it's okay to change '3/83' into 'März 1983' but not into 'March 1983', which would collide with the stated month on the cover (or anywhere in the magazine). Stonecreek 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's awkwardly entered, and its placement is probably confusing, but there is a note at the end of the subsection which says "See the note on missing and variant dates below for more on formatting this part of the title." (That subsection should be merged with the main Magazine subsection.) But there is nothing under the Magazine subsection which tells the editor to enter the date "exactly as stated". It's the standard to enter the date completely, and if you choose not to follow it, there's nothing I can do about it. But don't be surprised if another editor brings it to your attention in the future. Mhhutchins 21:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No, the standard to enter the title of a publication "exactly as stated" is a general standard to remain as true as possible to the publication in question. In the cases of magazines this spirit should IMHO include the stated date (i.e. month). I will change the recorded dates to the months specified in the publications to keep up the standard I missed. Thanks for bringing my attention to this. Stonecreek 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Brad R. Torgers[o|e]n on "Peacekeeper"

Would you check the spelling of Torgerson on "Peacekeeper" in your verified Mammoth Book of SF Wars? He spells his name "sen", not "son". The Look Inside shows it as "sen" in the ToC. Thanks. --MartyD 12:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Marty, but I am unable to find the book instantly. It may be deposited in a place where I don't suppose that it'd be. Please change the spelling in the way you think it is appropriate, I'll check and inform you as soon as I find the book. Stonecreek 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It's indeed Torgersen also on title page, corrected. Hauck 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in, Hervé! Stonecreek 19:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Lonely Souls"

I am not sure if you have seen the following "Feature Request" opened by an anonymous user a few minutes ago:

"Hey Stonecreek, I'm trying to reply to your note about "Lonely Souls" but can't figure out how. Help!"

I assume it's related to the message about Van Gelder's "Lonely Souls", which you left on User talk:Chris DeVito the other day. Ahasuerus 00:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't for these four titles the bold part be added in the name? As it is now the title is only partial I think.

  • [3] Science Fiction Anthologie Band 4: Die Vierziger Jahre II
  • [4] Science Fiction Anthologie Band 3: Die Vierziger Jahre I
  • [5] Science Fiction Anthologie Band 2: Die Fünfziger Jahre II
  • [6] Science Fiction Anthologie Band 1: Die Fünfziger Jahre I
Well, no. It was a projected series of anthologies, and while it'd be possible to enter the full title it would be somewhat superfluous to have it doubled. And another bonus: the first two were published also as paperback (by Bastei Lübbe) and can be added without further difficulties, while still being part of the title series. Stonecreek 07:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You know that the official DNB entry is "Science Fiction Anthologie", same for OCLC, so actually they take the part as title, which you leave out. I don't think that's right to skip that part. According to what I learned last day the title is what is written on the title page and there the full title is written. Intentions don't count I got told. --Stoecker 10:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, DNB has it as work in several parts ('mehrteiliges Werk'), which is either a publication series (as, for example, 'Terra') or a title series by ISFDB standards. OCLC is used only as reference for the existence of a publication, they do have sometimes mistakes (misspellings, wrong cover images). The covers as well as the title pages have only Band X: Die ...ger Jahre I/II in bold faces, so that this could be considered as the title. The Band X part is already reflected in the volume numbering within the series. Thanks, Stonecreek 12:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Compared with other books from same publisher they usually have the Author in non-bold. And The Author is a part of the title. I'm still not convinced - the current entry misses and essitial information. --Stoecker 12:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The author isn't part of the title, he is part of the title information (in the other case NOVEL or ANTHOLOGY would also be part of the title). If you search for a title, you don't enter the author, only the title of the published work. Your note does emphasize my opinion that this isn't part of the title, as initially planned by the publisher, because they have only the title in bold. If you look at the title page, you'll see that all required information is there: one of the beauties of ISFDB. Thanks, Stonecreek 13:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Das Science Fiction Jahr 2000

Uploaded a new cover scan of Das Science Fiction Jahr 2000. Albinoflea 08:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sixty Days and Counting

Added cover artist to this edition of Sixty Days and Counting. Albinoflea 06:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


The Legend Novellas series has all publications listed under the publisher "Legend / Century" except for your verified Kalimantan. My copy has "A Legend novella published by Century" on the copyright page, which would account for the imprint nature of the publisher credit on all other records for this series. I'm suggesting a change to the publisher field for this pub to match the rest of the series. Also notifying Mhhutchins. Thanks. PeteYoung 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that one, Pete! Stonecreek 04:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


Can you confirm that there is an ISBN-13 in this 2003 publication? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 18:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Same question for this one? Mhhutchins 19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this. I already have corrected the Wilson novel and I'll try to find the Silverberg tomorrow. Thanks, Stonecreek 19:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick: Electric Shepherd

Found it! The item you want is This one. The full information on the letter is SF Commentary 9, February 1970, Pages 8-10, Written 8 June 1969. It occupies the bottom of page 31 through page 33. I found the book again while putting away some stuff from a trip to Worldcon.SFJuggler 22:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for finding this! I know very well that you can lose track of a certain book, it seems to happen to me on a regular basis ;-( . Stonecreek 03:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Before it slips out of our universe again ;) could I ask you to take another look to establish an answer for this? Thanks very much. PeteYoung 04:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Our Friends from Frolix 8

Added a couple of generic notes to [this]. Nice scan! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions! Christian Stonecreek 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Lösung Drei", by Naomi Mitchison

I was noticing that the cover of your verified publication has an unusual misspelling of the author's first name. Is it misspelled that way inside? Either way, it may deserve at least a note about the cover. Chavey 01:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this omission on my side! While searching for an original English publication of this story (which I now added to a collection already in the database) I came across the site Naomi Mitchison - Towards a Bibliography, which perhaps will be of interest to you. Stonecreek 08:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks much for the link. I should spend some time going through that and see if they have volumes we need to add. (And ones to add to my collection :-) ) Chavey 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"Aufbau" and "Aufbau Tb" publishers

I was hoping you could take a look at this, since you've at least done a couple of WorldCat verifications on these publishers. We have both Aufbau and Aufbau Tb listed as separate publishers. They both are part of "Aufbau Verlag". My weak German reading of the Aufbau Verlag Wikipedia page implies that "Aufbau Taschenbücher" (i.e., "Aufbau Tb") is an imprint of, or a publication series of, Aufbau Verlag. I've tried to link the two publishers on those publisher pages. But: (1) I don't know if I've interpreted things right and linked them properly; (2) I wonder if they should be combined under a single name, and "Aufbau Taschenbücher" just listed as a publication series. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Chavey 04:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the text says that 'Aufbau Verlag' now is a group of publishing houses consisting among others of publishers Aufbau Tb and Aufbau proper (similar to Random House, but only active in Germany). I tend to use this and the different ISBN designations of 351 (Aufbau proper) and 7466 (Aufbau Taschenbuch) as guidance to set up different publishers, since both seem to indicate different legal entities. I should have one or two of the Aufbau Tb (though boxed and not of speculative content) and will take a look how the publisher is stated. Stonecreek 06:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have found a book published in 2003. It has only Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag on title & copyright pages and on back, it has the 3-7466- ISBN and no mentioning of the parent publisher. I hope this helps. Stonecreek 07:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I see now that they use different ISBN ranges, so they really should be kept separate. But I wonder then if Aufbau Tb should be changed to Aufbau Taschenbuch, both because it appears that this is how they list themselves, and to make the distinction easier. Chavey 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right, thanks. I'll change it. Stonecreek 15:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Fugue for a Darkening Island

Christian, I've moved my verification for this tp to Transient, if you want to take over the P1. Thanks. PeteYoung 09:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Stonecreek 14:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

From one Dickhead to another…

Christian, it just occurred to me that I should have let you know about a PKD fanzine I edited last month: Journey Planet #16. You can download it for free from eFanzines here. Cheers. PeteYoung 23:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it looks terrific and features some real gems. Thanks for the link, I'll devour it during the next days. Stonecreek 17:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Plain Kate

I added a link to the artist's cover for Plain Kate but the system split it into two lines which don't work...

Thanks for approving it, but how to fix that link? Susan O'Fearna 16:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the best I could come up with was the way it is now (I'm really no expert in fine tuning web references): at least it is the first picture in line and one gets a good impression of the artist's range of work. Stonecreek 18:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothfuss series

It seems that the world of The Kingkiller Chronicle is called The Four Corners (Kingkiller Wiki), that's why I wanted to put the story in that series. Maybe making the Chronicle a subseries of a Four Corners Universe would be better, but unless there are further subseries that's maybe a bit too much for just one story? TerokNor 12:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Verse, Volume 1, regarding name of author.

Hello Stonecreek!

The name of the writer of The Dark Verse stories is M. Amanuensis Sharkchild. On the title page of the book it is only Sharkchild. In his podcasts he introduces himself as Sharkchild. The essay at the back of the book is merely a blurb about the author and is entitled simply, M. Amanuensis Sharkchild. Since the guidelines say to use whatever is on the title page, I went with Sharkchild. Zygilix 01:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Zygilix

And you were perfectly right with that! Thank you very much for the answer. Stonecreek 09:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Monologue About the Weather", by Tommi Brem

You verified this book as an English language publication. WorldCat claims it's a German-language book. Based on the content titles, I assume that WorldCat is wrong, and that a note should be added to the publication record mentioning that. But I could imagine that it might be bilingual, and it just happens that all the spec fic titles are in English. So I'm hopeful that you would be willing to clarify the language status in this book's notes. Thanks, Chavey 05:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was published in Germany, but all the contents were written (& published) in English. I also had the language set to English for this author. All his fiction only was published in this language, though his nonfiction was written and published originally in German. Stonecreek 05:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I added a note to the publication record about this error in WorldCat. Chavey 05:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ISBN/Catalog # field in book club records

Christian, I saw Ofearna's submission to update the record for a book club edition in the queue, and when I tried to place it on hold, you'd already accepted it. There were a few problems with it which I brought to her attention on here talk page. Just thought you'd be interested in the unusual situation with how to record the ISBN and/or catalog number in a book club edition.

BTW, I would like to thank you sincerely for your efforts to defend me in the discussion which took place over the past few weeks on the Moderator Noticeboard. Although I think the respite is only temporary (the poster has sworn to get some kind of revenge some how), it is a relief not to face them each day. After the first few rounds, I thought it best to just remain out of the discussion, and was very happy to see you step up to state a good case. Unfortunately, the guy's anger towards me doesn't allow him to see the truth. I'm sure he'll return again with another user name, and it will start all over again. Thank you again. Mhhutchins 06:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I accepted the submission, Michael, it is still a process of learning for me in some fields.
The discussion really was unpleasant, and as I still think there has to be some kind of paranoia directed against people involved. The attacks seemingly come with no foundation or reason: I read through the first argument, and it appears that he gets tremendously upset when someone (alas, it were Chavey and you) only reminds him of his omissions, while you made it clear to him shortly before, that this may happen to a beginner. Stonecreek 06:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent integration

This record gives the Amazon sale price, not the list price. Also, "Dutton Adult" isn't a publisher in the database (there probably was a moderator warning stating this). According to the OCLC record the publisher is Dutton, and the page count is 390. I seriously doubt that the data is from the author's website, as it appears to be identical to Amazon's (you know how they round off page numbers and give false publisher data.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Header for the William Spencer bio page

I returned the BioHeader (which links back to the author's summary page) that was removed when you created the page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. I didn't consciously delete the heading, it wasn't on display after logging into the wiki. Stonecreek 19:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Epoch (and more)

Thank-you for letting me know how I can improve. In the future I will refrain from adding links to images. If you see other areas I can improve on please keep letting me know!

Misaligned ISBN

Can you check to see if the ISBN-13 is given in this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Same question for this book, this book, this book, this book, this book, and this book. Mhhutchins 07:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably they were just copied while using the clone function, but I will check them one by one. It'll take some time, though, because some of them may be distributed at various places. Thanks anyway, Christian Stonecreek 09:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Interviews of pseudonyms

I changed the interviewee of this interview from "Monika Niehaus-Osterloh" to Monika Niehaus so that it matches that of the author's canonical name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. I made the connection between the two names only recently, because it has crytallized with new titles that Monika Niehaus will be likely the canonical name. Stonecreek 10:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of SF Wars

I have a couple of questions on your verified The Mammoth Book of SF Wars:

  • Junked, p145: In the Running Press edition, this story is subtitled on the title page (Junked: A Combat K Adventure). Is the subtitle not present in Robinson edition?
  • Cover Artist: Per the notes field, it sounds like the credit should be which is a pseudonym of Joe Roberts?

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have to find the book first, before I am able to answer your first question and I hope that I will find it later this day.
For cover artists we have both usages: a) to credit the pseudonym stated or b) to credit the canonical name and note the actual statement. I now usually do the second, and I think the first is excluded per se in this case, because is no name, but an address. Stonecreek 16:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The ISFDB standard is to credit as explicitly stated within the publication (with a few exceptions like publisher name standardization). I know of no exception for cover artist credits that would credit the canonical name over a stated pseudonym. Can you point that out? -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I chime in as I can perhaps more easily pull out my copy than Christian. The subtitle is present, I've made the changes. Hauck 17:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for stepping in, Hervé.
On the cover artist question: as I said above, is no pseudonym, because it is no proper name, but an address of which the artist's name is a part (quite similar to this pub., where we would have to credit 'Charles Brock/FaceOut Studio' if we took the credit as a proper pseudonym). For pseudonyms I had it not as clearly stated as I intended, sorry for that. I meant those cases where we have no credit per se, but only a signature, like 'Emsh'. Christian Stonecreek 12:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not a big deal to me one way or the other, but your approach is not consistent with our documentation. In the second pub, I also would just use the name (dropping the company) since it's been stated. But when a name is not specified, I use the publication credit per the principle of crediting per the pub. As for signatures, I know there were "Rules and standards discussions" about normalizing to the canonical name, but as far as I can tell, that never made it into our actual rules. Oh well, chalk it up to the long line of documentation / practice inconsistencies. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Preface to I Shudder at Your Touch

Hi -- I'm curious to know what you did to this title. I assumed that the version with Michele Slung's name should be a variant of the uncredited one, per this help page, but it looks as if you reversed that. I assume that's usual practice, in that case, and the help file is wrong? Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Mike for not informing you on that change, I ran out of time and also assumed that you wanted to do the reverse, which seemed the only logical way to do it, based on the help text: 'If there is external evidence (such as a collection of editorials from a magazine, making it clear who the author was) that identifies the author, then you can add a variant title to that item, using the real name.' Here the existence of credited variants (credited to Michele Slung that is) is the external evidence. Maybe you assumed that the first publication of a title defines the parent (?), but there are exceptions, like in this case. Sorry again for not coming back to you in the first place. Christian Stonecreek 12:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Reading the help page, I agree that it reads the opposite way ("you can add a variant title to that item, using the real name"). However, the key is the next sentence ("This will attach the work to the true author's bibliography, without giving incorrect data about what is actually in the source publication."). In order for that to happen, the real name needs to be the parent and the "uncredited" needs to be the variant. I'll make a clarification to the help. Thanks for pointing this out. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem; no need to tell me when you fix a submission -- if I'm curious I can always ask. Thanks for the explanation. I see that the two verifications that were done were by two editors who, I think, are not among the most experienced ISFDB contributors -- Jorssi and Jonschaper. Jorssi appears to be still active; I think I'll ask if the preface is actually credited in their copy. I suspect it's not, and that it's been entered that way because it's evidently by Slung. Mike Christie (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Moewig 3558 - Das Glück von Brins Fünf

I've just updated the cover artist to "Enric" and made the source reference in the notes section.

Thanks very much for that one, another riddle solved. Stonecreek 14:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Moewig 3557 - Schiwas feuriger Atem

And one more - cover artist is "David Hardy" - reference is here.

I thought that it was by Hardy, but couldn't find a source for it, thanks very much! Stonecreek 09:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Clark Darlton Reader / K.R. Smith

Hi, I've made the artist a pseudonym of Kenneth Smith as that's his canonical Name - and his pictures are usually signed that way. The cover for this particular book is identical to JLochhas 13:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, you are great! That one I thought would never be identified! Stonecreek 19:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ardent Blasphemers

Thanks for approving my addition of the introduction to 20,000 Leagues. The Ardent Blashphemers already existed in the ISFDB though. ISFDB Title Record # 1147658 and ISFDB Title Record # 1701546.

Can these records be merged together? Should I have indicated this when I added the Intro information? TAWeiss 16:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If you like to merge them, the best way to do it would be to go to Bradbury's summary page and to click on the 'Check for Duplicate Titles' on the left tool bar. Then you only have to choose the correct two titles (by clicking into the preceding boxes) and submit. (There seems to be some cleaning up to do for Bradbury as there are some seemingly duplicate titles, but don't let that bother you). Alternatively, you can work with the Advanced Search. Thanks for adding this item anyway. Stonecreek 16:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan #752

I varianted the three titles by Walter Ernsting in this publication to Clark Darlton. Mhhutchins 04:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. Due to problems editing titles I didn't came around to do it after editing the publication. Stonecreek 05:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Neue Welten

Hello Christian! After I also verified Neue Welten,I discovered some differences between your and my copy. My pagination ended with 256 and I've a interior illustration on page 45 and not on page 43. Have we perhaps two different copies? Rudam 10:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we should have the same edition/printing. You are perfectly right in indicating the mistakes. I guess I was under some time pressure at the end of entering the book, and that does often lead to Errors (which I corrected). Thanks for finding them! Stonecreek 05:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)