User talk:Tpi

Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!Kraang 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction

I am looking at your proposed change to the Asimov's Science Fiction series -- which you would like to make into a sub-series under Asimov's Science Fiction - 2008 -- and I am not quite sure what the intent it. Could you please clarify? Thanks! Ahasuerus 06:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As response to that comment: That was a mistake. I was trying to find a way to add to series "Series:Asimov's Science Fiction" subheading for this year, because there isn't such yet. I don't know if it possible, or is it something only moderators can do. Sorry if that is a stupid question, but I am very new user trying to help a bit in improving the database.

(moving the discussion back to your Talk page)

No worries! I have made the changes that you were trying to implement -- please take a look when you get a chance -- but I had to do it differently because of the way the software works. Basically, every magazine should have a special "EDITOR" Title record that states that issue's editor. (Rather confusingly, this record is in addition to the "Editors" field displayed at the top of each magazine issue.) The EDITOR record is created automatically when a new magazine issue is entered, but it is hidden when editing existing issues, which makes it hard to find. It is these EDITOR records that are displayed on each editor's page under "Magazine Editor" and "Magazine Editor Series".

If you go to Sheila Williams' bibliography linked a few line above and click on the "Titles" link in the navigation bar on the left hand side of the page, you will see all of her Title records listed alphabetically, including all EDITOR records, e.g., Asimov's Science Fiction - 2007. I have merged all of her 2008 EDITOR records for Asimov's, changed the name of the remaining EDITOR record to Asimov's Science Fiction - 2008 and then put into the Asimov's Science Fiction series. This is all quite confusing, especially when editors use pseudonyms, and is probably the most complicated part of our application, so please don't be discouraged -- the rest of the system is much easier to navigate and edit, I swear! Thank for editing :-) Ahasuerus 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't much experience using wiki-type applications. Do see my answers here, or should I use your discussion page? That kind of manipulation sounds a hard, so I probly stay clear of it. There doesn't seem to be a record for Analog 2008 either. Is it ok, that I add issue data for some missing issues even though "main page" for 2008 isn't there yet? Is it much bother for some then later move separete issue info to the right place? —The preceding unsigned comment added by Tpi (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 June 2008

On this site, unlike some other wikis, we generally prefer to keep a discussion in one place, so if you raise a question on soemone else's talk page, you are expected to watch that page, or check it from time to time, for the answer. If soemone starts a discussion on your page, you should answer there, and expect the other person to see your response. -DES ^Talk 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a moderator, and i still find EDITOR records one of the moe confusing parts of the ISFDB, although i have entered some magazines. I have mostly worked on books. -DES ^Talk 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, June 2003

I have approved the addition of a cover art scan to Analog Science Fiction and Fact, June 2003 since it looked likely that the URL (lh4.ggpht.com/tpietila/SDLQhk-HfsI/AAAAAAAAAJI/CNx8-Ych3EY/analog_june2003big.jpg) was a part of your personal Web page, but could you please confirm? We generally do not link to other Web sites without securing their permission first; some of them consider it "bandwidth theft", so we try to be careful. Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work. The picture is on my own picasaweb page, and the linking the picture doesn't seem to work. Is there same web page I could use?

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, May 2008

I approved your entry of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, May 2008. I moved the image URL to the notes. Image_linking_permissions lists sites that we have permission to link to. Thanks Dana Carson 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there same web page I could use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tpi (talk • contribs) .

You can upload directly to the ISFDB now. BLongley 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, June 2008

I approved your entry of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, June 2008. I made the following changes:

• The date on the submission was either blank or mangled, so everything was 0000-00-00. I changed them all to 2008-06-00.
• I changed the tag to ANLGJUN2008 - ANLG is the standard tag prefix for the Analog magazines.
• I added the magazine to the Magazine:Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact Analog table.
• I merged the Stanley Schmidt editor record into his Analog 2008 title.

Alvonruff 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy, July 1953

I've approved your edit of this pub, but changed a few things. When adding artwork and there is more than one piece illustrating a story, please add a suffix number for all pieces after the first cone. In this case, the first illustration for "Kindergarten" would simply be "Kindergarten", the second would be "Kindergarten [2]", and so forth. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Same situation with the June 1951 issue. MHHutchins 02:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I somehow thought that the number is added automatically when there are several illustartions with the same name.--Tpi 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Analytical Laboratory", Analog, June 1985

I'm approving your submission, which puts this title into the series. It's absolutely OK as far as it goes. One small thing you might do to help on things like this would be to update the title itself. Titles for AnLab columns are currently normally given showing the months covered by this AnLab, plus the canonical date of publication of this column. For example (taking two from other issues):

The Analytical Laboratory: December 1962 (Analog, March 1963)
The Analytical Laboratory: January-March 1963 (Analog, May 1963)

Of course, if you aren't working from a copy of the magazine, you may not know the months which were covered; in that case "The Analytical Laboratory (Analog, June 1985)" would still be preferable to just "The Analytical Laboratory".

Please understand that it's fine not to change the title to a canonical form when you're just adding a series, if you're in a hurry or are not sure what it should be, or for any other reason. But it would be helpful if you did this, when you're editing the title anyway. Especially for AnLab, there's really no chance that you're messing up any other pubs.

And a question: if you're working from a copy of the magazine, does the AnLab really credit Stanley Schmidt as author? Earlier practice at Analog (all the Campbell years for sure) was to either not credit at all, or else to credit to The Editor. In the former case, the credit we list should be "uncredited"; in the latter case, it should be "The Editor". Again, even if it's wrong, this isn't to say that it's your job to fix it up, but if you're looking at it & see this it would help if you did. And of course, again, if you're not going from a copy of the magazine, you wouldn't change this, though you might post a question on the ISFDB:Verification_requests page, if you felt really ambitious.
Sorry to be so long-winded. -- Dave (davecat) 14:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar comments regarding Brass Tacks from the same issue, which I'm also approving. The title should have the canonical format "Brass Tacks (Analog, June 1985)". Per Help:Screen:EditPub, the author credit shouldn't really be Anonymous unless it's actually credited to Anonymous; it should be "N/A" if the only contents are the letters, or "uncredited" if there are editorial responses (unless those are signed). Again, not necessarily your job to fix if you're only adding series.
Looking ahead to your next submission to approve, I see that you missed crediting a reviewer for the review of The Moment of the Magican. I'll approve the added reviews, but can you please fix this? I'd presume it's another by Tom Easton, but don't have that issue myself to check it. -- Dave (davecat) 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments. I am pretty new user, and still learning the right procedure. I will try to use the canonical format. That AnLab was for whole preceding year ( as the custom in Analog has been from 1980 or something). It was not signed, but there is an essay telling the details of the vote, which is written clearly from editors point of view - but there isn't any "official" credit. Maybe "uncredited" would be better choice - I was pondering that choice when I made the contribution. I will add Tom Easton to that book review, I missed it. There were far too many reviews in that issue to my taste.. :-) Tpi 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I stopped subscribing in 1976, so I'm not up on features that were added since then, & I hadn't realized that AnLab had gone to once a year. Previously it was (apparently) one an issue, or less often if space was tight. (At least a couple of times Campbell mentioned no room in previous issues when giving two or more together.) It may be worth looking at formatting in other issues, though this can be misleading too. (I know I followed the wrong examples several times.) Some help can be gleaned from following links on Magazine:Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact page. -- Dave (davecat) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy February 1954

I've put your submission on hold. I checked it against my issues and I can see what you're trying to do. I would suggest retaining the original entry "Two Timer," and making additional entries for "Experiment" and "Sentry." These titles have already been entered in several of Brown's collections, so the new entries will need to be merged after they're made.--Rkihara 04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I entered those stories again, retaining "Two Timer". Tpi 10:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I approved, but now there is an extra entry for "Two Timer," I guess you meant to enter "Sentry"? Also "shortfiction" is an obsolete category and should be replace with "shortstory." Now that the stories are going in separately, you can uncouple the illustration from "Two Timer" and enter the illustrations as for "Experiment" and "Sentry."--Rkihara 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, July/August 2008 & September 2008

July/August 2008: I've approved but you negelected to put the "$" sign before the price, the "#" sign before the ISSN (if it is not an ISBN, it must start with a "#" sign), and The Reference Library has "c" for the author. Please correct these. September 2008: I also approved it but this also needs the ISSN fixed. Thx, rbh (Bob) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I made those changes, uploaded covers, and added relevant series information (and corrected one mistake from the issue I used as reference for series information). I wonder if there is a way to add series information connected to the original submission? Now it is some trouble to make the additions afterwards.

Hopefully I didn't make too many errors in these submissions, probably there is something left to correct... Tpi 11:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, January/February 2005

I've approved but you really need to put the pub month & year after the Reference Library, Brass Tacks, and upcoming events so that when they are added to the essay series, you will be able to distinguish them from other essays of the same name. Thx, rbh (Bob) 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I did. I must correct those. Tpi 13:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Probability Zero

I have these on hold. In searching through some of the comments on user pages I noted that the intention was to enter them without the "Probability Zero" prefix because the entries are in a series with that name which means adding "Probability Zero" to the title is somewhat redundant. There are a couple of other moderators who have been working extensively in Astounding/Analog but it appears they have not been particularly active in the last few days. Hopefully one of them will have some input.--swfritter 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Where titles are pretty uniformly prefixed with name like that, which we use as a series name, I'm in favor of omitting it from the title.
This issue can get messy, though. We've taken to adding the subtitles to "The Reference Library", even though there's a series for them. (I think that makes sense, & that just using the subtitles wouldn't make sense, because those subtitles are really just section headings for P. Schuyler Miller's initial essays, & there are other sections & individual reviews included; but having the subtitles seems more helpful than having hundreds of entries titled only "The Reference Library (Analog, month year)".) And consider the "Department of Diverse Data".
The Probability Zero items were a very occasional series, apparently included whenever Campbell got something of that kind (that he liked); & the "Probability Zero" really did function as a series name. My biggest reservation would be that I'm not absolutely sure there always was another title; & even there I wouldn't worry too much, as consistency of format was never Campbell's strongest point.
(I hope this is the kind of input you were looking for.) Dave (davecat) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like slightly more than half of the entries in the series begin with "Probability Zero" and it looks like they all have titles. The major advantage I can see to using "Probability Zero" in the title is that it is easy to spot entries that were not initially placed in the series. It's also possible that in some future use of the data in the future (22nd century, who knows?) the series data may get lost and the title data may be all that the user has to go by. There is a certain value to redundancy. In any case, it would seem to that the titles should be entered in a consistent manner.--swfritter 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked about that title here [[1]]. I started to add "Probability Zero" to the titles after that. I like consistency - the situation now where sometimes "probability Zero" is used and sometimes it is not really bugs me. Either in or our, I don't really care, but _one_ way would be nice. Well, if you _really_ would press me, I would say that it would be better to drop that from the name as long as these titles are in a series. On the other hand - nowadays these stories are printed in the contents page as their own category removed from other short stories, also in the page where the story is printed there is a title "Probability Zero" on the top of the page. Tpi 05:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered the question of reprints. In the past, a few of these (not many i think) have been reprinted in author collections. The ones I recall seeing had "Probability Zero" as part of the reprinted titles -- but then if they hadn't had that, i would not have recalled them as part of this series. -DES ^Talk 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In similar cases I have usually dropped the column name. The only reprinted one I found in a random check is by Isaac Asimov - and almost everything he wrote has been reprinted. If the story does appear in a collection or anthology it can either be merged without the "Probability Zero:" or made a variant. If there is nobody opposed I will go ahead and make the entries consistent by eliminating the "Probability Zero:" prefix from the entries in a couple of days. --swfritter 17:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine. While you are doing that, there is an another Anolog series with a lot of inconsistency - The Alternate View. According to the guidelines on the Analog's magazine page, the "Alternative View" should not be used on the name, only in the series. At the moment most essays do have the "Alternate View" on their names. Maybe you can remove those also? Tpi 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will look at that also. If anybody else has any reservations about so doing for either series please let me know.--swfritter 16:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

These are still on my "pending" list. After this discussion they should be rejected, so that they don't "float" on the list anymore. Tpi 11:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Probability Zero fixed. There were only two entries from the magazine that were reprinted and the Asimov was actually reprinted without the column name so that one got better. This one was actually published in an original anthology so I left it as it was. There were about five stories that were done by pseudonyms. This creates a minor problem in the pub display because the series designation will not show up in the pub. See this issue. The Tucker story is actually in the series. The series was incorrectly placed in the title by the pseudonym rather than under the canonical author title record. I might also note that fiction titles do not show up in series on the author bibliographies although this may change some day. This one had no title other the "Probability Zero". Will try to get to "Alternative View" tomorrow. Have also added series link and format information on Analog wiki page.--swfritter 19:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Alternate View" done. A few of the columns had artwork associated with them. I have left the "Alternative View:" part with those titles.--swfritter 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Analog Oct 2005

I am assuming that you meant In Times to Come, Reference Library, and Brass Tacks to be essay rather than shortfiction. I made the appropriate modifications. Will be working on Probability Zero today.--swfritter 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, got busy when I was finishing that entry - and a bit daunted when I saw the amount of book reviews on that issue so I finished a bit too fast. Well, I will be adding those book reviews soon or later anyway, when I have time... Tpi 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's especially daunting if you have to add the books that are reviewed. The most recent issue of Black Static that I entered had reviews for eight British dark horror books that I had to add.--swfritter 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Brass Tacks" (Analog, October 2005)

I've approved your submission putting this in the series (& other such from the same issue). But is Stanley Schmidt really credited for Brass Tacks? At least in earlier years, no specific credit was given, & so Brass Tacks was given as being by uncredited. (Help:Screen:EditPub says this about it:

If a work by its nature has no author or editor, use "N/A"; this applies to unedited letter columns. Letter columns with embedded editorial responses should be credited to whoever writes the responses, or to "uncredited" if this is not obvious.

The general policy was to use "uncredited", even though occasionally some of the embedded responses suggested that Campbell wrote them (& I'm personally confident that he wrote almost all of them if not all). (Swfritter or someone else can jump in here if something's changed; & I haven't seen Analog issues as recent as 2005 (since around 1980, in fact), so specific credit may in fact be given.) Dave (davecat) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Copypaste error, sorry. Getting used to my new tablet-type laptop computer, paying too much attention _how_ to copy paste, too little _what_ to copy paste. Once more, sorry - I'll try to pay more attention in future. Tpi 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No apologies needed; you're doing a lot of very useful work. And we definitely all slip up on things like this one from time to time. (I quoted all that & went into the rationale only because I wasn't sure whether you knew it; & I now see that I myself went into that before; & (as I said) I don't know of my own knowledge the way it's currently listed in Analogs.) There's a lot to remember & keep straight. Dave (davecat) 21:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I slept over it, and checked that submission. In fact that wasn't mistake and I did that purposefully. Here[2] it is said: As far as attribution goes, well, that can be tricky. Whenever a letter column contains editor responses, we usually attribute it to the editor. If it's just a bunch of letters with no input from anybody associated with the magazine, then I can't think of a better way to record the information than "various" (ugh!) Ahasuerus 23:02, 17 Mar 2007 (CDT) I used that as a guideline when attributing that lettercolumn. That just stuck to my head. Now I did read the whole discussion on that link carefully, and it seems to be left a bit open. Probaply it is better to use "uncredited", as editoreal responses are not signed in any way. Now there is one another Analog series with a lot of inconsistency, as there a lot of Brass Tacks attributed to Stanley Schmidt or Ben Bova, and a few by John W. Campbell, Jr. See [[3]] Tpi 12:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, discussion has been (as usual) contradictory, inconclusive & confusing. Note that in the discussion of "various" what seems to have been in view is the inclusion of letters (credited!) by many different authors, which we have generally not wanted to bother analyzing & most of which we definitely don't want in the database. (In general, letters by professionally published SF/fantasy authors are fair game & in fact maybe welcome. Here too, though, the discussion has been many-faceted & somewhat inconclusive. The difficulty of knowing who may someday have published fiction has caused some head-scratching.)
Buried (not too deep) in this item is swfritter's reply to me on this subject; he (or maybe mhhutchins or both) also held forth a few times as I argued for using Campbell's name when attribution was for The Editor; by this time I'm convinced that it's a Bad Idea to make assumptions about who was actually responsible in the absence of specific attributions. (And even then; but if there's a specific attribution we can point to it as justification.) Dave (davecat) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no more inconsistent set of data than letter column editorial attributions. I finally just gave up and am now entering "uncredited" if there are no editorial responses or if the responses are not signed in any way. I use the generic "The Editor" or "The Editors" if they or so signed or if the signature is some variant like "Ed." I was involved in that conversation on "various" and it actually does not make as much sense to me now since the attribution is supposed to apply to the editorial staff rather than the letter writers. I might note that according to Help I should be using "N/A" if there are no responses but there are only two such attributions in the system and they are not for letter columns. I might also note I generally enter the full name of the letter-replier if they sign with initials that clearly identify the author. I think most ISFDB editors are doing the same.--swfritter 15:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Brass Tacks Analog, August 2005?

After approving your change to Brass Tacks (Analog, August 2005) I noticed that the date field shows 2005-09-00. It really is the September issue, not July/August, right? Thanks. Sorry I didn't catch it a lot sooner <sigh>. Dave (davecat) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ack! ditto for "The Reference Library" & "In Times to Come". I'll just fix them all. Dave (davecat) 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgh. Another copy/paste glitch. Tpi 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens vs slashes in mag dates

Approved this mag but according to help - "A hyphen should be used between two months used for a bimonthly issue." The slash was used when the title was initially entered so it got replicated to the column modifiers. No big deal but these could be fixed up whenever we get the chance. If all of Analog is done with "/" it might be better to leave as is so the entries for the mag series are consistent.--swfritter 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All bimonthly Analogs I have seen have been done with "/". Even on the Magazine page. Tpi 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Might as well leave them that way. Those sort of things need to be caught early before it becomes too much work to change them.--swfritter 15:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous author of Obituary

this issue. Anonymous should only be used as the author if that is the way the essay/story is actually credited otherwise it should be "uncredited". Probably the way you found it.--swfritter 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a couple of missing letters to reviewed authors in that issue: "Robert J. Sawyer" and "Darrell Schweitzer". If they were really spelled without them you might want to add a note. BLongley 18:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That obituary was like that - I didn't pay any attention to whow it was credited, just added the series information. There aren't very many obituaries which are in the series yet. I seem to remember a discussion where it was thought as a good idea to serialize them. It it seems as a good idea at least to me.

Those missing letters were my error, easy to make that kind of mistakes, when english is second language, and the first language is in totally different language family that the indoeuropean languages. Must pay more attention, must pay more attention... Tpi 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really an official standard for or against putting obituaries in series. Potentially we may have other methods for handling such things.--swfritter 15:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Inside front cover - use fep

this issue. Use fep for the page number for content on the front inside cover.--swfritter 16:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can change it. I just added series information to that issue, I think - that page number was like that. Tpi 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always nice when we can catch things like that when we've got the issue at hand.--swfritter 19:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Analog October 2008]

new mag. Magazine has no mm/dd/yy although the stories do. Do you know that if you enter a date for a new pub it will automatically carry down to the individual entries? The serial is entered as (Part III of III). The previous two installments are also done with roman numerals and that's the way they are printed in the magazine but it is standard practice to enter them with regual numbers - like (Part 3 of 3). There are some book reviews that did not link for one reason or another. Do you know how to link them manually? I assume you will be adding the editorial and science fact to series. I will fix the mag date and the serial entries.--swfritter 16:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that the date carrys down to invidual entries. Good to know - it has been a chore to add those dates. About reviews which won't link: I was going to ask about it. I have seen a few reviews, where there hasn't been an automatic link, even though I have checked that the book is in isfdb, and the spelling at least _seems_ to be exactly alike. I don't know how to make the link manually - there probably are instructions for that somewhere. I will be adding the series information when I have time. Is there any way to add the series information when making the original submission? Tpi 17:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Found the way to connect reviews and titles. Tpi 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. I think one of those might be a result of the title having co-authors. Not the case here but I think the titles don't autolink here if there is a case difference in any of the letters. Sorry, no way add series information at original submission time.--swfritter 19:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens vs slashes Jan-Feb 2006 issue

Noticed you changed slashes to hyphens in this issue. As above, you can hold off on this if you want. There are only about 25 issues with the problem so it is a doable project. If you want to make the modifications I would say go ahead. Better now then later. Let me know and I can also edit the wiki entries to be consistent.--swfritter 17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I tested "look and feel" and followed instructions :-). I take that as my project. I do it when I have time - now I have a fair amount of series information to add to those issues to which I have today submitted enchancements. Also, at least two or three of them don't have coverscans, and I want enter those also. Some of my issues are bought secondhand, and are a bit battered, and it takes some time to enhance the coverscans to that standard I can bear watching them. Tpi 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If I get the chance I will work on some of them too.--swfritter 19:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

fep for feb

I suspect you meant fep for the 'AnaLog' essays and made the change. Also, this entry response was spelled responce. I corrected the spelling.--swfritter 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Analog, January 1975

I've approved your submission (added letter by Jerry Pournelle). Since that issue was verified (primary) by Bob Hall, you probably should add a note on his talk page. I'm reasonably sure he won't mind, in fact quite the contrary. (I did most of the entry on that issue, myself, & I've never bothered to look for letters to include; I'm glad you're working on that. Thanks!) Dave (davecat) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to make to note. I am going through the whole 1975, and there are four verifications by him. I am going to post all the changes to the other numbers at the same time (if any). By the way, there is some sort of glitch in the letters. "Letter (Analog, March 1975) • essay by Robert Coulson" is in both Feb and Mar issues. I don't if I have made that mistake, or if the database itself has done some strange malfunction. The delete didn't seem to work, I must probably unmerge first? Tpi 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I spotted (& approved) some of your subsequent entries for things Bob had verified; in the future, I'll try to remember to assume that you'll follow up on notifying verifiers. Thanks!
I'll look into that letter, as best I can see how. Dave (davecat) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAICS, the two entries are separate titles, perfectly normal. This one is in the March issue, this one in the February issue; so there's nothing to unmerge. You said, "The delete didn't seem to work." Were you trying to delete the erroneous title? That won't work until you remove the title from all its pubs (in this case, just the February issue). Bring up the February issue; on the left, under Editing Tools, you'll see "Remove Titles From This Pub". That will bring up the contents with check boxes. Check the offending title, & click "Submit Data". Once that has been approved, you can delete the orphan title. (If your problem was something else, try to describe more fully, & I'll follow up.) Dave (davecat) 18:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Analog, November 1974 (AnLab content)

I've put this submission on hold. AFAIK, we haven't ever included AnLab results in the database; if there's been any discussion of it, I've missed it. (That's quite possible, certainly.) I'd say that this is one where some discussion would be worth while, & I'll post something myself on Rules_and_standards_discussions in a while, if you don't get to it first. Dave (davecat) 17:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I entered it here. You may want to comment yourself; I'm hoping others will do so. Dave (davecat) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A Voice Is Heard in Ramah . . .

I approved your change (adding to series), then noticed a problem & backed it out. This one's kind of confusing to describe because of the quotes. The title you changed is:

A Voice Is Heard in Ramah . . . 

That's a variant of

"A Voice Is Heard in Ramah . . . "

(with the quotes). The series should be in, & only in, the parent title when there's a variant. I backed your change out & added the parent (with quotes) to the series.
Possibly the most confusing thing about this is that if you look at the listing for the child record, it says that it's in the series. But if you go in as if to edit it, you'll see that it's not.
So when adding things to series, this is something to watch. Dave (davecat) 16:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How it is defined what is parent and what is variant? In this case the Analog publication is the first publication of the story - logically shoudn't it be the parent? Tpi 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of a messy issue, admittedly. The basic idea is that the parent is the canonical title, & that's roughly the name under which it's most widely known. Sometimes it's the author's preferred name for it. Name under which it was originally published has some weight, too, I'd say. (Understand that many of the same issues come up about an author's or artist's canonical name; in some cases works have appeared under many versions of the author's name) These absolutely are judgment calls on someone's part.
In this case, it looks like the title, with quotes (& it is a quotation, after all), appears in several of Robinson's collections, & it appeared without the quotes only in this issue of Analog. (If I had to guess, I'd say that the title with the quotes was Robinson's, & Analog cut them; this would be par for the course.)
But in any case, in this case the records were linked this way. (I may even have been the one who did it; I entered much of the data in that issue, but fiction contents were already entered (from reference sources); if it had the quotes at that point, I'd noted that they shouldn't be there, added a title without the quotes, dropped the title with quotes, & made variant. I can't remember at this point.) You can see which is the parent & which the variant from the listings. The variant has a line saying "Variant Title of:", with a link to the parent; the parent has a section headed "Variant Titles:" (no links there, though). In the pub listing you can also tell, if you're looking at the variant entry. Again the series must go in the parent, not the variant.
Again, these are judgment calls. But I'd say reversing a parent/variant relationship (which you do by the make-variant process, first setting the (former) variant's parent to zero, then by making the (former) parent to be a variant, watching out for other variants) merits posting a query somewhere first.
(If I haven't stated everything fairly, I hope someone will jump in & slap me down.) Dave (davecat) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> That's way too long, I see; I hope you navigate it OK. I had an afterthought warning, though: I think for the present we're still being discouraged by swfritter from deciding on canonical names for artists, so generally you should just enter the name as printed & maybe put notes in the pub. His position was that we first needed to collect a lot more data & see what names were actually used. (Consider Kelly Freas, for example. Probably following reference books, much stuff was incorrectly entered as by Frank Kelly Freas, & someone made a lot of variants with the full name as the canonical name. Seeing this, I entered a huge number more that way myself. But Freas seems to have pretty consistently just used "Kelly Freas", & it seems fairly clear that that should be the canonical form.) Dave (davecat) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tpi's submission (title remove)of Letter (Analog, March 1975)

(moved from Marc Kupper talk page) Marc, You held Tpi's submission title remove. Is there some reason I'm not aware of? On his talk page, discussing with me, he'd noted that he couldn't delete this - it's in the wrong month, & there's another title of the same name in the correct issue - & I believe that it's because he hadn't removed it from the pub first. Am I missing something? Thanks. Dave (davecat) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I held it as you are removing the title from a verified publication and I wanted to check with the person that verified this in the first place but got distracted.

• Publication 57097 Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, February 1975
• Verified by: Verified by Hall3730 on 2007-12-05 20:48:21
• Title to be removed 913418 Letter (Analog, March 1975)

I agree that the letter seems to be out of place both in its name and that it's 5 pages past the last letter though it seems to be within the 180 pages of the publication. I'd like someone with a physical copy of the publication to take a look and determine if deleting the title is the correct action. I'll leave a note on Bob Hall's page to take a look here. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked my own copies. The letter isn't there, but is in the March issue on the specified page #. Looks like someone got confused about which issue he was editing, just for a moment.
That page # is still in the letters column (in Feb.), though. Since we don't enter letters unless the authors are people ISFDB already knows about (or should), there are big gaps in the page #s.
(BTW, Tpi: you may want to look again at that letter & the synopsis you put (in the title that's in the March issue). De Camp had sent the notice to Coulson, but the death in question was P. Schuyler Miller's.) Dave (davecat) 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

<blushes>. Reading to fast. I'll correct that. And that February letter is an error. Tpi 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've approved the updates - As for the announcement of De Camp's death - I just finished reading a story about a guy who died twice; unfortunately, it's a Perry Mason story and not spectfict. :-) Marc Kupper (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, February 1980 - art not shortfiction?

I am assuming the entries for Steadman and Bob Shore were meant to be interior art. I have made the changes.--swfritter 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. I was going to check all the details in the end, but then I pressed "enter" to get to the book reviews...Tpi 05:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Analog, January 1980

I've approved your submission, but I'm kind of puzzled by what you put in the notes field:

"the astounding adventures of Isaac Intrepid" is not mentioned on the Contents page, and is capitalized with small letters.

I'm not sure what "capitalized with small letters" means (& my collection only goes through early 1976 so I can't check what it looks like myself). I'm guessing you mean it's all in small capitals, with those two "I"s larger; is that right? (That's just a guess. And you may be reasonably clear & I'm being dense. I don't know.) Thanks! -- Dave (davecat) 19:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly that; it is all small letters execpt those two "I"s. It is probably more my english than you being dense. Tpi 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

AnaLog series

March 1980. You are changing an AnaLog essay from the "Upcoming Events" to "In Times to Come (Analog)". Is this what you really want to do?--swfritter 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put by accident wrong series information to that, I noticed it at the same time I pressed enter. I resubmitted correct information. Tpi 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejected original submission.--swfritter 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Page count Analog March 1980

Page count should be 180 rather than the 182 you are attempting to enter. Luckily, I own a copy. The page count for Analog at this time started with the cover so with the last page being 178 only two pages need to be added to account for the back cover pages.--swfritter 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh. A trap. I was used to adding four pages, never occured to me that they might have changed the numbering on a whim. Tpi 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejected and I fixed the pub. Very annoying the way page numbers are done in magazines. More annoying that they are not all done the same.--swfritter 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Analog, November 2008

I'm approving this, but (at a guess) you must have submitted an invalid date format. All the dates are showing as 0000-00-00, so you'll need to fix those up. (I figure this is better than reentering everything, which you'd have to do if I rejected it.) -- Dave (davecat) 16:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I was told that "Do you know that if you enter a date for a new pub it will automatically carry down to the individual entries?" See my talk page a bit earlier, "Analog October 2008". So it doesn't work like that - or I misunderstood something and did something else wrong. Tpi 17:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ANd there something strange going on the databse anyway - when I click that November issue I just entered, I got the October issues's content. Tpi 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

swfritter was speaking a little carelessly there, i think, or else slightly inaccurately. I just did a test, and it confirmed how I thought things worked. If, when you add an item (such as a story, or an essay) to the contents list of a publication, you leave the date of the new item blank, the new item will get the same date as the publication. if the publication's date is changed in that same edit, the new item will get the same date that the pub winds up with as a result of that edit. However, if you change the date on a publication that already has content items recorded for it, the dates of those items will not be automatically changed. If those dates need to be changed that must be done manually. Blanking the dates of content items will have the effect of setting then to the publication date -- I just tested this. I am sorry you were misinformed about this.

Also, if you enter a date that is not a valid date (For example a date where the month is 13) or a date not in YYYY-MM-DD format, the software will store it as "0000-00-00" (aka "Unknown"). I think that might be what happened in this case. -DES ^Talk 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, September 1980

Overall the proposed update to Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, September 1980} looks great except a couple of things which got my attention.

1. In the Contents you want to change the title of The New Physics: The Speed of Lightness, Curved Space, and Other Heresies to The New Physics. This title record is being used by another publication. Please see Help:Screen:EditPub#General contents for how to change titles in the Contents section.
2. In the Contents section you also wanted to change What the Vintners Buy (Version 2) to What the Vintners Buy. In this case the title is only referenced by the Analog Sep-1980 publication but I'm thinking there's a reason Mack_Reynolds bibliography has both What the Vintners Buy (Version 1) and the version 2 title that you want to update. Unfortunately, neither title has notes that explain why these are called "version 1" and "2" vs. a more standard "(1968 edition)" and "(1980 edition)".

I'm more interested in hearing back on the second item. With the first it's clear that we should create a new title record to handle The New Physics. I suspect with the latter you are trying to get the title to show "as stated" and presumably it does not state "(version 2)" but hopefully the story will explain why he has two stories with the same title and if perhaps they are the same story.

In this case I decided to approve your update but then reverted the title for What the Vintners Buy back to What the Vintners Buy (version 2) pending a reply from you. I also fixed up the The New Physics title using the add/remove business described in the help so that the magazine has The New Physics and the collection has The New Physics: The Speed of Lightness, Curved Space, and Other Heresies which is now a variant title of The New Physics. Marc Kupper (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Those both stories are in the magazine as I entered them. There are no signs of those subheadings I removed anywhere, not in the Contents page or in the story itself. In the story there are no chapter headings or something which would explain that "(version 2)". I haven't actually read the story (well, I am pretty sure that I have read it about 25 years ago, but for some strange reason I have no recollections whatsoever of it), but by skimming it there are no chapter headings or any obvios things that would explain the (version 2) in the title. I thought that those were entering errors due to some secondary source or other error, or something like that as info about that magazine was very poor before my update. Tpi 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the story - there are no hints for two different versions in it. Tpi 05:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I own both and they are definitely not the same story and do not seem to have anything in common. The story in Worlds of Fantasy is much shorter and is essentially a Deal With the Devil story where the main character is tricked into trading his immortal soul for one minute of Paradise. Contento differentiates between the two with the following listing:

What the Vintners Buy [1], (ss) Worlds of Fantasy #1 1968;

What the Vintners Buy [2], (nv) Analog Sep 1980

The use of the word "version" actually gives the impression that the stories might in some way be related. Perhaps we could append (fantasy) to the first and (science fiction) to the second with a little more elaboration in title and pub notes? Probably something I should have investigated a little more when I was working on Worlds of Fantasy.--swfritter 18:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

About Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, October 1980

Whoever moderator is moderating this magazine: Yes, I know that book reviews don't have date and "Tom Easton" is missing from all of them. I just pressed "enter" on the number keypad by accident when reaching for my mouse... I will correct those when edit is [hopefully] approved. Tpi 17:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Approved, but there's something VERY wrong with it now... :-/ BLongley 18:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, fixed. There were some horrible Python errors at first, then after adding the reviewer there were dups and Neal Barratt disappeared - but the dups went without trouble and it's workable now, I think. BLongley 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was working at it at same time you were working at it. I'll look at it again, just reject that first submission if it makes things again more wrong. Tpi 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't have been any conflicts unless someone else was approving your edits as well, and that doesn't seem to be the case. I take it from your next edit that the reviews are actually by "Thomas A. Easton"? (Someone's got a LOT of Make Variant work to do for Tom_Easton at some point, I'm glad it's not me...) BLongley 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact it is not. It is Tom Easton in this issue. The reference library was entered by that name before I started to work with that issue, and I just copy pasted without paying enough attention - especially when everything was a bit of a mess... I'll make corrections...Tpi 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, approved. Thanks for taking care to note the differences - the variants will get sorted eventually. BLongley 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Analog october 1980

I also deleted the un-merged duplicate titles in the pub. You might want to make close look and make sure everything is now OK. --swfritter 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I will go through and check everything of the whole 1980 once again, now when I have finished entering the basic data for that year. Tpi 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Quaestiones Or The Protopresbyter's Tale: A Romance Of Nova Europa

I'm approving this one, but from the cover photo I have to ask: shouldn't that be "Quæstiones" (with "æ" not "ae")? What does the title page say? Thanks. -- Dave (davecat) 15:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the book myself. I added it from Amazon. The book was reviewed in a issue of Analog I was editing, and it didn't exist in database yet. The review and the Amazon info are both with "ae" - of course the actual title on title page might be almost anything. Tpi 16:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And now it is for some reason listed twice. I don't understand, as I am pretty positive the book didn't exist before I added it. I even remember that there was one book with subtitle "A Romance of Nova Europe" (The Dark-Haired Man, Or, the Hieromonk’s Tale: A Romance of Nova Europe), and I was thinking that maybe these two titles should be someday made into a series, probably by someone who actually has the books. I am pretty sure that I would have noticed the "Quastiones" book. Of course I might have had a moment of blindness or something... Or is there some way that title might have duplicated, or missed for a while? Tpi 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw the duplicate before I came back here to enter this. Not sure what the cause is, but one possibility: Depending on how you searched, it's possible that the apostrophe caused the trouble. There are multiple characters which can represent apostrophe & which may or may not look the same in different contexts.
Back to why I came back here: I see that the listings on the publisher's web site also say "ae" not "æ". This makes me wonder. I think I'll go add a note. (Um. First, if the titles are the same in all respects, I'll see about merging them.) -- Dave (davecat) 18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I got rid of duplicate title & duplicate pub, & added a note to title & pub records. -- Dave (davecat) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Girlfriends of Dorian Gray" & "Herd Mentality"

I've put these on hold pending your answers to the questions they raise.

• "The Girlfriends of Dorian Gray": you're keeping one dated 2000-00-00 & dropping one dated 2005-07-14. Does this mean that you've got evidence of the earlier pub date?
• "Herd Mentality": you're keeping one, a novelette, dated 2004-08-00, & dropping one, a short story, dated 2005-07-21. Again, fine if you have evidence that they're the same in spite of length as well as date difference.

If you're sure this is correct, let me know & I'll approve them. You probably know what you're doing, but I thought I'd better ask. Thanks. -- Dave (davecat) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In the first case, that earlier date is an error.

In second case, the length very probably should be novellette - the another publication is in audio, and length of piece is hard to estimate. Earlier date is right. I haven't done much merging, I might have misunderstood which date is the one which is kept, or I did not paid enough attention. Tpi 15:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I'll reject the Girlfriends & let you figure out what to do, & also reject the Herd, then. (Something tickles my memory about a bug in the way something displays, but I can't recall enough. I hope it's not this one.)
Ack! And then I myself clicked on the wrong thing, & accepted the merge on Girlfriends! But on looking at it (I was going to change that date), I see that it's listed as being in a pub dated 2000-00-00. Is that an error too? I'm sorry, you're going to have to fix things up, I think. -- Dave (davecat) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the 2000-00-00 date is right after all, at least untill someone find more exact date for that collection the story was published first time. The one I was merging into it was was from 2005. Tpi 16:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a bug in the way some merges displayed to moderators, making the display exactly backwards. I am pretty sure it has been fixed for several months. -DES ^Talk 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There was originally a problem with reversed titles on make variants. Then Al fixed that but reversed the authors. That is fixed now, but I don't recall it ever being a problem with merges. BLongley

That explains some of why I couldn't find it, I guess. I got hit with it my very first day as moderator, I think. Thanks.
Tpi, did you figure out what all you needed to do? I'm sorry I added extra confusion. -- Dave (davecat) 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is right now. Tpi 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Escape Pod 12

Approved and deleted orphan pub and story. I also approved the changes to jan-feb 2004 Analog. I don't know if the length for "Probability Zero" was left as shortfiction on purpose. We don't really have a category for such entries and I sometimes leave them as shortfiction. Maybe Bob will let you know.--swfritter 16:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that category earlier in some short pieces. I have usually changed the category to short story, as at least according to the help pages "ss - Shortstory - A work whose length is less than or equal to 7,500 words. (Roughly, 20 or fewer pages in a book.) " there isn't lower limit on short stories. Tpi 16:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable according to standards. Would have been nice to have had a category or a standard earlier but there has been so much data entered it's probably too late.

I might note that Escapepod 12 is still coming up as an anthology title and I am not sure why. Chapterbooks's are a little bit weird. I will take another look tomorrow and if I have to I will start from scratch. If you want the web address to Escapepod linkable, here is an example of how to do it.--swfritter 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this. What I did was to start with the title record for "Clean Up Your Room!". Then I used "Add a publication" and converted the type of the pub to be added from ANTHOLOGY to CHAPTERBOOK, and filled in all the info for Escapepod 12 from the existing record, saved and approved. Then I deleted the old record for Escapepod 12. See if this doesn't work better. -DES ^Talk 17:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is still something strange going on. If you search by title "escapepod" or by author "stephen eley" that episode is still listed as anthology. Tpi 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You only get one shot at entering a Chapterbook and KEEPING it as a Chapterbook. Because Al banned it as a Title Type on the Editing pages but not the New Publications pages, you can get them in, but any edit forces a change of Title type - so putting them in a series would stop them displaying as Chapterbooks. (Which is the way I want Chapterbooks to appear, as real separate publications rather than lost in the Short Fiction/Essays section. Although the publications I get annoyed about this with are small paperbacks rather than audiobooks.) BLongley 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the best way forward coding-wise is to make title type CHAPTERBOOK an allowable "container" type like ANTHOLOGY or COLLECTION, so that it doesn't display in contents listings (people still look at those records and think it's the SHORTFICTION entry). Then people can make edits, enter other contents (e.g. even a chapterbook may have interiorart or an introductory essay) and put the Title record in a series. BLongley 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For now though, all you can do is enter the data in ONE pass, which I see you've done in most cases. The Anthology record for "Escapepod EP012" is currently a stray title that can be deleted: it doesn't link to the publication in any way. I don't think you can edit the "Escapepod EP012" publication back to working status either - delete that and enter it in one go as a new publication. You won't be able to put them in a series, but I think they display quite nicely as they are currently - except for 12. BLongley 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that when I deleted the old chapterbook, I didn't delete the title record. It isn't that you get only one pass, it is that on subsequent edits you may need to rese the type from anthology to chapterbook. -DES ^Talk 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Which you CANNOT DO. The edit pub screen comes up with the CHAPTERBOOK record (as Al hasn't hidden those like he does with COLLECTION and ANTHOLOGY, when they match the title type) but as CHAPTERBOOK is not a valid type in the dropdown list it is converted to the first valid title type left, 'ANTHOLOGY'. If that edit is submitted and approved then you break the link between pub type and title type and there's no title link from the pub, and no publication link from the title. Similarly if you try and edit the Title record alone - the title record becomes ANTHOLOGY as CHAPTERBOOK is no longer a valid option, but as the pub type is still CHAPTERBOOK the link is again broken. BLongley 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

EP12 is now the only one working right, I'll fix the others, and put them in a series. -DES ^Talk 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

EP12 is the only one working WRONG. Now you've deleted the stray ANTHOLOGY record there's no title level indication that EP12 ever existed. Please don't attempt to put the others in series or you'll break those titles too. BLongley 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

At least now I can't find Ep12 at all, others seem fine. Is it possible to put these into series, I thought Blongley said above that it isn't possible? Is the procedure I have used ( New anthology => enter data => change the type to chapterbook) best possible to enter these? Or are the other suggestions? I am going to hold on them for a few days anyway, as I don't even have enought time. There are about 150 more to add, so this is just beginning - that podcast has run weekly for over three years. So any worksaving hints for making this smoother are wellcome. One thing is that now I must change evyrytime title type to CHAPTERBOOK manually - there probably isn't a way make this easier. In 150+ submissions I am easily bound to make a mistake or two on that one, I am afraid. Tpi 05:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OUCH!!!--swfritter 14:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If I knew it was going to be this hard. Is there generally only one story per an episode? If so, I would say enter it as a magazine since that one story will always be available. If we can't come up with a better solution than chapterbook it isn't fair to make life anywhere this miserable for editors who are willing to enter such valuable data.--swfritter 15:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's still the issue of how to convert the ones already entered. I suspect that if you change the pub type from CHAPTERBOOK to MAGAZINE and title type (that is CHAPTERBOOK currently, but will display as ANTHOLOGY when you try to edit it) to EDITOR then you'll get a valid magazine, but let me try it on a test title first. BLongley 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have it now and it's not as simple as that, unfortunately :-(. Mods: please see ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#Chapterbooks_for_Dummies. If anyone can simplify the process feel free to add advice. Non-Mod editors: I really wouldn't recommend trying it for now, it's a multi-step process and the wait for approvals of edits that moderators aren't fully clear about will only add to confusion. Tpi, I think you've done exactly the right thing according to our recommendations and it all looks good as you entered it. But it's UNSTABLE so either we LEAVE THEM ALONE till ISFDB improves, or we 'fix' them to a workable situation. BLongley 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) What I have done with number 12 is to start from the included work of short fiction, "Clean Up Your Room!". I then added a new publication, Escapepod EP012. Since this is a publication, and is not a title, it of course does not appear on title searches. This makes the publication display correct, there is no odd-looking title record for "Escapepod EP012" because "Escapepod EP012" is not a title, merely a publication. I could, and was about to, change all the other Escapepod instances to work in this same way, and add a series of which they were all elements. I think that would be the ideal way to deal with this, but it would have the effect that "Escapepod" would not be a searchable title string.

Alternatively, I could edit number 12 so that it acts as the others are now acting: visible on a title search, but with an inappropriate listing in the contents area. As a third option, all of the Escapepod instances could be converted to anthologies or collections with a single content item. This is not usual, but would work for this situation. The more usual chap(ter)book situation has the publication carrying the same title as the work of short fiction, which avoids the issue with title searches. While I think the first option is better, the second is IMO acceptable. I strongly urge not going with the "magazine" solution, although that could, i suppose, be done also.

I won't take any action one way or the other pending further comments by others involved. I ask that other editors exercise similar restraint in moving ahead with the "magazine" option. -DES ^Talk 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, DON'T TRY ANYTHING with these titles and/or publications for now. DES - I'll follow up on your talk-page about what you've been doing, I've left more general comments for Mods on the Moderator noticeboard. BLongley 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Later tonight or tomorrow I will do some test chapterbook entries, and report my conclusions. i won't do anything more with the Escapepod items until after I do that. -DES ^Talk 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If chapterbook won't work, anthology is alright too. Probably better than collection because anthology entries allow for an editor.--swfritter 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, changing to ANTHOLOGY is simpler than to MAGAZINE and I might have given better or clearer advice for such a move, although MAGAZINE seemed to be the preferred option at the time I posted the "Chapterbooks for Dummies (Rocket Scientists?)" stuff. But EDITOR and MAGAZINE title matching is still pretty complex (I think we still have many completely missing EDITOR records for some little-loved magazines?) so it hasn't reduced the complexity of the problem by much. Also, ANTHOLOGY is the default type created by broken CHAPTERBOOK edits so fixing any other broken records will be easier if ANTHOLOGY is the preferred final result. (And Editors of ANTHOLOGY titles are a LOT simpler than EDITOR records for MAGAZINE records - they're usually as simple to deal with as NOVEL authors.} BLongley 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to experiment on ISFDB tonight - last night was far too hectic for my liking, trying to get the article out, and tonight SLEEP is the preferred option. But over the weekend I'll probably go look at a fresh offline database copy to see how many corrupted titles we have to fix. BLongley 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tpi - hold off on those other 150 titles for now, that looks like a job that could be better accomplished via the Web API. Which I have mostly got working, although what you can DOWNLOAD doesn't really match what you can UPLOAD so I haven't found much use for it for corrective scripts yet. But bulk data entry from a good source should be possible, so long as I don't overload the approval queue. BLongley 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I will hold on then for a while. That just would be nice data to have in the database. But I have work in Analog's from 80's and 90's for months (or years), for all such times I have surplus time and want to enter something. I just was thinking to add those podcasts for varietys sake. Tpi 15:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've put Escapepod EP012 back to the way you entered it, if you'd like to check. The download link doesn't work, but I think that's a problem their end, not ours. BLongley 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be fine. At at the moment even the link works. Tpi 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You may want to check this again and see if it still works the way you expected now that it's a Magazine. For instance, you can't do a simple title search for "EP012" and find it now - you'll need the advanced PUBLICATION search instead. This is because of the way that Magazine Editor records often get merged by year to keep their Author pages manageably short. You can currently still find "EP018" the simple way, but it will show an EDITOR record rather than a MAGAZINE record - it'll take you to the right place though. You may also notice that when looking at one of the publications, there's no link back to the Title record anymore. You have to go to the Editor's author page, find the right year, then you can find all the publications he edited that year. This may not be what you desired, but it's the way Magazines work here. Did we surprise you? BLongley 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have taken a vacation in September. I can't help but think that Magazine would be better then CHAPTERBOOK. Each "Episode" has a date, why not just list them by month and treat the episode numbers like we do Magazine Issue Numbers? Also, how are we planning on handling the almost weekly additions of their Flash Fiction episodes, (currently around 40 and they are not numbered, but are dated) and also the CD's which are available that contain multiple stories in numerical order? They also have two sister podcasts, one on horror with over 100 episodes, and a Fantasy one with about 25 episodes. These are all paying podcasts, and they have had stories by Silverberg, Asimov, Beagle, and Lovecraft, just to name a few of the authors. CoachPaul 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I posted instructions on the conversion to Magazine format in ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#Chapterbooks_for_Dummies if we want to go that way. Given that one of the desires is to record the editor as such, then MAGAZINE or ANTHOLOGY seems appropriate although they're going to look awfully short. ANTHOLOGY is simpler to do, but I guess it depends on how long you want the Editor's page to get - and I've always found that the extra confusion in searching that the merging of Magazine EDITOR records causes outweighs the advantage in brevity of the Editor's page. BLongley 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Magazine still sounds fine to me. I don't think it makes any difference that there is only one story per issue. As for the CD's. Probably an anthology. If the other podcasts are issued on a periodic basis - magazines, otherwise anthologies since they have an overall series editor. Sometimes you just have to make compromises with the system as it is. Flash fiction? not sure.--swfritter 19:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a quarter of the number of edits to convert to Anthology than Magazine, but as it's Tpi volunteering to enter later ones (unless we've scared him off?) and those are equally simple either way, and adjusting current titles is still only 64 edits or 16, I'm happy with either - I've heard nothing that makes me think Chapterbooks will be fixed soon. BLongley 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I spent about 15 minutes entering some entries for PodCastle, another Escape Artist production, as a Magazine type. There will be a whole lot of Bibliographical Errors when we do it this way. Is this ok with everyone? This was done basically as a test for me, and I haven't tied in any of the stories to their existing entries when there are none, so it would be easy to remove what I've already done if consensus decrees. I'm not sure how to do it as an Anthology, would it be done as a one story anthology for each episode?CoachPaul 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been scared away :-) - rather have been fairly busy doing other things than editing isfdb. As I have stated earlier, I like the magazine format, and was never too keen on Chapterbooks - but I am still volunteering to enter those in any way consensus sees best. As to the flash fiction pieces: I haven't given much thought to them. I was mainly thinking that after the main podcasts are entered, them I might start to ponder about flashpieces. I really would like to see those podcasts in isfdb, but I am not in any hurry - and there is more for me to do than I have time even if I don't start to add those Escapepods. (It seems I might have just bought something like 30-40 Asimov's science fiction magazines from end of 70s to the beginning of 80s from British Ebay - and they seem to be entered otherwise very well, but hardly any have covers... ... and I have that new scanner...)Tpi 11:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no dissenting opinions, I will begin changing the Escape Pods from Chapterbook to Magazine.CoachPaul 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Escape Pod

You can now find them here. I have changed them from Chapterbiooks to Magazines. Changed the name of the Editor Record to "Escape Pod - 2005". Since Magazines get grouped by year, I kept that format. Once we start doing the 06 episodes, we will head them under "Escape Pod - 2006". I then changed the name of each individual weekly episode to "EPXXX:", where XXX is the three digit number of the episode, followed by the name of the story, as that is how they do it on their website. Also they have "Escape Pod" as two words and not just one as in "EscapePod", so I changed that too. I then merged all of the Editor records together as we do for all of the same magazine titles from a year with the same editor. I then set all prices to "$0.00", all page counts to "0", and all ISBN/Catalog # fields to "EPXXX", with XXX egual to the episode number. I'm not yet sure how to deal with the Flash episode as Escape Pod doesn't number them. Unless anybody familiar with the internal workings can come up with a good reason for not doing the Price, page counts, and ISBN/Catalog # fields the way I have started, continueing to do them in this way will leave for much neater Bibliography pages. If you don't have any questions, please feel free to start adding the rest of the episodes as you have time. I am going to work on the PocCastles, and then the PseudoPods if nobody else gets to it first. If you do have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. CoachPaul 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, and should be easily maintainable for future additions. (Well, for those of us that understand the peculiarities of Magazines.) I even started listening to one - Number 18 - and think there's actually an Editorial or Introductory Essay by Stephen Eley in there too. (Some rambling about DragonCon.) I don't know if there's other sections in there too, I found the voices annoying and gave up, but one of the things Stephen Eley did mention was where the original publication was. So if anybody IS listening to them, there's probably some more useful data that can be squeezed out of these. BLongley 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there almost always is "editorial" where the theme of story, something related to science fiction, or in some fairly rare cases even editor's personal life are discussed. After the story there is usually feedback from earlier stories. The story quality, and especially reading quality varies widely. Some are exellent, some have been boring, a few totally incomprehensible. As I have about once or twice weekly longer driving distance to work, I have enjoyed listening those. It is easier than reading while driving. :-) Tpi 05:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite often the intro and outro has nothing to do with SpecFic and is more often then not about podcasting. While there are many here who would probably put these things into the db, I for one feel that my time is better utilized elsewhere, then in listening to all of the podcasts to enter information that probably isn't relevant anyway. I will not however discourage those whose opinion on this subject differs from mine and do wish to put in such time. CoachPaul 16:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-book Reviews

One of your entries is for the music cd "Mad Melancholy Monkey Mind: Drive". The review type should be restricted to items that can logically be entered into the system - for the most part books. The option I most commonly use is to mention such an item in the note of the pub. A generic non-linking review type has long been on my list of desirable implentations.--swfritter 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

An alternative that some people find useful is to make them ESSAYs. But I agree REVIEWs of things we wouldn't normally enter here themselves are undesirable - e.g. this review means we have an author Iguanodon Smile with no publications and no way to easily find WHY he/she/it/they are here at all. I find such authors particularly annoying and even started a project to clean some of them up. (It's probably worth revisiting, but since then the ability to link reviews EXACTLY AS STATED to slightly-differently recorded Titles has been added, and my original detection scripts and suggested solutions need another look.) BLongley 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a fine line between what we REALLY don't want and what we grudgingly accept - reviews of SF-Related NONFICTION books tend to lead to at least a stub entry for the NONFICTION title, which we'd often not enter otherwise as only the more notable SF authors tend to get the "Everything they ever wrote" allowance for NONGENRE and NONFICTION. BLongley 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take that review away - maybe put it to the notes. But what about reviews of science books not related to science fiction? I have seen many books about space exploratation, natural sciences, even about computers which have been reviewed in sf magazines. That non-linking review type might be good for them, also. Tpi 04:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the title and the 'author' has gone now - remember, removing contents from a publication doesn't actually delete the content. BLongley 14:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected the submission. It is my opinion that it is alright to add such book reviews since they are often the source material for subsequent works of fiction. They give a suggestion of the ideas that are rolling around at the time the book and review are published. The actual book being reviewed can be added, using secondary sources if necessary, at the discretion of the editor. Even if you don't add the book somebody else might do so at a later date. Such books are often of interest to s-f fans. I think there are already a fair number of such reviews in the system - I have put quite a few in myself.--swfritter 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviews of non-genre and non-fiction books have an added advantage. It's relatively easy to find and enter the books being reviewed since the software already knows how to handle books. On the other hand, adding other types of reviewed items (games, comics, movies, manga, etc) would raise "square peg/round hole" problems. That's why Help:Screen:NewPub currently says:

• Non-sf works should be entered but if an onerous number of non-sf-related works are reviewed in a column you are entering, discuss the situation on the Bibliographic Rules page to decide what can be eliminated.

BTW, I see that Help also states that "fanzines are not indexed in the ISFDB", which is no longer true. Let me see if we have a discussion of this issue already going... Ahasuerus 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I rather wish it still were true, but that is another matter. I agree that reveiws of games, comics, movies, manga, etc should not be entered as reviews, because there is no posisble way for them to link to any record of the reviewed item, and reveiws of CDs only if the CDs are audiobooks, which we might enter. Entering a review or review column that discusses such as an essay seems fine to me. -DES ^Talk 05:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging Magazine Editor Records

I see that you aren't currently doing it for Escape Pod. Are you not familiar with how to do it, or just busy doing other things? CoachPaul 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that you just did it, so answered my question. One thing, I've found that only about 15 Editor Records can be merged at a time, any more then that and they get removed from the list in the Moderation screen. I haven't dared approve any yet with more, so I don't know what happens to the rest. CoachPaul 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange Seas

I have approved the addition of Suzy McKee Charnas' Strange Seas, although there is some doubt as to whether it's a novel or non-fiction. The author's note that I have added to the Title record seems to indicate that it's a novel presented as non-fiction, although at least one reviewer has stated that "This is not fiction, but it reads with the pace of a mystery story". Oh well, I guess anything that has to do with mediums is best classified as fiction :)

Exit question: you entered the book as published in 2005, but the author's site lists it a March 2002 book. Delayed publication or something else? Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I added it due to review in Analog. Even that review leaves a bit open if the book is fiction or non-fiction. I think Tom Easton described it as "autobiography disguised as fiction". I took the date from Hidden Knowledge website, but now when I now checked it just says the book's page was updated 2005, I probably misread. Tpi 09:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have adjusted the date of the Publication accordingly :) Ahasuerus 16:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Date for EP061

Notice that the title and story have a date of 0000-00-00.--swfritter 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it. There was also one story where I had left "." after the authors name. Tpi 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just do It

I have rejected your merge of 296411 with 803121. The difference in the titles, although it is only an exclamation mark, is enough to warrant a variant title IMO. I have accepted your later submission creating such a variant. -DES ^Talk 20:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto "The Sweet, Sad Love Song of Fred & Wilma" vs. "The Sweet, Sad Love Song of Fred and Wilma", although in this case there is an added twist since the story was originally published as by "Nicholas A. DiChario" and then reprinted as by "Nick Dichario". I have set up a bunch of variant titles instead -- see Nicholas A. DiChario's biblio page. Ahasuerus 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

image uploads

When uploading images, i think it would be helpful if you sued the pub= parameter of {{Cover Image Data}} to link the image page to the (or a) publication theimage is used in. It would also be helpful if you limited images to no more than 600 pixels on the longer dimension, so that they can be displayed on the image page. -DES ^Talk 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Navbars for Analog

I can generate these for you quickly with a program if you want to modify a large number of magazines - I can put them in a text file from which you can cut and paste. The only thing I require is that the month part of the magazine be filled in first - the mid-December issues, at least temporarily, need to have a the day part also filled in for sorting purpose. It might be a long-term positive to put a an arbitrary day value of 15 in those issues so they sort correctly.--swfritter 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice. I am planning to go through 1993, and update everything from that year and ultimatedly mark everything verified. Another whole year which is in my "queue" is 2003. (I am going through issues and years more or less arbitarily depending what I am reading, what happens to be on the top of my piles, what I am putting to the storage on my attic and so on...) Tpi 14:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated pub and story dates for 1993 onwards. Should be able to use the daily backup to generate the navbar data tomorrow. Really glad to see work being done on these pubs.--swfritter 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Navbars for 1993-1996 published on Google Docs. I think you should be able to copy and paste from that. If not there is a way to request access.--swfritter 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the error originated, but Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, September 1972 seems to have navbars for August instead. BLongley 12:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Probably my copy-paste error. Tpi 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, submission approved. BLongley 16:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, June 1993

FYI, I have approved the changes to Analog Science Fiction and Fact, June 1993. I tweaked the grammar a bit and changed the date of "Upcoming Events (Analog, June 1993)" by Anthony Lewis from 0000-00-00 back to 1993-06-00 since I assume it was some kind of typo. I also linked various reviews except for Chronicles of the Mutant Rain Forest, which we currently don't have in the database. Ahasuerus 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. November 1993 also approved. Changed the binding from "Dell Magazines" to "digest". Ahasuerus 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again I pressed enter by accident when trying to backspace. Tpi 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, mistakes happen! By the way, was "A Sceond Chance" by Stanley Schmidt really spelled that way in the magazine? Ahasuerus 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Probaply not. I'll look into it - I am going to recheck whole year anyway. Tpi 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Analog, December 1987

I'm approving your submission (added nav bars), but personally I find it confusing to have it say this:

Nov. 1987←Dec. 1987→Dec. 1987

I gather that the first "Dec. 1987" is December, & the second is Mid-December, so they're not really the same issue.
(This may also have turned up in some similar change I approved earlier without my noticing.)
Thanks for doing these, BTW. When I was going through earlier Analogs, I often found myself wishing for previous-issue & next-issue buttons; this is a reasonable substitute. -- Dave (davecat) 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC) In fact, the same question arises for your very next submission, adding navbars to the Mid-December issue. <sigh> That also I'm approving. -- Dave (davecat) 19:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And ditto for December 1988, same batch of submissions. Presumably for every December, Mid-December, & January issue since they started doing the mid-December ones (which was after my time). Thanks. -- Dave (davecat) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The NavBar data is generated for cut & paste by using SQL and a simple Basic program. Since the above is such a rare occurrence I did not modify the program to create the Mid-Dec designation - it would be less work for someone else to modify the text in the NavBar area manually. I might also note that I used a bogus day of 15 so that the data would sort correctly. The actual date should probably be the date that the December issue goes off-sale (also the date the January issue goes on sale) seeing that magazines usually are dated that way - which, of course, drives some people up the proverbial wall.--swfritter 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a pass through (hopefully soon) & fix up any where there are existing navbars for this issue. Thanks. -- Dave (davecat) 13:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, I think, for all the Mid-December & Mid-September issues which had navbars which weren't already fixed up. (There are still some years with no navbars.) I also made somewhat similar changes for 1981-1982 where there were two issues in March; I labeled them "Mar. 2, 1981", "Mar. 30, 1981", etc. (Wow, that magazine went through a bunch of different schemes after I stopped subscribing! I was previously ignorant of all these.) -- Dave (davecat) 16:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Review: "Vengence of Orion"

Still approving your submissions:
Did the review (in Analog, October 1988) actually spell it "Vengence"? I'm assuming that it did, but please check it. (Or do we need to ask Hall3730?). Thanks -- Dave (davecat) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I didn't pay any attention to typing error, I just linked the review when was adding navbars. I do have that issue, but it is in storage. I could try find it when I go to the attic next time.Tpi 14:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Navbars for Analog, May 2000

Please check out the navbars you submitted for this issue. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. Tpi 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Man of Maybe Half-A-Dozen Faces

I noticed you created this review using the title The Man of Maybe Half-s-Dozen Faces when the reviewed story title is The Man of Maybe Half-A-Dozen Faces. Did the reviewer get the title wrong? --Marc Kupper|talk 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just linked the review and title, I didn't create the review or title.

But I happened to have that issue fairly easily at hand. It is spelled The Man of Maybe Half-A-Dozen Faces on the review, so there is a mispelling on ISFDB. I'll correct that. Tpi 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Best of Judith Merril

Since you have just added a note about the artist to The Best of Judith Merril, I assume you have the book handy. Could you please check the page number for "The Lady Was a Tramp"? TIA! Ahasuerus 17:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have that book. The page is is 197, I added that information. Tpi 06:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Approved, thanks! Ahasuerus 06:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

James White, Ambulance Ship

I'm looking at your deletion of MBLNCSHP231980 which has the same publication data as MBLNCSHPDZ1980 - it has different contents, though ( it contains the title Recovery instead of Ambulance Ship ). Do you know if that's a vt, an error, or...? --WimLewis 09:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the American edition of this book is a bit different from the UK edition. I have the UK edition, and the book I have seems to be exactly the same as MBLNCSHPDZ1980. The publication MBLNCSHP231980 has the contents of American version. I think that that publication is erroneus as it seems fairly unlikely that there would be another UK edition with same ISBN with different content. Tpi 16:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, but now I'm confused about the title Ambulance Ship, which doesn't have any other publications in ISFDB and doesn't show up on, eg, this James White page. Could you check to see whether it's a variant title of Recovery, as found eg on page 154 of the Alien Emergencies omnibus (google books)? --WimLewis 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the contents of that book through the google.books, just general info. Maybe it is different in US?

In my copy the story "Ambulance Ship" starts like this: The two Dwerlan DBPK medics arrived to collect their casualty but,... and ends like this: ' It must be ten years since I last set a fractured DBDG tibia.' Tpi 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems I can search for that sentence in google books, and it seems that the story is the same, at least google says that page 154 of Alien Emergencies contains that first sentence. (Well, almost the same, the error in placement of comma is corrected...) So it seems that those stories are the same with variant titles. Tpi 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Books lets me see an apparently-random selection of pages from each book. In this case I can see the beginning of that story but not the end, but it sounds like it's the same story. I'll mark Ambulance Ship as a variant title of Recovery, then. Thanks for checking! --WimLewis 10:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, May 2009

This caused a bit of trouble - the XML submission was badly formed. I tracked it down to a hex character "1d" after the second double-quote in 'Geology, Geohistory, and "Psychohistory"�:The (Continuing) Debate Between Uniformitarians and Catastrophists'. I managed to save the XML, remove that character, and resubmit it via the Web API. Please check. BLongley 14:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The magazines seems ok. I wonder from where that characted ended up to that title - I copy-pasted it from Analog's netsite. I will later add interior art and regular columns to that title. (I feel a bit wary doing a lot of work in one title at a time. When one uses 10 to 20 minutes to check every int.art., every column, every book review, in a magazine, only to find out that there is a glich in isfdb, or in my own net connection, and all that works goes to the place where discarded bits go after their death, it isn't most uplifting feeling...Tpi 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably took me longer to fix than it did for you to submit, but hopefully I've learned enough to do it faster next time, if needed - hopefully it won't be needed again in your case though. I tend to pass any sort of copy-paste via Notepad first to remove all the tricky things. But knowing what sort of problems can occur always helps - I now have "Liquid XML" at home (I've needed such at work too, there's duff data there as well) to try and save bad submissions as best I can - I know how frustrating the loss of a big edit is. BLongley 23:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed also when copy/pasting from F&SF website that some unusual characters can creep in although in my case nothing tragic. I would think they are embedded formatting characters. In my case the appearance was as though there were spaces between the end of the title and the cursor. I backspaced over them.--swfritter 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a Big Ask to impose on most moderators though, so warning editors about copy-paste problems, or giving Al another programming headache might be in order. BLongley 23:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Analog - will you be keeping it up to date?

I am going to make a special effort to keep F&SF up to date? Is that your plan with Analog? Oops, I just noticed that there are three issues out there that haven't been linked. Looks like March & April have been out there for a while so I will link them and the May issue you are working on.--swfritter 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Change to aproved pub Analog Science Fiction and Fact, January 1994

Charles Oberndorf was entered as "Charles Oberndorf,". I fixed the name and linked the review.--swfritter 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Added some Escape Pods

Looks like you are writing some excellent short story reviews - good enough that they might be worth shopping around. I added a Podcast section to the magazine page - so maybe your work in that area will get a little more notice. Also added a few podcasts from this year to help get us up to date.--swfritter 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been writing those reviews mainly for myself. I am not confident enough of my grammar to "shop" them around - and I don't have slightest idea who even might interested in them. I am not even confident enough to use them as basis for synopsises for isfdb. I have thought about it, but writing clear, understable, non-spoiling synopisis with good enough language isn't too easy.

Nice that someone else is adding podcasts also, I have usually waited untill I have ten or so to be added at the same time. Tpi 16:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of websites that have short fiction reviews - as for minor grammatical/spelling errors - that is what zine editors are for. I will leave the Escape Pods for you, I've got plenty to do. It does seem like a lot of effort to ramp up to do just one of them. Feel free to make updates to any of the ones I did.--swfritter 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Analog June 1980 - Review of Binary Star #4

The author of The Janus Equation reviewed in Analog was listed as James Spruill as verified, but according to [this snippet from google books] the author was correctly credited as Steven G. Spruill, which matches the record here at the ISFDB. I have submitted an edit to correct this error. - Thanks Kevin 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved, but please speak up if your copy says otherwise. Ahasuerus 04:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Analog Sept 2005 - Review for Jan Johnson-Smith

You verified pub Analog Sept. 2005 had a review for a work by 'Jan Johnson Smith'. I found this work already in the system written by 'Jan Johnson-Smith' (Note the dash). Could you please check your edition when you get a chance to see if the dash is printed or not. IF not we can put a note in the pub about an editorial correction to avoid a phantom author. - Thanks Kevin 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The dash is NOT printed on the review. I can make the corrections later today. Tpi 05:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Analog November 1980 - Review of 'Galaxy: Thirty Years...'

In your verified pub Analog November 1980 the review of 'Galaxy:' lists the coauthor as J. D. Olander. Olander has never published anything under this name, and it is creating a phantom author. Could you please check (Though I assume it actually is listed as J. D. instead of Joseph D.). I would like to change the author listing for this review to the name as shown in the published and verified book Galaxy: Thirty Years of Innovative Fiction with a note that we changed it to avoid creating a phantom author. Thanks Kevin 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can check it - but it will take at least a week, as I am travelling. At the moment I am in Seattle, so it's kind of hard to get access to my zines. :-) By the way, does anyone know of any good used book shop selling old sf-magazines near the centre of Seattle, so that I could fill some gaps in my collection? Tpi 02:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I know the joys of travelling... I'm scheduled to be in south Texas next week myself. I don't know about bookstores, but isn't there a Science Fiction Museum in Seattle? Even if you don't like the museum stuff, I bet they know all the good used stores in town! Kevin 03:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is credited in the review as J. D.

But I can change it to the review and make appropiate notes. Tpi 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I also added the same pub note to the review itself. Cheers Kevin 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Analog Jan-Feb 2008 - Wil or Will McCarthy

In this pub Analog Jan-Feb 2008 There is a short story listed as by 'Will McCarthy', titled How the Bald Apes Saved Mass Crossing. This is the only work by Will McCarthy in the database, but we have LOTS of stuff by Wil McCarthy. Could you please check your copy and see if this is a mistaken entry or a new author. Thanks! Kevin 03:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is Wil. I'll make the change. Tpi 12:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Analog, August 1995

Can you check the spelling of the review for Hendrix work in this issue? Is if "Vertical" or "Vertigal"? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Vertical. I made the correction. Tpi 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, approved! Ahasuerus 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Analog, July-August 2009

I accepted the submission for this issue, but the publication date zeroed out, so all of the contents are undated as well. Either the field was left blank, or a format error caused it be zeroed. Please update the pub when you get a chance. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what happened, but I noticed it also. I'll make the corrections. Tpi 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional EscapePod records

I see you have just submitted a number of additional EscapePod records. As you may know, recent changes to the software have removed the problems that previously existed with the "Chapterbook" publication type, and have allowed new title records of the "chapterbook" type to be created. Moreover, there are plans to further expand support for this type, and to change its name to something better (Possibly "Short Work" or "Short book").

I strongly urge you to consider submitting new escapepod items as chapterbook records, rather than as "Magazines". -DES ^Talk 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that "Stephen Eley" could have a very long page if the change is made though. But feel free to give it a try and see if they look better - we're still experimenting, and such changes can now be undone. BLongley 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If we made these into chapterbooks then Eley wouldn't be credited, as they're single-piece works with a single author, each of whom would be credited as the author of their chapterbook as well. Right? Or am I confused about how the new chapterbook container type works? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Eley could be author of the Chapterbook, the Shortfiction Author can be someone else. BLongley 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, DES, I accepted these submissions without realizing they are single piece "magazines". I assumed that the podcasts included other non-fiction material, like an audio magazine. Is there an easy way to fix these records now, or should we wait until the "chapterbook" situation has been resolved? I just looked at the Escape Pod website, and saw some files called Flashes, perhaps shorter-length works. Tpi, do you have plans on entering these files as well? MHHutchins 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) They can be converted -- I won't say "fixed" -- by changing the type and doing cleanups -- or by simply recreating them (which is what would have had to happen had you or anyone rejected them) and then deleting the magazine versions. But since this specific series was discussed some time ago, and consensus then blessed the "magazine" solution (although i objected), I wouldn't feel right in holding or rejecting them, or asking another mod to do so, merely in asking the submitter to reconsider, or perhaps the general consensus of editors here. Rules and standards discussions/Archive/Archive05#Short Fiction Published Outside of Magazines was the first discussion of these, i think. Then there was User talk:DESiegel60#Your Chapterbook edits, User talk:Tpi#Escape Pod 12, and User talk:Tpi#Escape Pod, so there is some history here. -DES ^Talk 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging by discussions earlier on this page, there are other contents but they are not always spec-fic and nobody seems keen to take on the additional content entry. (I'm certainly not - I tried a few and can't stand many of the voices.) BLongley 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What would be the advantage of changing 200+ records to chapterbooks when it seems, from the discussion, that this is a "audio magazine"? Just because we only record the fiction doesn't actually make it a chapterbook. Or am I confused about what would constitute a non-printed chapterbook? (If such a thing were possible... I'm just not that much into non-printed works and should probably stay out of the discussion about podcasts and ebooks.) MHHutchins 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO the CHAPTERBOOK type, soon i hope to be the SHORT WORK or SHORT BOOK type, will be appropiately used for any and every publication that includes a single work of fiction (and possibly some non-fiction, such as essays and art) that is of shorter-than-novel length. Escapepod seems to me to exactly fit this pattern. Even if we don't choose to use this type for the Escapepod series, it seems to me that it will be ideal for separately published ebooks and audio books of short fiction, which seem to be becomming more common as time goes on. -DES ^Talk 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since they are published on a periodic basis with a publication date and an editor magazine seems quite appropriate.--swfritter 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit over the top to me, DES - yes, we can use chapterbooks as a substitute for Magazines, Anthologies, Collections, Nonfiction, if they're small publications - but if they work as those types, no need to make them chapterbooks. What I can see them useful for is Novels that actually aren't long enough by word-count (demoting some older novels that had the audacity to be shorter than the award committees now demand: and many more "juvenile" publications), or Novellas/Novelettes/Short Stories (maybe Essays even) that actually had a stand-alone book publication (promoting them out of the Shortfiction/Essay regions into at least a section I can see as Books). The one new use I can see so far is for some things I'd really count as Chapterbooks - books that are just some chapters from a bigger book, and don't really deserve a Shortfiction title. (See the Narnia stuff.) But I'd suggest everyone tries them out, for whatever reason they can see a use for, and post examples of what they've found them useful for for discussion on the Community Portal (maybe Rules and Standards if it's really controversial) and we'll figure out the next steps. (Maybe we should put a time limit on this? A couple of weeks should be enough if people are made aware the opportunity exists now.) BLongley 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that a chapterbook/short work without a shortfiction title is broken. if there is fiction in these (narnia) books -- and there is -- a shortfiction title is needed, jsut as we create shortfiction titles for the various promotional novel excerpts. And probably the biggest use I see is for standalone ebook publications of Novellas/Novelettes/Short Stories, posisbly with accompanying essays (intros) or art (which some ebooks include).

Back to Escapepod: swfritter has a point. The periodic nature and presence of a consistent editor when different "issues" have different authors does make them more magazine like than purely standalone ebooks or audio books. I merely wanted to urge consideration of the chapterbook alternative, as publications with a single work of fiction don't fit the traditional model of a "magazine". But if the consensus is to retain Escapepod as a magazine, so be it. -DES ^Talk 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I might also note that the Editor records for Escapepod have been merged which is good way to keep them organized. Glad to see the chapterbook enhancements. The designation does come in very handy for shortfiction pieces from Project Gutenberg and elsewhere.--swfritter 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Analog August 1980 - Review: Galaxy: Thirty Years of Innovative Science Fiction by Frederick Pohl

Could you check your pub Analog Aug. 80 to see if the review of "Galaxy" credits Frederick or Frederik Pohl. The Frederick variant only exists due to two reviews and I would like to clean it up if possible. Thanks Kevin 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The name was misspelled in the review. I made the appropriate changes. Tpi 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Analog, December 1980: Astounding Adventures of Isaac Intrepid

Can you check your copy of this issue and see if it contains the story "The Astounding Adventures of Isaac Intrepid". At the moment it's merged with a story of the same name in the August 1979 issue. It's not paginated in the December 1980 issue, and it may be a continuation of the series, maybe having a number to distinguish it. If it isn't the pub, use the "Remove Titles" function. If it is, and it's a different story, you'll have to edit the pub to create a new record, and then remove the original title record from the pub. Don't edit the content title record. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is in the magazine, and it doesn't have number or other distinguishing marks. I'll make a new record, and then remove the original as you suggested. Tpi 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, March 2, 1981

Brass Tacks and and In Times to Come were added as shortfiction - changed to essay. Also, there was some discussion about the validity of entering ISSN numbers as pub data]. My primary concern was that they be entered consistently but since the practice is in question I have stopped entering them.--swfritter 14:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, March 30, 1981

Linked reviews for books by Victoria Schochet, Brunner, and Longyear - you may want to double check my linking. Tolkien book is in the database as by J. R. R. Tolkien; did not change.--swfritter 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi, I assume that the "Vicent Di Fate" credit here http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?ANLGDEC94 is a typo and not a variant. Could you please check? Thanks Jonschaper 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Typo. Corrected. Tpi 16:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi, I suspect that Donald Moffit here should be Donald Moffitt. Cheers Jonschaper 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a typo. Tpi 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Taivassilmä

I have approved the addition of Kaisa Kattelus's Finnish translation of Heaven Eyes, but the ISBN, 9513121364, looks peculiar. Could you please double check? Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the book, but all sources I found seem to have that ISBN. Tpi 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, 951 and 952 are assigned to Finland, but our ISBN conversion software doesn't know how to handle them! I'll add it to my list of things to look into, thanks! Ahasuerus 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, June 2002

I made submitted a change to a publication that you had verified. The Analog Science Fiction and Fact, June 2002 had this Upcoming Events entry. However, it was titled "Upcoming Events (Analog, June 2006)" which didn't match the magazine date. I submitted a change to make it "Upcoming Events (Analog, June 2002)". Thanks. --JLaTondre 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Analog, December 1997

can you check to see if the title of Schmidt's editorial in this issue is intentionally spelled "Plurbus" or is it a typo? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo. I'll correct it. Tpi 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Finishing the Verification of Analog SF

Hi Tpi, I think you're presently the most active editor of Analog SF. We're at the point where we can finish the verification of the remaining magazines, so I've started a discussion at the {http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Community_Portal#Finishing_the_Verification_of_the_Analog_SF_Magazines Community Portal].--Rkihara 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Moderatorship?

As per the suggestion on the Community Portal. It doesn't look like your recent submissions have generated very many queries so it would seem you might be ready. It would make your life much easier to have Moderator status. Given that your time is limited there would be no expectation that you would do anything but self-moderate. Feel comfortable with the concept?--swfritter 14:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine by me. Thank you for the trust. Tpi 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a moderator. Onneksi olkoon! :) Ahasuerus 04:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Rkhara and I now done with Analog. I verified the issues you don't have for the year 2000 and we are leaving the rest of the Analogs to you. Should be easier now that you are a moderator. Feel free to do secondary verifications on other Analogs. There are probably still some errors out there: primarily cases where John W. Campbell, Jr. was credited as the editor when it should have been John W. Campbell. Also, there are probably cases where Frank Kelly Freas was incorrectly credited as the cover artist when he was actually credited as Kelly Freas in the magazines.--swfritter 14:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations - I hope the current long mod queue doesn't put you off. Just another standards discussion underway.... BLongley 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

June 2010 Analog added by new user

AJWM just added the June, 2010 issue. You may have suggestions for him.--swfritter 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Val Lakey Articact

Hi, I'm pretty sure that the artist credit here should be Val Lakey / Artifact or something along those lines (at any rate, I suspect "Articact" is a typo). To my knowledge, Artifact was (is?) a studio made up of Val Lakey and her husband, so it's never clear to me when the credit includes "Artifact" if that refers just to Val, her husband, both or anyone else. Cheers Jonschaper 01:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to Artifact as it is supposed to be. Tpi 16:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Bailing vs Balling

The co-author of the Satanic Gases here should be Robert Balling. Could you double check if he is credited as Bailing in the book review? Thanks Jonschaper 01:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken some time, but I haven't been too many days at home in July. There was an error, I have made the correction. Tpi 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Chocky

I added some notes to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Analog verifcations

Whoopie! A virtual toast to you.--swfritter 21:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on Analog, August 1992

In this pub, is the interior art for "Captive Dreams" really credited to "Janet Aullisio," with two l's? BrendanMoody 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a typo. It is now corrected. Tpi 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, July-August 2001

Can you have a look at ANLGJULAUG2001 again and fill in the reviewers? They're all showing as "Blank2". BLongley 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Tpi 17:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! We may yet stamp out the three "Blank" authors and "Blank2". BLongley 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Analog(s)

Replaced the Visco scan and added main interior illustrations for your verified here, also for cover scan replaced and idem. Hauck 06:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Analog 1977-08

Replaced the Visco scan for your verified here, I've also changed the title of Nicholson's story to _The 4th polygraph_ to match title page and not TOC. Hauck 10:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Analog 1977-11

Replaced the Visco scan for your verified here. Hauck 15:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, Nov 2007

You are the verifier for this issue of Analog. Oddly enough, although the issue is for November, the cover connected to it had a title record of "Cover: Analog Science Fiction and Fact, October 2007". I corrected the month. Chavey 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, May 2008

You verified this issue of Analog. One of the content items is listed as "The Night of RFIDs". This story is listed in many other places, including Locus, Analog itself, and the author's home page as "The Night of THE RFIDs" (emphasis mine). On this evidence, I have changed the title of the story we have listed, but I would appreciate it if you could check how this story is actually listed on the story "title page", in case there was actually an error in the magazine itself when they published it. Thanks, Chavey 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I am reorganazing my collection, and I don't have that issue readily at hand at the moment. Tpi 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Analog, May 1998

Can you confirm the spelling of the obituary for G. Harry Stine in this issue? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Tpi 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, October 2003

Hello, I changed the cover artist for your verified here to Harman as per TOC, do you agree ? Hauck 18:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Analog 2003

Replaced the Visco scan for your verified here, here and here. Hauck 18:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, February 1977

Replaced the Visco scan for your verified here. Hauck 15:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging Interior Artwork.. in later publications

We would appreciate your input in a discussion on the Rules and Standards board about updating the help with respect to merging artwork (Cover and interior artwork are both under discussion). Thanks - Kevin 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, January 1975

Changed the title of Dickson's piece from "Igneous" to "Igneos" as per TOC and title page in this pub. Hauck 05:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact March 1977

Changed the title of Melton's story from _Three Coffins_ to _3 Coffins_ as per title page here. Hauck 17:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, July 1980

Added the Resnick/Tabakow vignette and changed attache to attaché in this issue. Hauck 18:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, February 1984

Added note about the fact that Clarke's story is titled _The Expeditor_ on title page (here). Hauck 18:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, September 1990

Hello, can you have a look at my added note for this pub, perhaps this "ad" should have its own entry. Hauck 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it might be worth of it. You can do, or I'll do when get that issue from storage where it is at the moment. Tpi 15:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hauck 10:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, March 1993

Added Frazier's essay for your verified here. Hauck 11:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, November 1993

Added Del Rey's obit in this issue. Hauck 10:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, Mid-December 1993

Unmerged and changed titles for Cameron's interior art for _Puff_ (there was another interiror art by the same artist for a short story with the same name), see here and there. Hauck 18:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, January 1994

Added Oliver's Obit here and Robinson's feature (I've made it a short story) and the uncredited piece on page 301. Hauck 18:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, July 1994

Added uncredited piece on page 69 here. Hauck 20:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Analog 1997-01

Changed the title of Ready's essay from _Hubble’s View of the Universe_ to _Hubble’s New Views of the Universe_. Hauck 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Analog 1997-02

Changed title of Phalen's story from _Chasing the Idea Rat with My Best Friend_ to _Chasing the Idea Rat with My Best Friend, Jaime_. Hauck 17:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Analog 1997-07&08

Changed authorship of _Safari_ from Rick Shelly to Rick Shelley. Hauck 18:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Analog 1997-12

Changed the title of Hockensmith's story from _Arnold the Conquerer_ to _Arnold the Conqueror_. Hauck 18:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Analog 2001-01

Added Kirkland's essay to the issue. Hauck 14:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

2000's Analogs

Hello, i'm in the process of making a lot of small adjustements to the magazines of this period (typos, missing artwork, linking to series, etc.). I'm going to indicate on your page only the most important ones, hope you don't mind that. Hauck 10:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Tpi 15:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Analog July 1996

Corrected the cover art credit on Analog 7-1996 to Jim Burns (per his book Transluminal and his facebook page. Ofearna 06:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, because there are secondary and tertiary verifiers, I've had to notify everyone of the change. The artwork for this book is by Jim Burns, it appeared in his artbook Transluminal. Terri Czeczko is, apparently, the book/magazine designer NOT COVER ARTIST. If anyone has objections, please raise your hand. ^_^ Thanks, all.... Susan Ofearna 19:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Analog December 2007

Accepted a submission changing "Leslie" to "Lesley" on Anything Would be Worth It in your verified Analog, December 2007 based on confirmation from the author's website and the 2-verifier. --MartyD 00:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Titles in some 2008 Analog issues

After getting Herve to double-check (he is 2-verifier on them), I accepted submissions changing content titles in two of your verified issues of Analog:

• April 2008 (p. 86) "... Preciple" to "... Precipice"
• June 2008 (p. 38) "...Moon and Deserts..." to "... Moon, and Deserts...", adding a comma.

I also changed the title of the companion interiorart for the first one. --MartyD 01:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also changed authorship of this essay from Kooistra to Cramer. Hauck 06:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Analog, April 2009 editorial

In the April 2009 issue of Analog, does the title of the editorial contain an Arabic numeral 1 or a Roman numeral I? In my digital copy of this issue, the title is "Research I", not "Research 1". Funslinger 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, please check the title of Mary Turzillo's novelette. In my digital copy (which is prone to error), the title is "Steak Tartare and the Cats of Gari Babakin Station" with an additional word "Station" on the end. Funslinger 00:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This editor hasn't responded to any messages on his talk page for more than a year. If there is a second Primary Verifier, it would be better to post a message on their talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Analog, May 2009

The Guest Reference Library in this issue contains reviews from Don D'Ammassa and Tom Easton. Shouldn't the main entry "Guest Reference Library" by listed as by Don D'Ammassa & Tom Easton? Funslinger 05:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've placed the submission on hold. It wouldn't be logical to credit Easton for a "guest" appearance in his regular column, unless he's a guest of the guest. :) How is the column credited on page 100? Mhhutchins 05:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Analog, June 2009

My ebook version of this issue has a Biolog column on Craig DeLancey. It is the second article in the issue immediately following the editorial. Please check your copy to confirm if it is in the print version. Thanks. Funslinger 09:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)