User talk:Bluesman/Archive3

Infinities
Your verified pub is listed as having x+368 pages. My copy of this same edition has x+358 = 368 total pages. Did you typo the paginated page count? - Thanks Kevin 05:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did! Have corrected the record. Good catch! ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hard Way Up / The Veiled World-story title mispelled
Good Morning. This. . It is "The Subtracter" not 'The Subtractor'. Also you need to state which artist to which story. Needs a separate page count for the novels. Also there are ten not numbered pages between the novels with those 'yummy' ads for books I could never find. Also the cover image is 'spronked'. Pardon the abruptness. I submitted a 'delete' for the separate record of 'The Hard Way Up' which used the same number. Wonder if that will fly! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And a good morning to you, Grumpy!! LOL Would have 'fixed' this when I went through again as this was verified back when touching pubs seemed a no-no. Glad I got over that! As for the ads, I never put in those pages as they are irrelevant to the text. Unless there is artwork, foreword, afterword, preface or an extract from an upcoming book I just don't 'do' them. In magazines, perhaps that is the norm. I still have many early pbs that had those SFBC pull-out cards that make one wish Dad had been into sci-fi... heavy sigh....and don't add those. Oh, well. The point of these records, to me, is to record what makes each one distinct and I balk at thinking what was being hawked in those days does that. I do find some of the lists helpful in finding a missing price or catalogue # (wish they had included the publication dates, as well) but including the page they are on seems superfluous. Would you go looking for a book because it had different advertisements in it? Feel free to add them. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, It looks great. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

McAuley's Whole Wide World
Can you check to see if your copy of this pub gives the author's middle initial? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also where did you get the photograph for McAuley's summary page? I'm holding your submission to determine if we have the right to upload it.  Photographs are copyrighted images, and their use is different from cover images.  Thanks. MHHutchins 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely no middle initial. The photo came from the inside back jacket flap of the PS edition "Little Machines" and is uncredited. How different is the 'usage' for photographs? What is okay and what definitely needs specific permission? Lots of the authors in the Db are without photos and it's easy to do them at the same time as the covers. There had been an image there before which is the only reason I did this one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a lawyer, and know just enough to be dangerous. But here goes... Covers for books come under fair use, because it is a representation of the object being indexed in an educational non-profit database.  Let's say you had access to Don Maitz's original artwork for the Timescape edition of The Shadow of the Torturer.  You could not photograph it without his permission. If you did photograph it and tried to use it anywhere he has the right to stop that usage.  But...you could photograph (or scan) the book reproducing that image and upload that photo or scan to the internet.  Even so, you still couldn't use a high quality printer to create another cover.  Let's say you have Don Maitz's permission to photograph him.  You are the owner of the image created by your camera.  You choose when and where that photograph can be used, and if you wish, you could copyright that image.  You could stop anyone using that image.  Now to practical matters.  Will the person who took the photo of McAuley come across the ISFDB and see his photo being used without permission?  It's not impossible, it's even probable.  He can ask, no, demand that we remove the image, and we would have to comply.  Is it worth taking a chance? Do we disrespect property rights?
 * I don't know where the other author images here on the ISFDB come from. (Anybody?)  The one I placed on Michael Bishop's summary page is from my website.  I contacted the photographer (it was originally used in a Locus interview) and asked her for permission to reproduce, which she granted for a small fee.  The file remains on my website's server and the ISFDB links to that file.  I don't know if that would constitute an illegal usage, as it wasn't specified in the permission whether anyone could link to that image, but this being the internet, who can tell how times the image may have been snagged for other uses. We can open this up for discussion on the rules page to see how others may feel about it.  In the meantime, I'll keep the submission on hold.  MHHutchins 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most interesting. Many authors have websites, with photos. What about linking to those? The picture that had been there for McAuley had a URL for his website, but was broken. I'm not particular one way or another about author photos. Just asking. --Bluesman 22:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't link to author pictures on author websites without permission, same as I don't link to covers elsewhere without permission. I suppose I should go through my convention photos collection at some point and upload a few we don't have pictures for. I remember Freda Warrington looking exceedingly yummy, but to be honest most authors are no oil painting when caught off-guard at a convention. And some could fight back - before Iain Banks was really rich and famous, he used to ask us for copies of photos we took with him in. And eventually sent back copies of all the others. So although I have a nice interesting picture of Iain emerging from a shower curtain "cocoon" we'd created for him at a room party, he also has pictures of the people that wrapped him in it, and could no doubt cause trouble for those of us misusing hotel room fittings. What's the statute of limitations for hotel room damage? ;-) BLongley 23:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On a side note, can you figure out why a submission for "Destiny Doll" is still in my pending list? It's been there so long I forget why it's there... Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Kraang held it, presumably as it's one of his pubs. Sometimes it can be hard to find the book again. BLongley 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Leave a note on Kraang's talk page reminding him of the held submission. He may have just overlooked it. As a courtesy, other moderators leave held submissions to the holder. MHHutchins 04:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

McDevitt's Slow Lightning
The changes you made to this pub make it identical to a pub already in the database. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Think I got hung up on a British edition having a US price and didn't look further. Should have gone with my first instinct to just have this one deleted. Will do that. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cover image for Reynolds' Pushing Ice
Check out this pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops! Fixed. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Depth of a book
I've noticed a few submissions mentioning the "depth of a book". Were these notes already in the pub before you updated them? If you placed them in there, do you mean the thickness caused by the number of pages? I'm not sure how the thickness of a book would make it a trade paperback, as I've always designated a pub as a trade paperback based solely on height. Or am I missing something? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mike, I just noticed the "based solely on height" bit. I guess I know which way you'll lean on this question then. Not a problem, but if height alone is going to be the determining factor then when help gets updated I'd like it to include a request for notes on why non-standard books have gone one way or the other. (For the sake of my shelving, of which I have too much or too little, depending on whom you ask.) BLongley 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You would have to ask Mr. Longley as that is his designation. I'm not sure if the British do dimensions the same. Depth = thickness but I think he means width. These Reynolds pb/tp are odd. I have several and they are 7.1"x5.0" with varying depths. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've used "depth" as in "depth of shelf required" at times - reserving "width" or "thickness" of book to match "width of shelf required", which is basically unimportant as you can always move some more books to another shelf. Except when you get to my position and have to start double-stacking. There's some Alistair Reynolds books that really mess up my shelving plans without actually requiring extra space between shelves. I can put one row of paperbacks in front of another usually, but not with Reynolds. :-( BLongley 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's a British thing: to me, "Height" is "Up/Down", "Width" is "Left/Right" and "Depth" is "Near Me/Away from Me". So a book in my hand would have "Thickness" as "Depth", but the other few thousand are on shelves and so have "Thickness" as "Width". BLongley 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Revelation Space
I should probably explain my rejection of your edit a bit more than "Wrong cover, the Amazon image has the correct blurb" as we're a bit confused over Cover Art and Cover Images here. For my own publications, I like the Image shown to be  exactly the right cover, and when in the past I couldn't find the exact cover and had to use a similar one I'd note the differences between them, right down to the review blurb. (A bit moot now that we can upload our own scans here, but a lot of my past covers languish on Amazon still and I'm not ready for a few thousand more scans or uploads just to get my exact copy rendered exactly right here.) COVERART records are a confusion the opposite way - there's a resistance to merging them even when it's clear the actual art is the same. Probably worth another standards discussion at some point, but as there's no sign of any code changes being made any time soon to allow the art to go on a general Coverart record, and exact publication art to stay with pubs, I wouldn't hold your breath. BLongley 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which "revelation Space" pub? I do try and get the 'blurbs' right as well, but at times it's very hard to read them from AMAZON images, even worse from 'fantasticfiction' whose images tend to be blurry. Sometimes the image is different from pre-release to actual cover. Had one today fro the Anderson/Clarke collaboration "The Last Theorem" where the mathematical 'doodles' in the background were different on the actual cover. Makes me wonder what the old ones 'revealed'? Secrets of the universe? Or grandma's secret recipe? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * . You wanted to replace this with this. Right art, wrong blurb. BLongley 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed the 'ZZZZZZZZZ" in the URL and didn't even read that extremely tiny print. So far I have been replacing those Amazon images because they tend to disappear. I will pay closer attention! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably a good move to replace all the ZZZZZZZZZ's - those can/will change as soon as a new cover appears under the same ISBN. Probably no hurry in this case, it's been reissued. For people that don't own a scanner, changing to the more stable Amazon URL for the same art is probably better, if they know it's the right one. At least the link will break rather than point to something different later. But your own scan is best of all - even if it's not part of the database itself (or at least what we can download) there's no risk of it pointing to a wrong entry. But have you seen how many ZZZZZZZZZ's there are? I'd count them, but I need to catch some instead. ;-) Goodly byelode! BLongley 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry - it might be only me that is this pernickety over exact covers for my pubs, but I really don't want better quality scans of the art on my verified pubs if it means less accurate ones, until we get this sorted out. But this is just me expressing views on my verifications, feel free to check with other editors that might appreciate a better picture. BLongley 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill, Have no fear. I am (at least I think I am) equally persnickety about the wrong or right cover. If the artwork is correct, but the cover is different, a note should be made of the difference. Kevin 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dark Ararat
(Note that I haven't been following discussions much lately or moderating others, as I've had my head in my own collection & had other commitments, so if this has been covered before, just let me know.) It's no big deal, but I just wondered about changing the image on your Dark Ararat publications from Amazon ZZZ... to your own scan, rather than using the "stable" Amazon if the image is accurate. (Isn't it annoying that the images on Amazon aren't always correct with regard to blurbs & text arrangement, etc.!)

Just checking (maybe to save you time scanning on this round of your collection) ... Do you know how to create the "stable" Amazon URL (even if it has a "Look Inside" added)?

e.g. the Dark Ararat "stable" image on Amazon for one of them is http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ND2GNC43L.jpg

(pruned from http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ND2GNC43L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg )

To me, it looks the same as your scan. Again, no big deal, and I must admit I don't know the difference in time to do a scan cf generating the "stable" Amazon image as I haven't tried this yet. (Note to self - must do so for many of my Australian pubs.)


 * ...clarkmci/--j_clark 01:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Later: I do like the Stross scans that have the back cover too. Double the art! --j_clark 01:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They are works of art! And the wraparounds have become the norm with the small publishers. Like to show them off. I do know how to create the 'stable' Amazon URLs. At the moment I am scanning my entire library into my own database so replacing broken/poor/wrong images is no biggie. I do try to be accurate but some of the old images are tiny/blurry/awful but there are all these eyes here to catch the odd mistake. Welcome back, mate! Survived the heat and destructive fires!?!? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in Brisbane, so only heat, though not as hot as Victoria! --j_clark 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Halting State (Stross)
One of your Halting State pubs: Did you intend to delete the Note? If not, here it is for you to replace.

• "First edition: October 2007". First printing, full number line 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1. • Cover illustration by Sophie Toulouse. Jacket design by Rita Frangie. • $30.00 in Canada. • ISBN-13 only number on copyright page and cover. • LCCN: 2007015872

...clarkmci/--j_clark 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How did it get deleted? All I did was upgrade the image.....? Easier to reject the submission and I'll re-enter the image URL. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An oops I guess. I think I approved it. Go into edit, here, and you should be able to copy & paste it back. --j_clark 02:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet the note is still there. Hmmmm... Think maybe you did the two edits, both image upgrades, but one was for the SFBC edition, which would not have such a note. ?? All is fine. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting up Roots
How attached are you to 'A Jupiter Novel' being listed as the subtitle for this pub. Its really just a series designator, and not a true subtitle (in my opinion). If you are okay with me removing that, let me know and I'll change it, and put a second verification on the pub. Thanks - Kevin 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Same question again for The Cyborg From Earth . Thanks Kevin 21:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Same for both: get rid of the designation. Series, yes; title, no. Both these and maybe a couple more were already there when I verified, and at that time I was still quite reticent about changing things (particularly deleting). I are all better now! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Submitted - Thanks! Kevin 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Time of the Great Freeze
I added coverart, and the introduction essay to your verified pub - Thanks Kevin 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dracula Unbound
Re: the House of Stratus edition of this Aldiss book, does the title page say "Brian W. Aldiss" or "Brian Aldiss"? The cover seems to say "Brian Aldiss"... Ahasuerus 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a book I have, found it on AMAZON when looking for an image for the Grafton pb. There was no "Look Inside" option. All eight sellers on ABEBOOKS.UK list it with the "W" or "Wilson". Locus1 lists about 10 Aldiss titles from this publisher but not this one. Since these are all print-on-demand how does a date even apply to them, other than when they first had permission? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As Michael notes below, when reconstructing a publication record from secondary sources, it's important to note what the sources are and whether/how they differ. In this case, Amazon says the page count is 180 while OCLC says it's 215 pages. Also, Amazon says the publication date is 2000-10-00 while OCLC says it's 2001. Both Amazon UK and OCLC agree that the size of the book is "21cm", which would make it a trade paperback. Finally, OCLC agrees with the use of the middle initial in "Brian W. Aldiss".


 * To take it a step further, I used a publicly accessible gateway to FirstSearch, the core of OCLC's system. I then went to the underlying library data, which was used to construct the OCLC record, and re-confirmed/clarified OCLC's information. Here are the results, which should, hopefully, be clear when our users review this record. It's a never-ending adventure, isn't it? :) Ahasuerus 06:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein Unbound
I made a couple of changes after accepting your submission of this pub. I changed the publisher to Triad, and the number of pages to 156 and the author to Brian Aldiss. There are two areas of Amazon info that you must always check. First, the publisher. HarperCollins did not exist in 1982, but Amazon has this strange way of retro-fitting all publications to the name of the current publishing company. Another thing. NEVER trust the page count from Amazon. It's always over, sometimes up to 100 pages off. If you must use Amazon, try getting another source for backup. In this case, I went to OCLC, a page which I ALWAYS have in an open tab. I inserted the ISBN that you provided, and there's almost everything I need to know about the pub. Info not included is price and month of publication. Interior illustrator is usually included if it's credited, but cover artist rarely is. Another important thing to remember about OCLC records: don't use the author indicated at the head of the record. Click on the tab for details and you'll see that the author of credit for this pub was "Brian Aldiss", not "Brian Wilson Aldiss" as shown in the header. Hope this helps. MHHutchins 05:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to admit I rarely think of OCLC. Will keep it more in the forefront. I hate using Amazon for anything but images (though the UK version seems more reliable than the US one) which is how I ended up with this pub, by finding an image and working backwards. I wouldn't have known about the publisher bit, though. still a 'soft' spot in my knowledge of the background publishing field. Appreciate the input and the changes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that OCLC isn't always perfect either, especially for British publications. And even if something is perfectly entered by their standards, their standards may not match ours. For instance, I suspect that the spine won't say "Triad" alone, it'll say "Triad Panther" or "Triad Grafton" or "Triad Granada" - Triad was a joint venture of several publishers. And I wouldn't bet my life on whether it was "Brian Aldiss" or "Brian W. Aldiss" - I'd probably bet money it wasn't "Brian Wilson Aldiss" though. It's probably worth checking a few physical pubs against OCLC and getting a "feel" for how reliable it actually is in certain areas. Still, I'd rather have the book entered with Amazon/OCLC data that not have it at all. BLongley 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One other thing with Amazon UK is that even when they've corrupted the publisher field with the current owner of the ISBN, they sometimes leave the true imprint/publisher as a suffix on the title. So seeing a "(Corgi Science Fiction)" suffix for instance would actually be a better sign than "Corgi Children's" - Corgi were definitely not merely Children's publishers back in the 1970s. Or "(Tandem Science Fantasy)", or "(Piccolo)". But that's acquired knowledge - it'd be difficult to explain on more than an imprint-by-imprint basis, but I dumped a lot of thoughts on Publisher Wiki pages here. I'd hoped that Publisher Regularisation would make such knowledge easy to find, but that seems to have fallen apart. BLongley 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, perfection! We can do naught but strive!. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what knowledge I've shared can be found via the overall index here, and Triad itself starts here. How far I've linked I'm not sure, it was a while ago when I had more optimism. BLongley 20:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rude Astronauts (hc) (Allen Steele)
I've just noticed that the HC Legend edn [here] that you have verified last November has 2 items with page count "del". Should these be removed? If so ...


 * use the "Remove titles from this Pub" from the "Editing Tools" menu. (Seems like you did the correct thing and added 2 new items rather than change the incorrect ones, but perhaps missed the tidy up step.)

Once you do that & it is approved, you'll have some more steps ...


 * The wrong title will still be there on the author's summary page. (It is currently a variant title of "How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?".) If there's no other publications which use the "wrong" title, then it should be deleted (unless it is a version of the title used somewhere else - Contento? Locus1? Google? -, in a pub. not in ISFDB yet).

Also ...


 * The correct title of the Angel one is on the summary page twice (or might be 3 times after I approve someone else's new pub., depending how the other editor created his new pub.) You need to merge these duplicates (with care!).


 * Once merged, I would assume that the correct title needs to be put as a variant title of "How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?"

Similarly for the Weird/Winter ... Cold War story.

Note: Another editor is working on another edition of this book, so things might have changed by the time you read this, if he does some of the tidy up. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 03:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Later ...


 * The other editor spotted several Steele duplicate titles simultaneously, & there were duplicate edits in the queue, so you have a reject on one of your merges.


 * Re the removal of the wrong Angel title. I rejected the change title, although I suppose one way would have been to change then do a merge of duplicates again. However, clicking on the title, then "delete title" is all that is needed. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried that and it wouldn't allow it. Figured the same, change then merge. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Might still have had a publication attached at that stage? --j_clark 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it did. On the second try that pub wasn't there, so it deleted just fine. --Bluesman 23:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spindrift
I updated your verified pub with an illustration credit as listed on the copyright page of my copy of the same edition. Thanks Kevin 04:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Is the author for this pub credited as K. J. Anderson as you show the third printing to be? If so, we need to change the title record as well, then create a variant for Kevin J. Anderson. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, and Locus1 has the first printing with that spelling as well, I just missed it when I added the image and was going to go back and change the designation on the first printing. I believe this pseudo is already in his bio? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lethal Exposure
I've put this on hold. Would you please double-check the cover artist. The proposed record has Danilo Ducak in the field vs Danile Ducak in the Notes. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The joys of two-fingered typing. The note "Danile" is a typo. Apologies. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * fixed --j_clark 23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's Alight in the Void
I accepted your submission updating this pub, but wonder how you arrived at a date for this second printing? It had been zeroed out as undated. Your note states the first edition was in 1991 and the first paperback was in 1993, but Locus1 shows only two paperback printings, one in each of those years. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "First edition" was a paperback. I originally put in this pub and saw the number line and assumed it was a second printing of the August '83 printing. Looking at Locus made me realize TOR had put in a number line for the EDITION and had been kind enough to also state the date of the second printing. It is strange that they would call it the first mass market printing. That made me think the first edition was a TP but as you say, Locus only lists the two PBs. Hope my reasoning is clear? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still a little murky. Why would the April 1991 edition have a statement that the first mm printing was in August 1993? MHHutchins 23:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Other way around. '93 had the '91 date. That's the one that HAD the 0000s. ~bill, --Bluesman 23:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Check out the note in this first printing. MHHutchins 23:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's Agent of the Terran Empire
You want to delete this pub record because the ISBN is for another title. There are two abebooks.com dealers selling this title with this ISBN. Pandora Books (Grant Thiessen, a pretty reliable dealer) lists it as an undated fourth printing. (There are two more for the Fox novel.) And the number falls into the Ace catalog numbering system. Unfortunately there is no OCLC record for this ISBN, which is common for subsequent printings of a paperback. It's possible that Ace gave the same number to both titles, so I think it's best not to delete this yet. MHHutchins 23:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see. I did do a fair search, even OCLC but when the ISBN came up for the other pub, I didn't do ABE. And I have purchased books from Grant, talked to him on the phone a couple of times. He's based out of Winnipeg, though sells out of N.Dak. Small world. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's been a number of years since I bought anything from him, but I still recall those gigantic newsprint catalogs! MHHutchins 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An odd one with this same title but a different pub [] that has both the ISBN-10 and -13 with the same checksum #. Didn't think that was possible? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very odd indeed, but it checks out. I don't know the algorithms involved in producing the checksum, so this may not be as rare as we might think.  It all depends on the numbers!  MHHutchins

SFBC edition of Anderson's The Enemy Stars
I made a correction in the notes you placed in this pub about the source of the publication date. The listings here on the ISFDB for the first 15 years of the SFBC came from Tuck. I think it would be sort of incestuous to quote ourselves as the source. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmmm... and I wonder who forgot to put that at the top of those pages...... ;-) --00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Bill,


 * It's not at the top of each page. Look at the bottom of the first page. MHHutchins 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sturgeon is Alive and Well . ..
I updated your verified pub title to the current standard of "space dot space dot space dot" - Thanks Kevin 05:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's Losers' Night or Loser's Night
The cover you added to this pub has a different title than the one in the record. How is it recorded on the title page? Thanks. MHHutchins 20:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Same as on the cover, and I think I entered this pub originally, too...... memory fails. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's The Star Fox
I'm holding a couple of submissions changing The Star Fox into a collection. All of its award nominations are in the novel category. Tuck lists it as a novel, admittedly comprised of the three F&SF stories. Is there a table of contents in the book? Do each of the stories have their own title page? Is there any connecting material? Just trying to determine if this is a fixup or a collection of related stories. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Was pretty sure this one would get some response. Every pub has/had it as a novel. I have the first PB and the copyright page says: "These stories have appeared in slightly different form...." etc. There is no table of contents but each story has it's own title page. No linking material that is obvious, but I haven't read the originals. The pub is listed in Contento1 as a collection (and that's the original Doubleday HC) with the separate stories each as a novella. Since these were the first things I looked at I changed the designation of the PB, the Doubleday and the SFBC before realizing it was "officially" a novel, even though it makes no claim to being one. Thought I'd better stop at three and see what shakes. There are many titles in the DB that purport themselves novels but are just collections loosely bound and we note them as 'fix-up'. Not quite sure now where this belongs. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just another headache that's far from being resolved. There is a note in the title record stating the original sources of the "novel".  If there had been a table of contents I would have said "Go for it" and change it to a collection, but there are thousands of novels that have individually titled sections, and who wants to crawl into that can of worms.  Until the software is changed to record the relational connections between titles, let's leave this sleeping tiger alone.  I'll reject the submissions but change the cover to what you had recorded in them.  Thanks.  MHHutchins 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Evil Earths
The cover credits this pub as by "Brian Aldiss". How is it credited on the title page? Thanks. MHHutchins 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Compiled and introduced by Brian W. Aldiss" to be exact! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We might want to place a note in the pub that the credits are different, so that no one comes along and changes it based solely on the cover. And the same thing for this paperback edition. MHHutchins 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem on the first pub but can't speak for the second as I only provided the image. Have seen a note that DSORGEN is back? His Primary... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Page Numbering
I approved this pub, but the page numbering needs to be fixed. The rules dictate roman numerals, e.g.,"v+497", if so numbered, unnumbered pages are otherwise ignored.-Rkihara 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the 'rules' and they instruct how to record/count existing Roman numerated pages but do not dictate that they must be used for unpaginated text. Have yet to see a single pub with back pages so numbered. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If those are the back pages, then the last bullet under the rules would cover that situation.-Rkihara 02:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Flatlander by Niven
Can you check to see how "The Patchwork Girl" is titled in your verified pub? Another editor wants to create a variant because there's no "The" in the title, so I wanted to make sure before I approve the submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No "The". The last part of the note is not mine, but I assume there actually is a novel "The Patchwork Girl"? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the original name of the novel. I'll approve the submission.  Thanks. MHHutchins 04:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Image links
Here's a template that might be of use }. Just replace the pub tag, title and place in the summary box with your other comments about the pub. When the upload is complete you will have a direct link to the pub in question. You'll have to look at this in edit mode :-) This is the pub I uploaded to the wiki.Kraang 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ginungagap / Ginumgagap
Could you check this verified pub again? Is the story by Michael Swanwick really called Ginumgagap with an m? If not, it should be merged with this title. Thanks Willem H. 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Corrected and submitted! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Miachael Swanwick?
In this verified pub the author of the introductory essay is Miachael Swanwick. It is probably Michael Swanwick, but could you check again? Thanks Willem H. 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! My two-fingered typing can get a little erratic at times. Changed the spelling and submitted. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Undefeated--- added cover/notation
Hello Mr. Bluesman! LOL. I noticed your transient on this. . I am wondering if someone pulled the primary? In any case, take a look when it clears and if you desire move to the primary. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. There must have been a primary. Doesn't matter to me whether I'm primary or transient. Your notes.... go for it! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did so, but have no preference, if the lines are filled, I still check for some differencing. Might as well enjoy the experience when you are there. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Faded Sun Trilogy or The Faded Sun (only)?
Good morning. Old fella! Hah. This. . Yours is the fifth printing and mine is the seventh printing, but my title page is definitely The Faded Sun, which makes sense to me. Will you recheck yours. BTW One of my great favorites. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Morning, youngster! "Faded Sun" with the individual novels listed below. No "trilogy" other than the cover. Changed it and submitted. Guess my sight is fading....... ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We all have our moments. I am glad others check my impetuosity!. LOL I only realized mine was the way it was at the last moment. Things get sneaky when you now some facts about the books. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

John Brunner's Interstellar Empire
According to Locus #212 (July 1978), this printing of your verified pub was published in May 1978. MHHutchins 18:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Date amended and source noted. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

.JPG vs .jpg
Somewhat to my surprise, file extensions on Amazon seem to be case-sensitive. When I tested one of your derived image URLs it failed. It was http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41uaK-5RSoL.JPG. When I changed the .JPG to .jpg it worked. (I've fixed your submission.) Now we both know. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up and the fix! Had not thought about the case of extensions working like that. Hope there aren't any more.... I know Mike Hutchins checks the images before approving and he does a lot of them so hopefully only a few, or none, slipped by. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Publication month of Vista pb edn of Matter's End (Benford)
I've put this on hold, 'cos I'm not sure re the change from June to July based on Locus 1. I notice that http://www.locusmag.com/index/b49.htm#TOP has Jul ’97 [Jun ’97]. I'm not sure what the date in square brackets means. 'Cos it's a UK pub., it might mean that Locus received it in July?? but publisher said released June?? ...clarkmci/--j_clark 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The date in brackets is the "received" date. The first date is always the release date. I trust Locus1 way more than Amazon. If the different date was the other way around I would never have changed it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Later: I must have pressed the wrong button 'cos I have unintentionally approved it! Could I get you to follow it up please & change back if the verdict is June. (Help desk, perhaps.) Thanks --j_clark 03:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know, on Locus 1, if it's UK release date, or US, when it's a UK publisher? (I think I've seen an Australian one that's US release date (the following year to the Australian release, IIRC), but, IIRC, it was annotated. (Not that many Australian publications make it to Locus 1, unfortunately, so I tend to forget about it. ... and I certainly don't trust Amazon US or UK on publication dates for Australian publications, except maybe those published by Lothian Books when it was independent.) --j_clark 05:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I can chime in here... Locus has separate listings for its UK and US releases.  I don't believe that any UK publisher sends copies directly to the Oakland offices of Locus.  The UK list has been compiled by UK resident Ian Covell for several years now, so the dates published and dates received are basically the same method used for both countries.  When a UK book is officially exported to the US, Locus will give the date it was released here, not the original date of its UK publication.  Sadly, Locus only records Australian books if they have been exported to the US.  Maybe some enterprising Aussie can convince the SF publishers of his home country to send him copies of their pubs so that the listing can be passed along to the folks at Locus.   Hope this answers your question. MHHutchins 06:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating a Wiki page
The easiest way to create a wiki page is to make a link to it on an existing page. Once you click on it, you get a message that the page doesn't exist and you're asked if you would like to create one (choose "Edit This Page"). There's an even simpler way if you want to create a page that is linked from your talk page. Your page's URL is "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Bluesman" which should be in your browser's address window when you're there. Add a forward slash at the end, and type in the title you wish the page to have, e.g. "/Verifications". You'll get the message that there currently is no text on this page and would you like to edit it. Then start typing away. After you've saved it you'll want to put a link to it at the top of your talk page. If you want a message like the one on my talk page, just choose "edit this page" at the bottom. Then copy the text start with "(| style" and ending with "|)". You can then customize the size, background color, text message, link, etc. that best fits your needs. MHHutchins 18:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, have the hang of it, sort of. Apologize for 'stealing' your banner style but when I looked at the code behind it there was no way I was even going to attempt to do my own. I would like to know what controls the color as I'm not partial to yellow. Thanks for all the help! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an easy one. Go to this page and choose a color.  It should have a six letter and/or number code.  Replace the "FFFF00" after "background:" with the color code that you've chosen. The width of the border of the notice is determined by the number after "border:" ("px" stands for pixels)  The width of message is 85% of the screen, but you can make yours narrower by lowering that number or wider by raising it.  Have some fun and experiment with the variables until you get something you like.  After all, it's your page! MHHutchins 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, ObiWan... perhaps someday I will be able to snatch the pebble.... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Gate of Time
There are two verified versions of the first edition of The Gate of Time, this one and that one. Kraang's version was first, so I think yours should be deleted. Perhaps some of the notes should be added though. Thanks Willem H. 14:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One is a US edition, the other a Canadian edition. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll pay more attention next time. Willem H. 13:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Search the Sky by Pohl
I'm holding a submission which will add Richard Powers cover credit to this pub. He gives The Art of Richard Powers (page 119) as his source. It is a legitimate source and has been used to identify other covers. Would you want me to approve it? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The hardcover has Powers as well as the next PB edition, which has similar artwork, though neither are specifically credited by an external source. If this submission has a source, fine by me. Maybe get him/her to put a note on the HC and the '63 Ballantine as well? ~bill, --Bluesman 03:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll approve it and notify the verifiers of the other two printings which used the same art.  MHHutchins 03:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Submission with html problems
Can you resubmit the updates to this pub? There's a problem with the html which causes display problems on the acceptance screen. It appeared to have been there before you edited it, because looking at it now there's no closure for one of the lines . The "Bibliographic Comments" link appears as part of the notes. Your edit made the display even crazier. It would probably be best just to start all over. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what happened as I only added the images. Re-submitted - extra carefully - see how this one looks. This would be so much easier if I could figure out a way of combining the two sides of the doubles. Can do it but the files are just too big...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually prefer the way you do it. That way you have two large images instead of one combined smaller one.  The ideal would be for both sides to be displayed on the record as individual images with links that let's the user decide which one to enlarge.  But I guess the software design never took into account that a book would have two covers.  :-( MHHutchins 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And I figured it out all on my own!!! At least a silver star!! I do like the side-by-side images but they are never all that clear. Of the ones I have doubles of, have been pushing the Kb limit just a little so they are clear. The i-Photo program has this neat feature where you can 'embed' two pictures and if you hold the cursor over the image it will flick back and forth. Think Al would have a heart attack???? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Al has been surprised by the things we do with his software before. :-) How about an animated GIF that constantly fades out one cover and introduces the other? (Not that I'm sure I have the software to create such.) BLongley 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The new submission was readable so I accepted it. There's still a problem with the display (see how the "Bibliographic Comments" is part of the notes), but I'm willing to live with it as it doesn't cause further display problems on the pub record's page.  Thanks. MHHutchins 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs one final "" at the end of the original note. See . I'm happy to make the edit if you're still unsure. BLongley 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And I had just added that!!!! Of course, on my part that was just a guess...... but I am learning! At least I didn't mess it up in the first place! ;-) This time... ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Brunner's Telepathist
I accepted the submission changing the title of this pub from The Whole Man to Telepathist, but it still remains under the The Whole Man title record when it should be under the Telepathist title record. Do you feel comfortable enough for an unmerge/merge procedure, or would you like me to do it? MHHutchins 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, what the hell...... If I fall, someone will pick me up.... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The unmerge went well, but you didn't have to create a variant for this pub, because the variant already exists. You should merge the two "Telepathist" titles.  The duplicate finder on the author's summary page won't find them because this is a variant title.  You'll have to do an Advanced Search for the title then merge the two by checking the boxes. MHHutchins 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did look on the 'dups' page first. Went and did as you said. Why don't all the 'Telepathist' novels show up? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another software design or flaw (depending upon how you look at it.) The duplicate finder skips variants when it's looking for duplicate titles.  Can't explain why. MHHutchins 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Campbell's The Planeteers
I don't think we should merge this title with this one. The first is a collection titled The Planeteers by John W. Campbell, Jr. and the second is an omnibus titled The Planeteers / The Ultimate Weapon by John W. Campbell. You've chosen to drop the record without Jr. even though the notes specifically state Jr. is not used in the pub. The first title doesn't have any pubs associated with. Perhaps you meant to merge the first title with this one which is a constituent of the omnibus of the second title. They appear to be identical (except for the Jr.). MHHutchins 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sort of. When I went to look for the ACE dbl, it didn't show up under JWC Jr. as I think it should as a Variant. I remember what a mess it was when I tried to get rid of the "Jr." and never merged anything back. Both halves of this should show up on the "Jr." title page, but "The Ultimate Weapon " doesn't show at all. And merging two 'no Jr.' titles won't get them back. ??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's back where it should be. Somebody made it a variant of itself, meaning that it was by "John W. Campbell" as by "John W. Campbell", so it only showed up on "John W. Campbell"'s summary page.  I had to break the variant then create variants for each part (one novel, one collection, five stories), then merge each of those new variants back with the existing "John W. Campbell, Jr." title records.  Please look at it now and see if everything looks OK. MHHutchins 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid to even open it!!!!! lol.... sort of... This whole variant stuff just seems to be an eternal blind spot. Can't 'see' it even straight on. So frustrating.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)--Bluesman 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's difficult, I know. I should draw more diagrams, but if I do so for a particular example someone fixes it and the example is lost. :-( And if I'm going to go to that much effort, I should probably work on a whole "ISFDB editing for Dummies" book and make some money out of it before Al returns and fixes a lot more. ;-) Although the number of times that we're seeing "variant of itself" occurring makes me think a shorter title "ISFDB moderating for Dummies" needs to be published first. Who is letting these through? I just hope it's not me. BLongley 00:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that's my speed!!! My favorite, and most understandable, computer books are the "Dummies" ones. In twenty years, when all of us 'old' codgers are gone, and the youth are jacked directly into the internet from birth (it's going to happen....... AIs UNITE) all this will just seem like a pre-'intelligence' dream. In the mean time....... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems I've been here for two years now, and have gone from "being told what to do" through "questioning why we should do that" and "suggesting better ways" (a FEW of which have been accepted!) to "telling people what they can do" (Note - not what they "SHOULD" do. Eventually this will probably become totally bureaucratic and all rules will be set in the internet equivalent of stone, but for now we still have some flexibility, and I personally do not intend to end up as one of the Bureaucrats.) In the meantime, our fairly happy anarchy should be explained a bit better. There's a database behind all this that does need some rules. I think I mostly understand that. We abuse most of those rules in special cases. It's the "This is what you can do, this is what we mostly agree you should do, this is what other people do, and this is really not something you should try" that should probably be explained a bit better. I see people quoting "Help" entries I never even knew existed at times. :-/ So I should probably make an effort to explain current practices, especially when they contradict Help. Not that Help is consistent. :-( BLongley 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Catch the Star Winds
Sorry, I placed this submission on hold yesterday and forgot all about it. You want to remove the parenthetical appendix to this title record declaring it a "(collection)". I believe I understand why this was done. This "collection" is actually the novel with a bonus novelette ("Zoological Specimen"). Ordinarily if this were a real collection which has the same title as a story in its contents, there would be no need to do this. In this case, it was done to keep the title references separate, so that another printing of the novel alone (as here) wouldn't be confused with the title reference for the Lancer publication. It would also keep someone from inadvertently merging the two titles which would form a loop between novel > collection > novel, etc. I've seen this situation before and it's not a pretty sight. There are undoubtedly cases like this already in the db. Another thing to keep in mind is that a title record doesn't necessarily have to exactly match the "title" of the publication(s) which it is referencing. The publication record is supposed to match exactly what is printed on the publication's title page. MHHutchins 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looked for a separate pub and didn't find one, therefore submitted the change, though 104 pages hardly constitutes a novel. I do understand that the designation 'collection' was to keep it separate, just couldn't find anything to keep it separate from! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A. E. van Vogt's The Blal
Could you check to see if "Enchanted Village" is credited as "The Enchanted Village" in your copy of this title? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And while you're looking...the same story in this pub. Someone did a global change adding "The" in the title of all pubs, when most are not, so I changed them all back and checking with the verifiers as a backup.  Thanks. MHHutchins 05:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No "The" in either pub. ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I was able to get the title back into shape.  MHHutchins 23:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It had a 'shape'??? ;-) A malformed title... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That extra word caused it to bulge at one end. :-) MHHutchins 03:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Apples of the Sun
I'm intending to change the titles of some pubs for which you had provided secondary verifications. I explained it more fully here as Mhhutchins had more publications that were affected. Please feel free to chime in. Thanks. --Rtrace 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Currey check
Can you see what date Currey gives for the Dennis Dobson (UK) edition of Pohl & Williamson's Starchild. Tuck and OCLC give 1966 and some book dealers give 1968. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "First published in Great Britain in 1966" on copyright page, to quote the entry. Very likely more than one printing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Pub updated. MHHutchins 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fallen Angels
Could you please check your copy of to see if Michael Flynn is shown with a middle initial 'F.' in any of the following locations? (Cover, Spine, Title page, Copyright page, or signature for Acknowledgments at the end). My mmpb (2004) and my HC re-release (2002) and the ebook from Baens free Library all leave off the 'F.' middle initial in all locations. Thanks - Kevin 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not an "F." to be found. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - Since your copy is the first publication, I'm going to clean up the Title, and remove the F. from all Baen printings, etc. - Thanks Kevin 20:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Now get that "F." out of there!!!! LOL!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchful Poker Chip by Bradbury
Can you tell me if the story in this anthology is titled "The Watchful Poker Chip" or "The Watchful Poker Chip of H. Matisse"? These titles have been combined, and I think this is the one with the shorter title. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis the shorter one. Submitted the change. It's absolutely amazing how every time I get a question about an anthology, it's at the bottom of a box and always one I've 'missed' something in it.... subconsciously burying my mistakes, methinks.... ;-)!! ~bill, --Bluesman 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Putnam gutter codes
Concerning the note in this pub. Oddly enough, sometimes Putnam's trade editions were printed at Doubleday's printing plants. Dodd, Mead also used Doubleday for some of their books. I discovered this through a reference in Tuck (though I can't put my finger directly on it.) MHHutchins 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This answers a note I just left on your talk page. Can we nail this down somehow so the notes make sense? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Invaders! cover
Bill, see my response about your image swap. --MartyD 00:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious about Currey
I'm wondering if it would be worth the investment to purchase a copy of Currey, or at least, the updated CD-ROM. I assume you have the physical publication. What details does he provide for each publication? I wouldn't think that he'd duplicate what was already available in Reginald and Tuck, but does he add more information for publications that fell outside (or beyond) those works? I noticed your Currey-verifications sometimes don't have prices. Something I find odd, especially for post-1968 pubs. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it would depend what you want from the book. His information can be quite detailed sometimes, and bare-bones just as often. He will go out of his way, sometimes by decades, to mention a first hardcover edition, but completely ignores any/all paperbacks (unless there are revisions/new introductions/abridgment/etc) if a hardcover came first. This rankles me, especially as so many of those hardcovers are virtually non-existent these days. He completely ignores a troubling number of authors. I am not sure what his criteria were, but it sure seems 'choosy'. The pricing of the pubs is hit or miss. Nearly 100% on paperbacks, maybe 5% on hardcovers. I have no idea what the revised CD-Rom has added/amended/changed. After spending $70 on the hardcover (and that was the least expensive one I could find!!!!) I am leery of investing more on an unknown return. Details: always what's on the copyright page (which is what I always quote); year of publication (never a month); price as above; catalogue number (100% for paperbacks, NEVER for hardcovers, though he almost always will include gutter codes for SFBC editions, but rarely for Doubleday trade editions....??); alternate titles, re-issues, pseudonyms are always there; number lines for paperbacks only, though sometimes he will note an odd one for a hardcover (there's a British publisher that used letters and started the first editions with the letter 'B'... go figure!); the publishers are always given in full. I just scanned a full page and will send it to you as an e-mail attachment and you can judge for yourself. There is one annoying thing: he will put an entire author's bibliography under the pseudonym ( Hal Clement under Harry Clement Stubbs for example) but he does have a pseudonym section at the front of the book for those of us who don't know every one of them. I'm sure there is more (cover artists are never given) if you can think of specific generalities.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a useful tool for the serious collector of firsts, but not the expansive coverage one would expect for the price. And the limitation to a select few authors can't help its cause.  Have you noticed any author that wasn't one the Chosen 215, who you felt should have been included?   As for pseudonyms, Tuck does exactly the same thing.  I have to remember every time that I look for a book by Clement, or Tenn, or Wyndham, or John Christopher.  Which would be OK except that it's invariably in the other volume (Stubbs, Klass, Harris, Youd).  How frustrating it must have been for those waiting four years between the publications of Volumes 1 and 2!  Thanks for the info. MHHutchins 04:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are exactly 215 authors, how many are 'The Chosen' (of which I know nothing) I have no idea. But when 6 whole pages are for the 18th Baron of Dunsany, who wrote nothing later than 1930 and maybe only a couple of which even sound like specfict, you have to wonder who did the 'choosing'. I bought it exactly for the first edition angle, but knowing that the first HC of a Wells title was in the 1890s doesn't help when I want to know if the 50s PB I'm looking at in a bookstore is the first edition in that binding. Still a good resource. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to be clever (obviously not doing it very well), when I referred to Currey's pick of the 215. I'd bet that Dunsany was "chosen" because of the fantasy resurgence in the early-mid seventies.  He probably wouldn't be among those today. Now that I think about it, in 1979 there probably wasn't more than 100 major sf writers who were worthy of inclusion, not to mention the percentage of work that was never published in book-form. MHHutchins 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * AH! Clever and Friday afternoons.... especially after my first week back to work... feel beat up and barely functional! I'll be right as rain next week¿?¿?  ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Human?
I notice that you may have misspelled Judith Merril's name in the contents of. Her name is visibly spelled correctly with a single ending 'L' on the cover, but in the contents you have her credited as 'Merrill'. Could you please double check this pub? - Thanks Kevin 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected the mistake. She is one I catch myself on all the time, likewise always putting a second 'e' in Delany (Delaney). One of those quirky 'blind spots'... Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I noticed it because I mistyped her name and realizing it as I hit enter, I was surprised when something came up. Cheers! Kevin 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Time:X added cover image and notation
Good Morning! This. . I added the cover and notation to this pub and you have the transient and are alive. LOL!. I have two problems with the way titles were used and wish you to check and agree/disagree with me. First I think the title should be Time:X with no space after the colon. I know that common practice to put pre-titles and subtitles using the space, but I think the title was supposed to be one item. Second problem and this is very nit noid, I know. The story title [Gentleman-The Queen!] way I see it, not [Gentleman - The Queen!] as it is being done. Thankfully, you have the ver and a second copy, so I will leave it to you and any moderator who is interested. I just needed to bring it to someone's attention. I put it here in case there is some moderator interaction. I left a message with TFrank and read your previous. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One word Capt. Nit Noid (hee-hee-hee): Searchability!!! When every other title that is 'colonated' (?) has the space, by making this one different will have some future editor scratching his/her head why this one doesn't come up in a search. The Title page in my copy is missing, but the 'X' on the cover is a different color than the 'Time:' portion, and frankly it would look a little odd with a space there anyway. I think this is a cover design thing, in an esthetic sense. The page headers all have a space (no colon). Currey has a space, you have a Tuck to check. Also, the 'X' simply replaces the word 'ten' as in the number of stories and if that was there you wouldn't be worried about a space, it would be automatic to put one. The second one should, correctly, be 'Gentlemen—The Queen!' but since the handstands necessary to produce the emdash on a PC hardly make the effort worthwhile, why bother? And it is meant to be equivalent to space/endash/space anyway. Again, though, if you eliminate the spaces a search with them (the normal way... you remember normal, don't you, Harry??? ;-)) won't bring up anything. That has to remain a priority for the DB. Things have to be findable. My 2¢ worth. Any other questions¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I get your points and I said it was/is on you, so no problem. The X as ten completely missed me. As for searchability, I search what I see not what was 'rigged' to work on a db. Then I go to author. Basically, it makes it 'better' only for in-depth users. My title page is flush. As for sources doing something does NOT make it right, G knows. Big Q "but the 'X' on the cover is a different color than the 'Time:' portion," ????? Mine matches the cover example 'exactly'. Either you have a fade out/color in or we have printing mismataches not normally seen. I am pretty sure, mine is an "undocumentable" reprinting. "Normal" I am not, satisfied I will only be after 'termination'. I had to tell people all my life I am not sane, nor am I insane, I am unsane. I have to say your explanation of the second issue digresses and your fallback position of searchers will use your/ISFDB criteria is more than a tad 'shop worn'. Thanks, and back to 'Lolly' world, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I submitted the title changes as they bother me. I also added a note that the purplish of Time in Time:X may not ne noted by certain people with very rare color blindness. I can only detect it in this case by special light and knowing it is there. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hercules Text
I'm wondering how strongly you feel that on The publisher should be 'New Ace SF Special' Instead of Ace. Both the Spine and the Title page say 'Ace'. Thoughts? Kevin 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a discussion about this at some point and the answer I got was that since the first generation of "Ace Specials" were all noted as such, then this "New" series (though quite short-lived) should also be noted. Personally I think it belongs in the notes. Ace didn't create whole new number-line for either series. Not even sure what makes them 'special'?!?! Run it past the MODS and see what erupts! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Converting all three Ace SF Special series to Publication Series is on the list of things to do. At the moment, keeping them as a separate publisher is the only way to find them quickly. Of course, if you create the Publication Series for us then there's no reason not to merge the publishers... BLongley 20:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A bright light dawns.... Sounds like a plan...maybe this week while I'm stuck in a hotel room. Would the 'Isaac Asimov Presents', and 'Jim Baen Presents' series of titles fit into this mold as well? Kevin 21:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to create any Publication Series you like - anything that current ISFDB series (which are title level) can't cope with. Some of us hope for support within the database at some point - if we don't get it then Wiki lists will have to do. Working on some of the current desired projects would help us a bit more immediately, if you feel qualified: then we can resume some Publisher Regularisation work without losing data. BLongley 22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel some subtle ... people management going on about me ... it prods gently... and it whispers... current projects ... go forth and find current projects... But i think we are taking over someone else's talk page ... Kevin 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't quit on my account, as this is a direction I'll be heading in at some point. More info is less confusion.... and I said that with a straight face!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cassandra Knye
I've held your latest edit to not because I disagree it's NONGENRE, but to remind me to watch the pub because of the way the authors are credited. Surely if "Cassandra Knye" is the only name on it, and John Sladek isn't credited but is a definite co-author with Thomas M. Disch, then Knye is a pseudonym of BOTH? See how we dealt with in another example. BLongley 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I realized that after I had made the submission. The way Currey credited the authors it seemed like only Disch was using the pseudonym. How does this get cleaned up? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll let the Knye/Disch pseudonym through and add a Knye/Sladek one as well. Then I'll approve and adjust the pub authors and note and add the publication author variants. Then you can check it. BLongley 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it had been that only one of a pair of authors was using a pseudo, how would you pull out the one name only? Does the pub need to be adjusted as well as Sladek should not appear as a co-auther with 'Kyne' as It stands now. ~bill, --Bluesman 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed Sladek. How does ? The pub note can probably move to title note, in case it's ever reprinted under that name. BLongley 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like it should! And all the other 'merges' happen automatically? I see it now appears under Disch and Sladek's bibliographies. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It should appear under both as they both wrote it. (I hope!) I'm afraid there is no automation - each title under the pseudonym would require directing to canonical authors. If it had been credited to "Thomas M. Disch" and "John T. Sladek" then the Sladek is a pseudonym and the canonical title would be under "Thomas M. Disch" and "John Sladek". Or if it was "Tom Disch" and "John Sladek" then "Tom Disch" is a pseudonym and the canonical title would still be by "Thomas M. Disch" and "John Sladek". Or if it had been "Tom Disch" and "John T. Sladek" then both are pseudonyms - the canonical title would still be by "Thomas M. Disch" and "John Sladek". BLongley 21:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you mean what happens if Disch alone uses the "Cassandra Knye" name on a different title, then the variant authors still stand in general as it has been used as a joint pseudonym. But for that title, we'd only make "Thomas M. Disch" canonical author. And if Sladek used the name alone on another title, then that title would only have "John Sladek" as canonical author. A pseudonymous author relationship doesn't mean that every title by that author was written by all the authors that used that pseudonym. (Which is why the "pseudonyms with titles" project is a pain - often we just don't KNOW which of many users of a "house name" wrote a particular book, and we can't assume anything.) BLongley 21:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (Bonus detail) For a really severe headache, consider the times when a real person has books written for him by other known authors, sometimes under another pseudonym, and so sometimes the pseudonym isn't really a pseudonym at all and sometimes it is. Only today I found books by "Boris Karloff" written by "Sidney Stuart" who is "Michael Avallone". And "William Shatner" may actually be "Ron Goulart" when he isn't a pair of "Reeves-Stevens". And be careful if you look at "Ellery Queen" or "Victor Appleton" - the number of pills required to help your brain could be a major overdose. :-/ BLongley 21:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Think I'll retract my statement above about more info meaning less confusion....... Quaalude® anyone??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Asylum Earth on hold
The appropriate entry for the artist is Podwil since it only the last name is signed. The cover can be assigned to Jerome Podwil using the pseudonym process.--swfritter 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How the piece is signed does not change the fact that the artist is Jerome Podwil, any more than powers/rmpowers/powersLAZ/org is anyone but Richard Powers. Does the artist cease to be Jack Gaughan because he only uses JG on the artwork? Or Michael Whelan isn't Michael Whelan when he uses those strange MW 'sigils/runes' whatever they are? I don't think artists can be looked at the same way as authors just because they use a particular/peculiar signature. The notes are where the oddities of the signatures can be noted, but the field should be for the full name. My 2¢. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an issue that I have been meaning to bring up on the Rules and Standards page. I agree with Bluesman that when a cover or interior art is uncredited and the record's credit is based solely on the artist's identifying mark, whether it be signature, initials or glyph, then no variant should be created. If the help pages indicate otherwise, then there should be a discussion to air our views on the subject. MHHutchins 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with suggesting that the notes be used to document such cases is that it is very unlikely that many editors will do so. The use of the pseudonym process is self documenting. I agree about initials but it is different when an artist spells out his last name. I am not about to go back and re-process the thousands of pieces of artwork I have done according to standards.--swfritter 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have approved the submission and changed the artist attribution back to Podwil. Up until now we have mostly been gathering data. In most cases we have not been assigning variant artist spelling credits via the pseudonym process because the data has to be collected before we can determine a canonical name for the artist. Unfortunately a lot of the artist data has been entered in an inconsistent manner which complicates the problem but to change the standard in mid-stream after so many of have entered data in a certain way would further complicate the problem. One of the great strengths of the isfdb is that data is documented as it actually appeared in the original publications rather than normalized. I might note that there is also art attributed to a Jerry Podwil but I don't think that any of the pubs for which he is credited have actually been verified. Editors have various things that they would like to be notified before changes are made. In my case I don't care about links to coverart and elaborations but I do care about the data that I actually entered. Dream data element I would like to see - radio buttons to designate on what basis the art was credited.--swfritter 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have a complete, "official" way to treat artists. See this question and response, echoing Bill's sentiments above.  When you haven't been around very long, it's hard to figure out what is The Way vs. what is preference or habit.  --MartyD 21:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed - we need to clarify this. I've tended to use official credits in the text first, and used signatures/initials/glyphs only when the first is lacking or proved incorrect/inconclusive - but I've expanded those to (expected) canonical name usually. I really don't want us to use just initials - there are just going to be too many collisions. I know an "F" in a box of certain shape is Chris Foss, or Christopher Foss - canonical name can be determined later - but "F" as an artist is just not going to work. Nor even "PE" for Peter Elson. One book I entered today has "POW" truncated by the edge of the book but I've no idea if it is "Powers" or "Powell" or any other possible variant. :-( BLongley 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There has to be some level in between we can agree on though. "Podwil" is someone I tracked down even though I don't really rate his art highly. Crediting "Podwi" if the name gets cut off on some covers would strike me as stupid. Making it "Podwill" on the basis of some library references would annoy me just as much. The fact that he wants me to sign up to MySpace to find out more annoys me even more (I like to find out more about Authors, but I'm probably not going to create MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, LinkedIn or any other members-only-sites accounts for such, and I'm even less likely to do so for Artists). Take this to Rules and Standards though - swfritter is right, we need to know why any particular version of the name exists. BLongley 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Finney's Past the End of the Pavement
I'm holding a submission which will merge the two titles that you just created as variants. Am I missing something? MHHutchins 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I did that stupid merge before realizing a variant was the right way. Don't get enough opportunities to do them so kind of blew it. Please reject the merge. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Adventures of the Stainless Steel Rat
I accepted your edit to this pub, but changed Tuck to Currey, as I know you have Currey and Tuck only goes up through 1968. Also added a couple notes of my own. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Was going to credit our own SFBC DB but was previously informed it all came from TUCK, just didn't know where the cut-off date was. Just can't trust all the info these days!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the first page of the SFBC wiki pages for the source listing. Should I then remove the reference to Currey, or does he list this edition?  MHHutchins 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was jesting! Yes, Currey lists this edition, hence the verification! ~BIll, --Bluesman 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to forgive me. Sometimes I'm too literal for my own good! I should have noticed the Currey verification. MHHutchins 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Spaceship Medic by Harrison
What was the source for an ISBN for the Doubleday edition of this title? I don't believe that Doubleday started printing ISBNs until around 1972/73. MHHutchins 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seemed early to me as well. Two sellers on AbeBooks and it brought up the correct edition (and image) on Amazon. Nothing on OCLC. Since it does bring up a result, maybe it should stay, but in the notes? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's been removed already. I would have recommended that the ISBN be placed in the notes, but the record seems to have been edited since I last looked at it. Did you make a submission to change it?  MHHutchins 05:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, don't pay attention to the person who wrote that last comment. This person just realized that your submission is still on hold!  I'll accept it then move the ISBN to the notes. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Year Before Yesterday
It turns out that we had ' The Year Before Yesterday entered both as a fix-up novel and as a collection. I have merged the Title records and now it's obvious that we have two identical Publication records for St. Martin's 1988-06-00 mass market paperback edition, one verified by you and the other one by User:Dsorgen. Would you like to compare the two and delete one of them? TIA! Ahasuerus 03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Transferred the image, verification and then submitted a delete on mine as Dsorgen is/isn't around?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thanks!


 * P.S. David Sorgen retired a couple of years ago and travels a lot, so he is only sporadically available. Ahasuerus 16:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Year's Best SF 1972
I rejected the submission making this title a variant, because I strongly feel this pub was entered with the wrong title. It's supposedly a second printing of this title both from the same year, with the same price and ISBN, and I'd doubt that Sphere would have changed the title so soon after its first printing. I recommend merging the titles, keeping the longer of the two. Thanks. PS. I forgot to mention, sometimes Sphere dropped some stories that were in the US editions of these collections. I think Contento has separate content listings for those that are abridged. It might help to take a moment to make sure. Thanks again. MHHutchins 05:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked Contento, and he doesn't list the differences. From my work on the Michael Bishop website, I know that his story was dropped from the UK edition of Best SF:1973, and I recall that others in the series were also abridged.  I also noticed that he gives the wrong title as well to the UK edition (No. 6 / Best SF:1972) that I talk of above.  OCLC and Reginald1 give the longer title (The Year's Best Science Fiction No. 6). Does Currey record a British edition if the title changes (like Reginald)? MHHutchins 05:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an odd one as Currey usually just notes the first edition, but he is quite specific about this second printing and the change in title. Contento only notes the second printing. Currey is also quite anal about noting differences in text/stories dropped/stories added. If the listed contents show the difference, I don't note Currey's observation. In this particular pub there were no noted differences, other than the two titles. Hence the two Variants. Interesting that the British editions were sometimes printed earlier, sometimes later and two at the same time but we always seem to make the US edition the parent (looks better in the DB all one way, anyway). ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I've seen odder things, so I'll go ahead and create the variant. Reginald usually notes changes in title as well, but he must have missed this one. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's becoming even more odd. During a Google search for the title, I came upon a different ISBN 0-7221-4375-3.  An abebooks.com search for that ISBN gave up several different titles: 1) The Year's Best SF 1972, 2) The Year's Best S.F. 1972, 3) The Year's Best Science Fiction: 1972: No. 6, and (hold on to your pants) 4) Deathworld 3.  Of the seven results (excluding Deathworld 3), four have a publication date of 1975 and three give 1973.  A retitled reprint in 1975 makes more sense.  That's why they'd put the year in the title.  And having been published in 1975, Reginald would not have included it (he goes up through 1974.  And both of the Sphere editions now have the same ISBN.  Here's the kicker.  Take a look at this search on FantasticFiction.com.  What'dya think? MHHutchins 03:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have way too much time on your hands!!! LOL!!  Someone is obviously mistaken. I find it hard to believe that both Currey and Contento missed on the same pub, but since it is British and they are slightly sneaky on reprints they could both have been looking at the copyright date? Even a title change might not trigger a new one. Doesn't change the variant, but may require a note or three. Mr. Longley has a lot of history with Sphere.... The thing that sticks out most is that Currey is specific about the month, which he seldom mentions other than as part of a copyright page notation, and the Sphere pubs never put the month in. Was this particular book popular enough to have a bunch of printings?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I only have the Sphere "The Year's Best Science Fiction No. n" for n = 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9, but none of them include the year in any part of the title on spine, cover or title-page. The "Science Fiction" is often abbreviated to "SF" or "S.F." on cover and/or spine though. It does look (from UK sellers) as though there were 1973 and 1975 editions (which would be a good reason not to put the date in the title). BLongley 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Outbound
Your verified pub has a note about full numberline, limited print run, and signed on the title page. I just got a copy of this in the mail today, and while mine has a full numberline and a matching ISBN, there is no signature on the title page... Was there an 'extra' limited edition (where the first 1000 copies were signed), and the later thousands were not signed... thus indicating that mine is from the first print run, but not the first thousand copies? - Thanks - Kevin 23:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On what would be page 342, there is the following: "OUTBOUND/November 2006 Outbound by Jack McDevitt was published by ISFiC . . . One thousand copies have been printed by Thompson-Shore, Inc." Then some typeset/binding info. That's the only mention of the run. Doesn't sound like it was 1000 of X number of copies. It was my assumption that the whole 1000 were signed. The ISFIC site [] lists it as out of print, with no mention of signed copies at all. I did get mine directly from them, but can't recall if the signed aspect was included or specified. Wish I could help more. I'm not sure why they even have a number line. You could always contact them. Nice people. They sent me a replacement jacket when the first one came crumpled. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and submitted an edit to remove the 'Signed ...' sentence from the notes, as my copy matches your as described above and in the database record. It's probable that they had 'some' signed by the author but didn't get the whole print run signed. My primary concern in updating this is that someone may purchase a used copy and (based on our record) expect it to be already signed. (I know I expected mine to be signed... but I was happy to find it unsigned as Jack is coming to town this fall for our local convention... I wanted to get it signed then anyway). Thanks Kevin 00:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good enough for now. I have e-mailed them just to see what is/was up with the signing. I'll add whatever I find out and let you know. Say hey to Jack!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tor / Orb
I see that you changed this pub from "Orb" to "Tor/Orb", probably based on info from Locus1. I have many Orb editions and can't recall seeing Tor mentioned on any of them. Both are imprints of Tom Doherty Associates (as is Forge), but they're rather unique, without any overlap as far as publisher credits on the books themselves. Orb is exclusively used for trade paperback reprints of back catalog and newly acquired "classic" titles. Tor is used for hardcover, mass-market paperback and current or simultaneous trade paperback editions. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Because this pub reprints the previous year's new hardcover edition of the title, and it being a classic, I couldn't say whether it's Tor or Orb, but I'd put money that it's not both. MHHutchins 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct, and I know this from changing other pubs that credited both..... a particularly blond moment (doubly embarrassing for one with no hair at all ;-) ) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

SFBC UK Robert Heinlein Omnibus
I'm holding a submission adding a new pub (thus a new title record) that I believe duplicates one already in the database. Do you want to update the current one and have me reject the one on hold? MHHutchins 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you made a submission for this pub, but it made no changes. MHHutchins 03:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And I did look for an omni with "The" in the title. Where was it hiding? As for the second, I had the record open expecting to find the month and/or price on Locus (oddly, nothing) and must have hit 'submit' instead of just exiting. Another one of those moments.... sigh.... And thanks for accepting the drop of the "." from Steven Silver's name. He requested it directly. ~bill, --Bluesman 03:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how long it will stay that way. I've changed Daniel J H Levack's name a couple of times and it's back with periods.  Wish there were a way to place notes directly into the author data so that future editors know the preference.  About the Heinlein omnibus, seems it was entered as a collection, or someone changed it to a collection.  Some editors think omnibuses have to have novels, and that stories only are collections.  I disagree but I'm in the minority. I've accepted your update and rejected the original submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ar least leave a "Bibliographic Comments" wiki note about authors that demand no periods, or people will follow the help (or "common sense") on regularisation. (I think "SMS" is another example, but I haven't seen him for 20 years so can't really ask.) We probably need the same for authors that demand all lower-case as well. BLongley 09:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I personally don't think Omnibuses need to have novels, and I'm not sure we're in the minority. We never do polls on such. BLongley 09:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Have no fear... there are others of us who don't think omnibuses need to have novels lurking in the shadows. Kevin 15:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for the Stars
I removed your suggested cover image for the 1968 Pan edition as it was a picture of the 1978 edition. I suspect the 1968 looks more like this. (It's also likely to be a Robert No-A Heinlein.) BLongley 12:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Wish we could get more British editions. With many NA covers I can tell by the style what decade it's from. Not so sure with the British ones yet. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cherryh's Pretender
You changed the date of this title from 2006-03-07 to 2005-00-00. Was there an earlier publication that's not listed in the db? Thanks. MHHutchins 17:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Was looking at the copyright date..... need more coffee, not quite awake yet. I'll change it back. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Secondary Verification Check (Mach II)
Can you check the verification on this pub? I think you meant to Currey-verify it, as Bleiler's work only covers the 1920s-1930s. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I caught one other like that. I didn't realize the range was so narrow. Wouldn't that work have been covered by other sources? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually this work by Bleiler is quite unique. He does a detailed analysis and provides plot outlines of every story (all 1835 of them!) published in the major science fiction magazines between 1926 and 1936.  This takes up more than 500 of the 700+ pages, with the remaining pages devoted to a detailed bibliography of all the issues, including indexes of fiction contents. 90% of it can be read at Google Books. MHHutchins 01:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So this deals strictly with magazines? That explains why I never see a verification from that source. Sounds like a lot of work for that time. I would think the magazines would have limited circulation and thus availability. Specially during the Depression. Most interesting. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cover check
Check out the cover attached to this pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice picture!!! Changed to accurate picture...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange Worlds by Farley
I thought I could settle the issue about year of publication of this pub, but it's now tied at two. Another batter to the plate? Maybe OCLC, but it wimps out. MHHutchins 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added more notes about the page count and titling based on OCLC information. MHHutchins 04:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clash of the Titans!!! The book image alone disputes OCLC's claim of no common title. In the notes for both "The Hidden Universe" and "Radio Man" Currey states:"Sheets of [this book] were later combined with those of [the other book] and issued in 1953 as [STRANGE WORLDS] {the square brackets around the last title are Currey's}. According to Owings and Chalker in The Index to the Science-Fantasy Publishers, approximately 500 copies were so bound." Maybe this is one of those printed-in-December published-in-January situations? Possibly the singular title is on the jacket only? The separate entry for [STRANGE WORLDS] also has the square brackets and simply says "See "The Hidden Universe" and "The Radio Man". Conundrum wrapped in an enigma???? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read closer, the OCLC record states "Spine title", with no mention of cover title. Like all good librarians (and the editors here on the ISFDB), the person who wrote that record used only the titles as printed in the book itself, and when he says "spine" he means the book not the cover.  Your description makes it clear that this is as close to an omnibus as any publication can be.  They took the sheets printed for each of the two books and bound them into one new publication, without creating a new title sheet.  The binding has the new title as well as the dustjacket.  The square brackets, if used in the same way as librarians use them, means assumed or extrapolated, but not stated. Getting back to the date issue, it could be the situation you describe.  Hell, the actual re-binding may have taken place over more than a few months, maybe even spanning a period from 1952-1953. Like any enterprising fan/specialty publisher, FPCI was trying to recoup costs.  I think leaving the record with notes about the contradictory sources is the best we're going to get. Don't you just love being bibliographic detectives? MHHutchins 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! The thrill of the chase!!!! And even when the fox is on the other side of the fence laughing, at least you get close enough to see him! With only 500 copies, the re-binding was probably somewhat shorter in time, but that's just fog at the moment. Think it's nailed as well as can be for now until some octogenarian typesetter comes forth and adds that last datum. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com catalog numbers
When an Amazon "partner" posts for sale a book in which there is no ISBN, Amazon's computers will assign a number. All books that I've seen start with the letter "B" followed by a combination of numbers and letters. An ISFDB search for "B000" (three zeros) in the ISBN field brings back a whopping 781 matches! All of these were pre-ISBN publications with Amazon-assigned numbers. If you're ever in need of a mind-numbing project, tackle the updating of those records! MHHutchins 00:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are one sick man...... I love doing this, but I don't have enough years left for THAT one..... ;-) You are most welcome to it, though! :-) :-) ~Bill. --Bluesman 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just 30 every night and in one month there all done! :-)Kraang 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm through about 900 of the 3000 titles in the cleanup of non spec-fic, another 30 parts and I'll be in the home stretch! As I work my way along I find other things to delete, add and rearrange, hours of fun!! :-)Kraang 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen your mention of this before. How/what do you access that even lets you choose/edit "non-spec-fic"?? I honestly never see any as, as yet, I have only been dealing with my collection. At some point I will branch out and there seems to be so many side-projects going on but not much info on how to access the database at such a level. Is this a Mod-only level??~Bill, --Bluesman 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a mod-only level, a techie-only level at first maybe, but we're always willing to share the pain around! If you get a local copy of the database working you can query it any way you want. E.g. I've recently used queries for "every publication I've primary verified that hasn't got a cover image" (so I can go scan them) and "All Magazines starting with a name like 'New Worlds' with no Editor Record" (so I can waste hours fixing magazines I'll never actually own). BLongley 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a big problem comes up: so I shared ISFDB:Authors_that_only_exist_due_to_reviews with everyone and Kraang is referring to ISFDB:Non-SF_Cleanup_2004 where we can go and see how bad Dissembler was in past years. There's simple things that can be done without needing a techie to go find the problems though: as Michael says above, "B000" ISBNs can be found with no special access or capabilities. Other things I do occasionally: search for two spaces in a title or author name. Look for a "$" in an ISBN. Search for "http" in anything. Go look at the home page and find the "unk" bindings. There's lots of small things to do if you want. Or big things available on request. :-) BLongley 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Smaller to start is better. I still have a couple of months at least to finish my final go-through/scan/niggly detail collection attack and then....... I will start a list of possibles. Thanks, gentlemen! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another sick puppy!!! "ONLY"...........what a word........ Why do I get the impression that the "new kid" is being set up?????? 58+ years have taught me one thing: never volunteer. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Foundation and Earth price question
Does your verification copy of have the $16.95 price cited in the entry on it? And does it have a bar code? I've got a copy with a different gutter code and no price or bar code, yet it also does not have the SFBC catalogue number listed by Locus1 for the 1993 SFBC edition. Thanks, MartyD 10:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My edition does have the price, front flap in usual place. No bar code; ISBN on back cover, lower right. What's on your copyright page? BOMC? What numbers does it have, and where (other than gutter code)? Remove the jacket and check at the bottom of the spine on the back board. If it's a BOMC there will be a small square indent (3/16"). ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No bar code or ISBN on the jacket. No price.  On the back board, bottom in the colored area of the spine, is an indented maple leaf over a small (also indented) line.  Title page says 1986 under Garden City, New York.  Copyright page has top half blank, then "All characters are fictional...", "Limited edition frontspiece by Alan Wallerstein" (but there is no frontspiece, so I assume it's referring to something else), LOC Cataloging-in-Publication data listing 86-2130, ISBN 0-385-23312-4 and also 0-385-23709-X (Limited Edition), and finally copyright &copy; 1986 by Nightfall....  What does that tell you?  --MartyD 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That illegal Canadian aliens have surreptitiously printed and bound your book!!! ;-) Mine says "First Edition" at the bottom of the copyright page. I have the feeling this is a CDN book club( though what club???) edition. Not even sure how you could/should enter it. Locus thinks CDN editions are invisible, as does every other database, so doubt you'll ever find verification of any of this. Book-in-hand rule #1: Enter what you have. Rule #2: don't guess (speculate in a very authoritarian way). Merits its own record, just make sure you leave the door open for someone with that crucial datum to 'focus' the whole thing. ~bill, --Bluesman 03:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It must be my wife's fault. She's of distant French Canadian descent.  Thanks for checking your copy and for the info.  I will go enter it.... --MartyD 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * French women are adorable! French men inexorable..... on both sides of the Atlantic!! Go forth and enter!! ~bill, --Bluesman 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, Mhhutchins questioned whether it might be a Canadian printing, rather than a Book Club Edition, so I did a little Googling.... I don't know how authoritative it is, but here's a Book Club Editions section of a first editions guide, and it mentions "maple leaf" among the blindstamps (newly added to my vocabulary). Echoed in this Book Club Edition discussion. --MartyD 11:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Epilogue (Tales of the Flying Mountains)
In unmerging the epilogue to Tales of the Flying Mountains from the story Epilogue and remerging the result, the page number for the epilogue in your verified pub got lost. Can you check the book and re-enter the pagenumber? Thanks Willem H. 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a known bug. That's why it's best not to use the unmerge function to unmerge a pub from a content record.  The safest way is to use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" tool on the pub record's display page.  Slower, yes, if you want to remove the same content title record from several pubs at once.  But until the kinks have been worked out, not a good idea.  I say this from experience, having lost the page numbers from too many pubs without remembering to record the page numbers before unmerging.  I use this function only as a last resort. MHHutchins 23:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please leave same message for Willem H. as this was his move, not mine. Not something I have done yet and not likely to in the near future. Touch wood............... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To Colon or Not to Colon
I see that you removed the colon from Blade Runner Replicant Night because it's not actually in the title. I'm not sure if it's written down somewhere in the rules or help pages, but colons can be added to a title when it has either a subtitle or a series attached to it. It can also be used if parts of the title are in different fonts (either in size or in face) on the title page. This is how the librarians at OCLC use the colon. All this leads me to think there should be a colon in the title. But I don't have the book and can't say for certain, so I approved the changes. A search for ":" brings up 85000 titles in the database. I wonder how many of those actually have a colon in the title? MHHutchins 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Different fonts are used here.~Bill, --Bluesman 15:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Plunder by Ron Goulart
I'm holding a submission changing the catalog number of your verified pub from 05210 to 95210. Can you check your copy? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The change is correct! 95210 it is. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Knight's The People Maker / A for Anything
I accepted this submission for a new pub, but the cover scan doesn't match the title you entered. Also you entered this pub under the wrong title record. I've corrected the last by unmerging it from the wrong record (The People Maker) and merging it with the correct one (A for Anything). Let me know what title record the first pub should be. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First one should have the "A for Anything" title, as the image shows. All the rest of the data is correct. I'll try and fix it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the title reference for this pub and you'll see it's under the wrong title record. It has to be unmerged from this title record and merged with this title record.  Say the word and I'll do it for you. (BTW this will happen if you're on the page for a variant title record and choose "add a pub" to this title.  When you click make sure that the title and author that comes up automatically on the "add a pub" screen matches the pub you're entering.)  Thanks. MHHutchins 18:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Billenium or Billennium?
Can you check to see how the story is spelled in your verified pub? The title of the collection only has one "n" but the story title has two. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One 'n' throughout. Submitted a change. Since the double 'n' version doesn't/shouldn't exist, changed it rather than add/delete. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It most certainly DOES exist. Please resubmit with an add/delete - we Brits may have adopted the US "Billion", but we haven't adopted the "Billenium" monstrosity. BLongley 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, SIR!!!!! ;-) Anything to retain the Queen's English. Can't let the Yanks raze/rase and ruin! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Much better! Latest edit approved. BLongley 19:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Simon Eisner's The Naked Storm
I'm holding your submission for this pub. Does the title have the ellipsis before it? And also, is this spec-fic? According to OCLC "Agony, lust, and mortal conflict cram the corridors of a snowbound train. A front man for a tinhorn gambling syndicate, a woman whose body had never been touched, a dissatisfied husband, a lesbian--and all of them strangers." Sounds like a good read, but... MHHutchins 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked and saw that Eisner was Kornbluth. Never mind...  A reminder: there's a couple more steps for the Damon Knight novel in the comments above. I've outlined what you should do.  Let me know if you'd like me to do it.  Thanks. MHHutchins 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only reason it's there at all, though the old 'sleaze' covers are funny. Started the 'funky merge' dance for the Knight title. --21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Bill,


 * But is there "..." before the title of the Eisner novel? It doesn't show on the cover, and OCLC, usually pretty good at recording title pages, doesn't have them either. MHHutchins 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Currey has the ellipsis, so I put it in. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Submission accepted, as is, with an added note. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Creating variants
I see you've made a submission to create a new variant for A for Anything. The variant already exists. Steps to look for variants:
 * 1) Go to the author's summary page: Damon Knight
 * 2) Looking at his list of novels you'll see that A for Anything listed twice. Once as a variant of The People Maker and further down, the record you created by adding the 1998 pub.
 * 3) You can't merge these two records using the "Dup Candidates" method. Variants will not show up on the duplicates page.


 * And this is supposed to be obvious???--Bluesman 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's it. MHHutchins 22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Click on "Titles" in the menu on Knight's summary page.
 * 2) (Luckily you won't have to look very far (sometimes you have to go to the next page for the more prolific authors.) About 10 records down you'll find three titled "A for Anything", two are novels, one is shortfiction.  One of the novel records is a variant, the other isn't.  You want to merge these two records, so check the box before those two titles and click "Merge Selected Records" at the bottom.

The Far Reality by Padgett
I saw the note you've placed in this pub, so I checked Tuck who also has the price at 2/6. In 1963, very few British paperbacks were priced as high as four shillings. That was the average in the late 60s. (And I only know this from working on the database and sourcing Tuck.) So I'm thinking the scan is for a stickered copy. The big question is the publisher's name. Where did "World Distributors" come from. Tuck and Reginald1 give Consul as the publisher, and from your note, so does Currey. MHHutchins 23:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked OCLC, who gives the publisher as World Distributors, but "Consul Books" as the imprint. I think for our purposes we should go with the latter. MHHutchins 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Currey has the publisher as "London: World Distributors" and then adds the note as I placed it. Maybe both should go in with the '/'. We do that for many publishers/imprints. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll work. Imprint goes first (as "Consul / World Distributors). Now that the pub is in the database, and we know it's published under a pseudonym, do you know the next step to move it to Kuttner (& Moore)'s summary page? It's going to be harder than usual because it not only is published under a pseudonym, it's also published under a different title. Here's a clue: a variant already exists, but it's not the one this one should be merged with. A bigger clue: this is the parent record.  If you can figure this one out, you deserve to be a moderator. MHHutchins 23:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Imprint is first? What about all the XXX /SFBC, isn't the SFBC the imprint? I see the pub ended up where it should; does that mean I pass the test? I did not use your hints, either. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Test passed, but I think I gave you too many hints. Just let me know when you're ready for me to nominate you for moderatorship.  Though I think you've got a little bit further to go on merging and variant-creation.
 * Yes, I do, but I did that one BEFORE you put the hints here. Truly! Check the submission time. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't read the note completely that you'd not used the hints. I believe you.  And I wouldn't know how to check submission times if my life depended on it.  I can see when a submission is accepted, but wouldn't know where to begin looking for the time of submission. My offer's still good.  Even if you're only going to self-moderate, 95% of your submissions don't require any research.  And you can always ask if a merge/variant situation arises. MHHutchins 01:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall seriously consider it. Know it would take a load off of you and the other Mods, as I routinely put in 50+ submissions daily, more on weekends. Feel kind of like the aging slugger in the minors who can't hit a curve ball getting a chance at the bigs!! I'll get back to you.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * About the imprint situation. In those cases "SFBC" is not an imprint.  Any book that's labeled "XXX / SFBC" doesn't have the words "SFBC" or "Science Fiction Book Club" anywhere on them.  Only "XXX" is shown as the publisher.  The SFBC was the printer and distributor of that edition, not the publisher, and we only give it credit in the publisher's field so it can be distinguished from the trade edition.  MHHutchins 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll certainly want to keep the "Consul Books" in there, that's a good confirmation of the age of the title. World Distributors did occasionally do reprints without that imprint on them (they have a sort of 'eye' logo on instead), but that would be for 1970s editions rather than 1960s ones. One possible reason for a sticker on there would be if it was sold abroad - Australia and NZ were both still using shillings at that time, but obviously after being shipped half-way round the world the price was a bit higher than in the UK. BLongley 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the ticket! Just went back to the image source and it's from a seller in Australia. And who said the Empire was dead...... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, the Empire is defunct but the Commonwealth lives. Did you establish whether it's a sticker or actually printed like that? With a name like "World Distributors" there may be several markets to cope with. I only ever see the standard UK editions though. BLongley 18:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not possible from the picture. Could e-mail the seller....not sure it would change much beyond the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Line to Tomorrow artist credit
Shouldn't the artist be Mitchell Hooks for this pub? MHHutchins 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That spelling was already there. If it needs another 'l', easy to do. Seems this is the only pub with that spelling, too. ~bill, --Bluesman 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantasies of Harlan Ellison
I just did a primary verification for this pub and noticed your secondary verifications. I believe the two should be reversed. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct and corrected. Thanks. ~Bill --Bluesman 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nine by Laumer
Found a better cover scan for this pub. FYI Laumer cover scans here and here. MHHutchins 05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the first site you have to right click to save a copy to your harddrive. If you right click it goes to full size, but in a javascript window that you can't save. (Or I should say I've been unable to figure out how to save an image from a pop-up window.) MHHutchins 05:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gotta love a MAC! When I right-click after opening an image, I can save the page with the opened image on my computer, and when I open that file and right-click I can then save the image by itself anywhere I want. Good pictures, too! I had to play with the one you replaced even to get that much as it was a composite of the cover, book and copyright page (signed) so had to crop/straighten/re-focus and then upload. Wish every artist had a page like this. One link and you're done! Of course, where would be the fun in that? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Other Sky
Bill, I've put your anthology "The Other Sky" on hold because it would automerge with the short story by the same name. This title record would have to be entered as a new anthology and then made a variant of the US titled "Greyhorn". I could approve it and then unmerge and fix the newly created title but anthologies inside of a short story are messy. What would be best would be to reject and I'd create the new anthology title for you. I can cut and paste the info from your submission, after that's done you can submit the variant. I'll wait till I hear back from you. Thanks!Kraang 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I kind of wondered about that. Seems I've seen a conversation in this vein. When the book didn't show up under "Greylorn" I was just going to create a new pub and do the variant dance after. Should have gone that way! Reject away! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I entered it as a collection instead of an anthology, here it is, you can now create the variant. Thannks!Kraang 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Brunner's Total Eclipse
Locus #215 (October 1978) has a listing for your verified pub of this title, dating it as August 1978. MHHutchins 16:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Entered. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Tombs of Atuan
Can you double check the update for this pub? The ISBN is invalid, and you placed another ISBN in the image field. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And you still want to make me a Moderator???/ Some days/moments the sun just doesn't shine..... ~BIll, --Bluesman 23:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bear's Queen of Angels
This pub looks very familiar, so I think we may have discussed it before. I don't think the date should be the same as the hardcover first edition, and should probably be zeroed out. First, by description, it sounds like a BOMC/QPBC edition. Second, having a 13-ISBN is sufficient evidence that it wasn't printed in the 90s. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But I bought this in the late 90s, best guess would be 97-98. Don't know enough about the ISBN-13 start dates but thought the BOMC/QPBC didn't use them at all? I'll zero the pub, but as I recall we never did come to a consensus as to where the pub came from. You did a rather thorough search. thorn, but a minor one.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From my understanding, ISBN-13 was created circa 2005 and implementation started phasing in on January 1, 2007. BOMC/QPBC editions usually reprint the copyright page of the trade edition (unless it's an exclusive book club edition). That's why it's harder to tell if they're book club editions.  The only true tell-tale sign is a lack of price. They use identical plates, sometimes printed on the same presses, unlike Doubleday which (until 1987) created new plates.  I have uploaded a scan of the first edition's copyright page.  Can you check it out to see what difference there are between it and your copy's? Thanks.  MHHutchins 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mine is missing two lines: "First printing....." and the number line. If it helps, the barcode area is printed on its side instead of horizontal, so it may be covering some original numbers/price/etc. Bottom left corner rear cover. Both front and back covers have identical artwork. --Bluesman 03:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The removal of the slugs for those two lines would indicate that at least the reprinter had a few brain cells left. You'd be surprised how often something that simple is forgotten. My copy has the same barcode setup as yours.  Rather odd-looking at that.  You don't see many vertical barcodes on hardcovers.  And it has identical artwork as well.  I did notice that Locus1 has a listing for a BOMC hardcover reprint.  Maybe a few years ago, someone decided to print a softcover edition for the QPBC division.  Only thing holding us up now is your memory of purchasing it in the late nineties.  Oh, well, another conundrum that the biblio-detectives have to give up on as unsolvable. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much holding up my memory at all these days. There is an extremely small possibility that I bought this in the States in '99-00 but absolutely no later than that. I think................... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Long's Horror from the Hills
I accepted the submission changing the price of this pub from 3/6 to 2/6. Is Currey your source for the new price? If so, I'll place a note to that affect and note that Tuck prices it at 3/6. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Currey is the source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank Long's The Horror Expert
After I accepted your submission adding this new pub, I saw that there was already one in the database. The two titles need to be merged and the other pub deleted. Perhaps you looked for it on Frank Belknap Long's page? Is he, in fact, the author? If so, we'll want to create a pseudonym and variant. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, is "Lyda Belknap Long" a pseudonym as well? MHHutchins 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lyda is indeed a pseudo and have submitted that. Wasn't aware of the 'other' Frank Long. Didn't see it as a pseudo (which it is per Currey) and didn't look further. I'll clean that up. Have, for me, a variant nightmare. [] pub has 21 stories which two different publishers have split to varying extents. Panther did two pbs, [] and [] including all the stories, but giving one the different title. Belmont did [] and [] but only included 18 stories, while again creating a different title for one. Somehow they should all be linked together, but not quite sure if the correct procedure is in making partial collections variants of complete collections. Managed to extricate the Jove [] from this as it is a reprint of a completely different pub and merely has the title story in common with the Arkham House edition. Gone as far as I am sure of. What is next? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do the same thing that Tuck and Reginald1 do (and I assume Currey also). Place all publications under the parent title, making each a variant of just that one title, but making sure that each has their own separate title record.  In other words, don't enter the pub under the parent title.  Create a new pub, then make it a variant.  In the notes field of the parent title record, I note the changes of each of the reprints. There are records here in the db that don't follow this method.  And if a discussion ensues that results in making partial content reprints into separate records, then it would be easy to simply "un"-variant them. (You and I can argue that they should all be under the parent record and have enough evidence to back it up.) MHHutchins 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So for two of these I would do an un-merge, then make them variants. The two with different titles already have separate title records, so just variants. Think I got it, but will do this tomorrow so I can get the stories all figured out. There is only one note in the parent record now that "all these collections are substantially different", not much help. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This title record looks in pretty good shape. There's one more edit to make it perfect.  A clue: look at the bibliographic warning at the bottom.  It would also be a good idea to record the differences in the title records of the two pbs (1963 & 1975) titled The Hounds of Tindalos so that no one will try to merge them with the parent title of the same name. MHHutchins 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Especially as I just finished unmerging them. Already noted that the contents are only partial. What other differences? One look at the contents should be enough.....?? A DO NOT MERGE the titles?? Sort of kidding there. Really have no idea what else to add. How dumb do we have to assume the next editor is? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you ever seen DO NOT MERGE in title records? I probably placed most of them there.  How dumb should we assume the next editor to be?  Think Sarah Palin. :-)  Do an advance search for "hounds of tindalos".  You'll see four identical records with "collection" type.  Two of them have notes (I placed the note on the 1978 one last night after you pointed out that it was a retitling of The Early Long.)  I think the 1963 and 1975 records should have a note explaining that they are partial reprints of the Arkham House collection.  You might even mention that this "reprints x out y stories".  My strongest suggestion is that you put "DO NOT MERGE" in the notes.  Even if the editor misses the note, it's not likely to get past a moderator. MHHutchins 04:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, added the extras. Can I sneak out of the bush now? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "how dumb do we have to assume the next editor is?" I think we have found over the years that if a misunderstanding can conceivably happen, it will eventually happen. It's not that our editors can be dumb, it's that they may have different habits of thinking or specialize in different areas. For example, Hayford Peirce (the science fiction writer) seemed like a nice and knowledgeable guy and he tried to contribute for a while, but he found it hard to wrap his brain around the conventions that we have here and eventually left, somewhat frustrated. Think of it as "a salesman, a doctor, a miner, a physicist and a programmer walk into a bar" kind of situation: they may all be good at what they do, but their thought processes are very different. Trust me, I know: I had to work with all of them at different points in time :) Ahasuerus 04:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)