User talk:Bluesman/Archive5

Cover Image Data3
Allow me to draw to your attention the recently created Cover Image Data3, aka CID3, aka C3. This works just like {{tl|C} except it also accepts an artist credit and puts the wiki page in the proper artist-based category. A call would be something like. This gets a significant benefit of the full Cover Image Data with significantly less work. I created it at Kevin's request. I hope you will consider using it for image uploads in place of C when the artist is known. -DES Talk 16:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that it's simpler. I will definitely use this when I know the canonical name. There are still some signature-only artists for whom I don't know the canonical. What would happen if an artist not in the Db was placed in this template? Would a new artist record be created? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing very bad. A link from the wiki page to the non-existent db page for the artist would be created. In general wiki pages have been crediting artists as they are credited in the publication -- we have lots of non-canonical names there, and I have added "see also" sections to the relevant artist categories in some such cases. See Category:Artist Images for an overview of what he have linked up -- a good many categories are not yet linked onto this, however. -DES Talk 13:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek cover image verification
This image was removed from this pub by another editor (correctly). You see that the tag for the pub matches the image name, so there must have been some mixup with this pub. Looking at the for the image, I see two previous attempts to upload the image, both as Serpents Among the Ruins. The editor of this first record added a link to the Amazon.com image, but do you recall uploading that image to our server? Thanks. MHHutchins 12:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the second uploaded image matches the pub tag, but the current template links it to the wrong pub. If you like I could revert the image to the second but will have to figure out how to save the current image with a different name, so that both will be available to link to their matching pubs. MHHutchins 12:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike normal wiki pages, you can't move/rename an image. You have to re-upload it, either from the original source or by first downloading it. To the best of my knowledge, that's just the way the wiki software works. -DES Talk 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do indeed! My mistake in the first place as the name and image didn't match. I renamed the file to the proper pub (I thought) and then uploaded the correct image with the correct tag. Don't recall doing it twice, though. Un fortunately the wiki won't allow an image to be deleted by a non-mod, or I would have just erased the mistake and did it over. I can just reload the image. I keep every one from my books on file. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are now properly tagged for their pubs. I had to do what DES suggested.  Downloaded the first version, reverted the mistagged image back to the original version, retagged it with the correct tag and link, then uploaded the first version for the other pub, and edited the pub record so that it links to our image instead of Amazon's.  And points to everyone who could follow that! MHHutchins 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy to follow! Convoluted process, though. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness we have technology to make our lives easier.... --MartyD 23:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that the word for it?¿?¿ Been without 'technology' for about five days. Wicked storm went through here on Saturday last. Major damage, even a death. No power for about 30 hours. My internet is wireless: dish on a 60' tower. Got a lightning flash which not only fried the radio and power supply but two computers, satellite system, home theater system and associated hardware. Just got my new computer today and the internet system replaced yesterday. Weird to be without much but a radio for five days. Almost like withdrawals. Makes one think.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes, who fooled with Mother Nature??? Maybe she doesn't like technology, ever think about that? MHHutchins 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Always! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. With each year, getting more violent in her reaction to the ongoing abuse....  --MartyD 10:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

None But Man
I'm going to reject your submission adding a 1969 pub of the same name to this title record. The 1969 pub was a novel, not a collection, and the Doubleday edition already exists in the database, with several verification by an editor named Bluesman... MHHutchins 05:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did not think to look for it as a novel. Five days off and I'm rusty!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Winds of Dune publication date
Noticed the note you placed on this pub and the change in the publication date that you've made in the record. It's pretty much common knowledge that the stated publication date is rarely the date the book appears in book stores or is available for purchase otherwise, especially for hardcovers. Yet, that should be the date of the record, unless it's so outrageously wrong to be considered a typo. In this case, it's four-five weeks wrong, not a big deal. In this case, I would have given the stated date in the record, and record the date of purchase in the notes. If you feel this may need to be discussed among the other editors, please start a discussion on the community pages. I'll let the record stand as submitted. MHHutchins 05:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought we always used the published date.... Think I'll leave the note and change the field. It's rare for the book to come out EARLY, often LATE is more usual. Buying more hardcovers new these days as hardcovers rarely show up in good used condition anymore. Not such a big deal, though. I'm more interested how we handle a book that has two dates in it, one for printing and one for published. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's rare, but it does happen, especially in 1950s books. I'm not sure what the stated policy is, but I try to put the publishing date in the date field and note the printing date (which is usually the month before). Until the 1980s hardcovers that gave month of publication were quite uncommon, most of them didn't even have an explicit statement of the year of publication, only the copyright. (And you can't use the year in the LOC CIP Data, which is so often not the year of publication.). MHHutchins 15:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was easy we'd need a new 'addiction/avocation'! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Trek to Madworld
In your edit to, you removed an author credit and added a note "The artist is not credited, no visible signature [this record had ENRIC as the artist, with no source]". The assumption is that any unsourced data on a primary verified pub record came from the pub itself. Since this change removes data from a field to notes, Please ask Bill about this. I have placed this edit on hold pending his reply. He should feel free to directly approve the edit, if he chooses to. -DES Talk 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bill's original note stated he didn't know where the credit came from and just left it. Enric did a lot of the Bantam covers but only the reprints. Haven't found one yet where he did the original. Always possible there's an exception, but he's definitely not credited on this one. No problem waiting until Lord Longley chimes in! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry i missed that. You are right. I'll approve your edit, please notify Bill in the usual way. -DES Talk 22:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:THGNCDS1967.jpg
This image doesn't link back to the db record. The pub tag is wrong. I think the desired pub tag is THGNCDSLLK1967, linking to, but please double check. -DES Talk 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I submit a new publication that I have an image for, I just make up a tag to upload the image and then edit the tag later. Find that simpler than waiting until the pub hits the board and then adding the image. The upload page makes sure the invented tag isn't the same as another existing one. Anyway, updated the image tag to match the pub. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, that's fine, except that it is possible that the invented tag might be used by another record later. I sometimes upload images with names like BookTitle-Artist -- that won't ever conflict with a future tag. We each have our own methods, i guess. -DES Talk 16:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But once the invented tag is edited, the old one disappears, free to re-appear later.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is still used as the name of the image (file). Your edit of the tag doesn't change the image (file) name. If the invented tag is reused, and someone uploads an image for it, using the common "image file name<-pub tag" method, the upload will fail, because the image name is already in use -- or worse, if the uploader clicks "yes", the new image will overwrite yours, and be automatically used on the wrong pub. Not too likely, but quite possible. -DES Talk 17:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit the file for the image to give it the correct tag. Thinking one thing, saying another. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understood that. But there is the possibility of a collision in future if the invented tag is reused and the file still has the name of the invented tag. I suggest that if you do this, you make your invented tag include at least one vowel -- the auto-generated tags never include vowels, so collisions would be avoided. -DES Talk 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Early Science Fiction Stories of Thomas M. Disch
I'm holding the submission updating this record. You want to add the statement "First Printing, June 1977", but my copy (this record) doesn't state that. If it came from Currey, does he mention that there may have been a later printing by Gregg Press? It's unusual for this publisher to reprint, but a few of the more popular titles were reprinted. My copy states "Republished in 1977 by Gregg Press" which I assumed meant that it "republished" (never saw the word in all of my entire bibliographic experience) the Berkley Medallion and Ace Books paperbacks. I would assume that it would state "Second Printing" or at least "reprinted". Thanks. MHHutchins 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there are changes to the text or title Currey never mentions later printings. The extent of his comments in this case is the quoted printing statement and that it wasn't issued in a dust jacket. Yeah, that "republished" is an odd one, especially when the title is different from those paperbacks. What do you suggest here? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking I may have a second printing (and probably paid too much for it). I'm going to clone the record and create another printing.  Then make mine a "republished" edition. Thanks (with a slightly bitter hint of sarcasm). MHHutchins 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most likely whomever you purchased it from didn't know either? I can't recall Currey mentioning a Gregg Press edition that didn't have the "first printing" data stated, if that helps for future? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Made the clone record into my edition, and kept the current record as the first edition so you wouldn't have to remove and re-verify it. Submission was accepted. Now I'm going to forget that another printing ever existed. Next time before I shell out the big bucks for a Gregg Press, I'll make sure to ask about the edition statement. MHHutchins 20:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How would we get through the day without denial/rationalizations?¿?¿ ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

334 by Disch
334 is technically a collection of linked stories, but thematically a novel. The database correctly records the book as a collection: there is a table of contents, and each story (but one) retains its title and form as it was originally published. So I'll accept your submission for all of the other updating but change the type back to collection. Thanks. MHHutchins
 * I was going to do that. Saw the "Collection" with no contents and didn't remember it as anything but a novel (though I haven't read it in decades). Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Template request done
Cover Image Data3-2, alias CID3-2 alias C3-2 created.

Cover Image Data3-3, alias CID3-3 alias C3-3 created.

See Image:PLNTXLE1966.jpg as an example of the 2-author form.

what do you think? -DES Talk 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So either CID3-2 or C3-2 as the first part will work? The example used CID3-2... either way it's easy to remember so easy to use. A good project for all the doubles we have on file. Best thing is a minor edit can update the file if the second artist is determined at a later date. Kudos! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, both aliases work identically. CID3-2 may be easier to remember, C3-2 is slightly shorter to type. Use whichever you like. The same is true with CID3-3 and C3-3 if you find a triple. I didn't bother creating a template for a 4-artist cover, I will if anyone shows me such a thing. If you find any problems, let me know. -DES Talk 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one pub that has SIX credited artists, but that was where a seventh book in a series amalgamated all the previous six covers into one. Yet to see a four-artist cover, either. Great, will use this as I go through! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For one pub, we can do the extra categories manually if we like. -DES Talk 20:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dozois' Best SF 1976
The page numbers for contents you added to this record don't match the page count. MHHutchins 03:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No kidding!!! So rare to even get page counts from Contento that I didn't even look back at the field.... removed all the numbers and the note. Wonder what book they were getting the numbers from??? Just thought, should note that Contento is out to lunch or someone might try to put the numbers back in.......~Bill, --Bluesman 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. By the way, the page numbers are from the verified Ace paperback edition. MHHutchins 04:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:DTHBRDS1975.jpg
If you are going to upload cover images with two artists, and want to credit both of them, please use the newly created C3-2 rather than C3. Plain C3 only supports entering a single artist name parameter. -DES Talk 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I did??¿¿?? Have used it numerous times.... mistakes will happen. Did you correct the submission? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The submission is fine, it is only the wiki page that had a problem. I corrected both that and Image:DTHBRDSTRS1976.jpg‎. -DES Talk 22:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jailbird
Please see User_talk:Don Erikson which is a change to one of your verified publications that I've put on hold. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Left a note there as well. My copy is Canadian, though purchased in the US. Is it worth starting a discussion about this? There seems to be some resistance to creating new pubs just for the difference "Printed in Canada", especially for printings that preceded dual/different pricing where that literally is the only difference. So far the notes take the bulk of these.To me it's a case by case, where there's a real difference (I can recall some Pocket editions that only had a price on the CDN printing and not the US) then create a separate pub. A wholesale duplication would add a lot of chaff. The only verification source that sometimes notes a CDN printing is OCLC. The rest might notice the rest of the world but never the quiet neighbor to the North. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is advocating wholesale duplication. This thread was triggered because both you and Don have a first printing. You verified $3.50 and Don wanted to change that to $3.25. Don missed that thread and never replied but you found you had the Canadian edition which explains the discrepancy. I rejected Don's edit and revised your record to change the price to C$3.50 plus added a note about printed in Canada so that others with a first printing don't come long and try to change the record because they can see that their copy says $3.25.


 * For the most part, we don't record the country meaning we are unlikely to notice that one copy was printed in the USA and another in Canada. I also think dual printing of dual priced books is is pretty rare as it defeats the purpose. Once NAFTA was enacted publishers switched to printing dual-priced books in one country and shipping the books across the border. Prior to NAFTA the tariffs were high enough that publishers manufactured Canadian and USA editions. The Canadian editions are priced in Canadian dollars and thus the stated price is normally higher than the USA edition. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Art credit bug
I accepted your submission trying to correct the cover art credit for this pub, but it didn't work. May be some kind of bug. I've ran across this several times and the only way I've been able to do it is to remove all the credit with one submission and then add the credit back on the next submission (after approval of the first). Would you care to try that to see if it works? MHHutchins 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Submitted. First one I've seen with an obvious duplicate credit. Think I've corrected a few spelling mistakes in the past, but first time trying to delete one from many. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Walt & Leigh Richmond's Postitive Charge
Can you check you copy of this pub and verify that the story on page 115 is titled "Prologue To...an Analogue" and credited to both Walt and Leigh Richmond? Thanks in advance. MHHutchins 23:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly as shown, with the ellipsis. The only credit is the © of the book as a whole to both authors. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that in this book (which i also own, and have done a Primary2 verification), the story "If the Sabot Fits..." is listed as a variant of "If the Sabot Fits . . . ". As far as I can see, the only difference is the spaces between teh periods of the ellipsis. But Help:Screen:EditPub says (in the Symbols and punctuation section) "An ellipsis should be entered as the sequence "space", "period", "space", "period", "space", "period". Besides, there seem to me to be thin spaces between the periods in the book.
 * I would like to add the spaces and merge the two variants. Would you object to my doing so? -DES Talk 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not! Merge away. There are probably dozens of these out there. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ON Looking more closely, i see the significant (!) difference is the presence of quotes in one title, and not in the other. So I have expanded the ellipsis, and left the variant in place, Sorry to have bothered you. -DES Talk 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible upload shortcut
It may be possible to add a button or link to the pub display: "Add a cover image", that would open a wiki upload form with the destination file name and perhaps the cover image template pre-filled for the user. The discussion is at ISFDB:Community Portal. Since you do so much uplaoding, your views on what would be helpful would be particularly welcome. -DES Talk 16:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Omni
Does have artwork by H. R. Giger or H. R. Geiger? BLongley 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Giger... rats! My first one of 170+ to go. Submitted the change. Thanks for catching it! Didn't you just do some work on the Omnis? ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a load of EDITOR record fixes a while back, so people can at least find them (I hope!), but the editors are probably still a mess and seem to have been cobbled together from various sources. I've no idea how many editions are crediting the overall editor, fiction editor, art editor, etc. If you care to fix them, remember that the publication Editors and the EDITOR record itself are two separate things (comparable to pub author and title author). Take care, and good luck! BLongley 19:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. The only Editors I'll be using will be the two at the top. So far that is Guccione and Kendig. A third one titled European Editor I'm just ignoring as I'm not sure what that means (was OMNI translated into different languages?). Already had to remove Ben Bova from one as all he did was contribute a small piece for the CONTINUUM column. This will be a long process! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Omni was translated into English English from American English - that might justify a "European Editor" with a large supply of Vitamin "U". (Although Europe is still "that bigger island to the East" to me, and being called "European" rather than "English" is about as welcome to me as Canadians being called "American".) I suspect there might have been different editions of Omni due to International copyright issues, but I own none and can't provide specifics. BLongley 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely why I shall keep the editor 'field' thinly populated! I do see a need for a separate category for magazines, though: HUMOR! The LAST WORD segments are quite funny, yet defy anything beyond 'shortfiction'. Oh, well..... onward! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, it would need a "HUMOUR" version to please us... although watching Americans making "HUMOR" shortfiction a variant of an "ESSAY", or English editors making "HUMOUR" the canonical version of an "ESSAY" might lead to a better understanding of what people find funny. :-) BLongley 23:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In Alien Flesh - added story afterwords/del collection afterword
Morning! This. . I added the "afterword" behind each story and deleted the "afterword (In Alien Flesh)" which was entered wrongly for the whole collection. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuum 1
Checking our, I now think it's "$2.05" in New Zealand. Is yours the same or is mine another printing? BLongley 22:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct! Submitted a change. Think a case of the mind seeing what it's used to: $X.95 is the norm. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

John Brunner's The Tides of Time
Can you re-check the catalog number for your verified copy of this title? The ISBN probably is 0-345-31838-2, the same as the US edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-checked and re-entered the missing digit. Amazing how they escape when you're not looking!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Night of Delusions
I have your proposed deletion of the 1974-01-00 version of Night of Delusions on hold. There is more to the story -- see the message that I have just left on Lorenzr's page :) Ahasuerus 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that is interesting! Is Lorenz still active? I thought it had been an unpolished clone of the HC with the Powers credit. Is the other book even SF? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ray still contributes from time to time, usually adding Author data, but I don't think he has edited his Talk page in a while. No hurry, though! As far as the SF angle goes, I don't believe it was SF, but my recollection of the whole misadventure is hazy. Ahasuerus 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For now just reject the edit and when he responds something can be done, as in any case the pub is not correct the way it is. ~BIll, --Bluesman 02:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! Ahasuerus 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Omni, Mar 1979
Just a note that I changed "Space Cities [7]" by "uncredited" from Shortfiction to Interiorart after approving it. Ahasuerus 01:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most kind, and astute! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cartoons
I think you may have run into an ambiguity in Help. Help:Screen:NewPub currently states:


 * The title should be "Cartoon: " followed by the caption, in the original case, between quotation marks. If there is no caption the words "no caption" should be used without quotation marks. See the February 1957 issue of Dream World for examples (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?DRMWRLDFEB1957)

If you follow the link, you will see that the cartoon title is actually entered as:


 * Cartoon: "Ullg feels that a thing worth doing is worth doing well!"

and the quotes do not include the word Cartoon. I guess we need to clarify Help since I can certainly see how it could be read the other way.

The good news is that it's easy to change the few cartoon titles that you have entered so far -- just do a search on "Cartoon and you will find all of them :) Ahasuerus 02:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And that is exactly where I got the "formula" from, and it didn't seem right but them's the rules, yah kno'! LOL!!! I shall correct them now before there are too many. Appreciate the heads-up. ~Bill --Bluesman 02:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Magazines are yet another can of juicy worms, as you have probably discovered by now :) Ahasuerus 02:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

-
 * Indeed! All done, even one I didn't do! The "Help" says to submit any cartoon over 1/3 page in size, but I've been sticking to the full-page ones only. Before you mentioned getting the "editors" right. Omni has two pages where they list them all. The TOC has only Guccione and Kendig. Then on the Letters page they list about nine of them. Where is the line drawn? I think someone else had the right idea in using only Kendig and Bova as Executive and Fiction (our main interest) Editors. In the July '79 issue Bova finally makes it to the TOC page, so the inclusion of him definitely becomes a more obvious choice. I have a feeling I should go back now and just list the last two and forget Guccione. Bova is listed as fiction editor right from the first issue. Thoughts? Kind of like to get it consistent early. Thanks. ~Bill --Bluesman 02:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We definitely don't want to credit every "art editor" and "science editor" at the Author/Editor level, but the executive editor position at Omni was rather unique in a few ways. Well, sort of.


 * Bova originally started out as their fiction editor, but then he moved up the food chain and became the executive editor, although, naturally, he was still involved with the SF part of the business. Then, some years later, there was Keith Ferrell, another executive editor who happened to be an SF fan, so he was intimately involved in the process, got SF writers to write non-fiction for Omni, etc. So I think it's justified to list the executive editor (who was usually prominently credited anyway) as well as the fiction editor at the Editor level (which is what we currently do -- well, mostly) and perhaps add Notes explaining who was the executive editor and who the fiction editor at the time. We may also want to mention it on the Rules page just to make sure that there are no collisions with other editors' understanding.


 * Have I mentioned that magazines are a whole different can of worms yet? :) Ahasuerus 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did and I shall forge ahead anyway! That delineation at the "Rules" level would be good. Omni was very formulaic in content so a good one to kind of cut my teeth on. I have other old pulps that may prove more involved, and want to get a better feel before starting any of them. Think I'll go back and re-do the first four or five editor credits with notes as you suggest. Before I discovered the second "staff" credits page I had changed a couple to add Guccione and delete Bova. We learn from our mistakes. Much thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to be shy, feel free to start a new topic on Rules - the water is fine! :) Ahasuerus 03:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)We started talking about executive editors vs. fiction editors and such and I completely forgot to mention that we also need to change the EDITOR titles for these magazines in addition to changing the Publication level editors. Sorry about that!

I don't know whether you have run into these "EDITOR" beasts yet, but the basic idea is similar to the need to record authors/editors separately in Publication and Title records for Novels, Collections, etc. There is one big difference, though -- we generally merge all EDITOR Titles for the same year (for the same editor and magazine title, naturally.) Take a look at the "Magazine Editor" section of 's Summary page when you get a chance. It's relatively short, but poking around and going to the Publication level should give you an idea of how EDITOR records work. Ahasuerus 03:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The link above goes nowhere.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Got to the page and it doesn't look any different that doing title data for any pub. Thing is, I access the OMNI mags from [here] which leads directly to the individual issue and doesn't give me access to the title data page. It took me a while to even find this access point. Magazines are weird that way. Where do I even find the "right" access to get to the title data? And for a future reference, how does one go about adding a whole new magazine series to the Db? I have four years of STAR TREK THE MAGAZINE which as far as I can tell is not in the DB. There's no fiction, but the breadth of the ST Universe pretty much demands it be there, I think?¿?¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of Magazines you will see instructions for creating a new magazine wiki page. Create such a page, then just start entering issues in the db with New Magazine, and link each issue from the wiki page as it is entered. Is that enough to get started with? -DES Talk
 * If you'll go back to Bluesman's original response "The link above goes nowhere..." you'll see he's correct. The author template doesn't work when there's a comma involved, something that should be looked into. MHHutchins 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a known and documented issue. The altname parameter must be sues when the name contains parentheses or some other special characters. See A for more detail. -DES Talk 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I never knew there was an issue with the use of non-alphanumeric characters in the template until I saw that the original link in this post wasn't working. MHHutchins 23:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Link fixed. -DES Talk 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The John Wyndham Omnibus
I tried to stop you before you got too far ahead, but you were too fast! The record of this title under collections was a bad record. You saw that it was empty of pubs and added the two pubs (UK Michael Joseph and US Simon & Schuster), but they were already under the correct title record as an omnibus. I took the notes that you gave for each of the two records and added them to the existing records. Please check those and be sure they match what you had intended. The only discrepancy is the date of the US edition. Tuck gave it as 1965 and OCLC gives it as an unstated 1966, so I went with Tuck. If you Currey or OCLC-verified either of those two records you'll have to move the verifications to the pre-existing records. I also changed the date of the title record back to 1964, the year of the UK first edition. MHHutchins 03:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't think to look under Omnibus when I found it under Collection. And then noticed it when I went back and just assumed you had done a quick acceptance of the submission. Dueling submit buttons! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I accepted all of the submissions, took your notes and added them to the existing records, then deleted the duplicate records. The good thing to come out of this is that the collection title record no longer exists and the Analog review is now under the correct record.  The person who entered the review must have created an empty title record so that there would be a link from the magazine.  Too bad they didn't look any further to see that the omnibus had been sitting there all along! MHHutchins 03:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Outward Urge
The Michael Joseph edition of this title was by both Wyndham and Parkes, according to OCLC. You'll have to unmerge it from its current record and merge it with the W&P record. MHHutchins 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am so thrilled........ ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't I just add the second author? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You will have to add the second author to the publication record, but it is now under the single author title record. (The author credit for a publication record doesn't necessarily have to match the author credit of the title record, but if it doesn't, the pub record becomes a stray publication.)
 * Go to this title record and choose "Unmerge Titles". Check the box for the Michael Joseph edition, and submit the unmerge.  Unmerging a publication record from a title record will create a new title record with this only this publication record.  Once the submission has been accepted, you'll have to merge this newly created title record with this record. MHHutchins 00:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I rejected your submission that wanted to create a new variant because the variant already exists. Do the second step referred to above.  Merge this newly created title record 1028198 with this pre-existing record 189534 choosing to retain the two authors credit and the variant.  To get to these two records do an advance title search for "The Outward Urge" but make sure that you merge only the two records I link above, not the third. MHHutchins 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rejected your merge submission because it merged the two wrong records. If you don't want to try again, just give the word and I'll do it.  MHHutchins 01:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! MHHutchins 01:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Love in Time
This would qualify as a chapterbook with a shortfiction content. Also, is Johnson Harris a pseudonym of Wyndham? And is Foul Play Suspected a non-genre work? MHHutchins 00:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since chapterbooks tend to disappear unexpectedly, I was going to wait to change it to that designation until I could at least move it over to Wyndham (yes it's a pseudonym). Foul Play certainly sounds non-genre, but I don't know for sure. Currey makes no distinction and there is not a single copy for sale by ANYBODY and I looked!. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With the recent change in the chapterbooks type, they'll remain visible on the author's summary page as books. Now you'll need to add the content, which I assume is a story (novelette, perhaps?) of the same title. MHHutchins 01:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Stowaway to Mars
You entered this pub (Stowaway to Mars by John Beynon) under the wrong title record (Planet Plane by John Wyndham). Once it's unmerged from that title record, the new title record should be made a variant of that title record. No re-merging required this time because the variant doesn't exist. One way to avoid entering under the wrong title record (if you use the "Add Publication to This Title" function), take a look at the pre-entered fields for author and title. If they don't match the pub you're entering, you should back out. Don't change the fields to match the pub. If you're not sure if you're entering a pub under the right title record, just use the "Add New Novel" (or Collection, Anthology, etc.) function. If a title record already exists, you can always merge the two title records later. MHHutchins 01:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unmerged and variant created for this record. Also discovered that Foul Play Suspected was a detective novel, so I changed it to NONGENRE. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

All-American Alien Boy --     added introduction essays
Afternoon! This. . I added the introduction essays to the stories as shown on essay title page after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Harrison's Deathworld Trilogy
Re: the notes you want to place on this SFBC edition. Currey is right about the gutter code, and it was printed in week 40 of 1974. "P" "Q" and "R" don't follow the "one code per year" pattern. "##Q" begins in the middle of 1974, "Q##" and "##R" both start at the beginning of 1975, and "R##" starts circa week 39 in 1975 (taking over when "Q##" ends.) "R##" runs for about a year into 1976 ("R39" is the last I've found.)  Two pubs published a year apart both have "R39" (here and here). See this note on the gutter code Wiki page. The best laid plans... MHHutchins 01:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a change since the last time i printed that page! I carry a copy with me whenever I go book-hunting.... you've been doing research while I wasn't looking!! ;-) Did you reject the edit or do I need to reverse this? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just when you thought there was a definite pattern... I'll accept the submission, and do an edit for the pertinent section of the note. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was the pattern of the catalogue #s that made me think the gutter code was wrong. Much easier to accept a later printing being mistaken than the jacket code being totally out of whack! I've managed to accumulate the first printing jacket numbers for nearly every book from Sept '68 to the end of '88 and there are definite patterns, even up to five consecutive numbers for a whole month's selections. A project/wiki page in the making! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't wait to see that! I've noticed a pattern that's roughly numerical in order up through 1972 when it jumps from the 3000s to the 5000s.  When it gets to be circa 6500 (early 1975), it drops back down to the 1000s, but moves a lot faster than the previous cycle.  By fall 1977 its back up to the 3000s, then it drops back to the 1000s again.  This cycle is even faster but then starts going crazy that by the end of 1978 it's all over the place!.  If you've been able to figure out a pattern after that, there's a position deciphering spy codes in Langley, Virginia with your name on it. MHHutchins 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It ain't much of a pattern in the late part of '78 through '85, for sure, but with the advent of the five-digit codes it gets really regular for awhile then falls apart somewhat at the end of '88. It doesn't help that our DB and Locus1 differ quite a bit as to which month some of them came out. The introduction of the alternate selections almost went by their own sequence, still progressive but out of sync with the main selections. It all makes sense in some way if one applies the same thought train to each book as a "work order". Each book would get a number assigned to it as soon as the deal was done, to track it through the system. Since the alternate selections were fillers, in a sense, they may have had their own tracking numbers assigned. Preliminary thoughts at the moment. Once I get all this onto some kind of spreadsheet it will likely make more sense. Also, we seem to have NO alternate selections from '70 through most of '75, then sporadic until mid-'76 when we get at least one per month. Lots of factors and a considerable amount of missing data, and what I think are bad entries (6-digit codes showing up as early as '87 and four-digit as late as '88). Lots of fun! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, some see the sizes of various parts of pyramids or lines on deserts as "proof" that aliens other than us humans have visited Earth. The point being there may be no pattern at all though it would be great if there was one. There was a lady, whose name I can't recall, who was the SFBC editor for the longest time. I wonder if she's still alive and could help with decoding the patterns though I understand the numbering comes out of Doubleday and not the SF book club. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be Ellen Asher, who holds the distinction as having held the position with one company as editor-in-chief longer than anyone in the history of sf publishing, edging out John W. Campbell's reign by a few months. I was able to get in touch with Andrew Wheeler who was an SFBC editor and supplied the lists to the usenet group which are the basis for our listing of those years when I wasn't in the club.  He said he would give Ellen the URL of the SFBC pages here on the ISFDB.  That's been about a month ago and I've not heard anything back. MHHutchins 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is true of the Gutter codes, but I think the jacket/catalogue #s would almost have to be from the book clubs. It would be interesting to know the numbers from ALL the clubs and then any patterns would be much more apparent. I'm not even sure how many clubs there were. SFBC, Crime, Horror....? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're correct about the other clubs being assigned numbers from the same pool. Here are the ones I can recall: The Literary Guild, the Junior Literary Guild (for children), Doubleday Book Club, the History Book Club, the Mystery Guild (earlier as the Crime Club), the Fireside Theatre (plays), the Military Book Club, International Collectors Library (classics in faux-leather and gild), the Stephen King Library, and the Science Fiction Book Club.  I don't recall there being one specifically for horror or fantasy. MHHutchins 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some Horror books listed by Locus as being SFBC, by King and a couple of others. I thought there must be a Horror club, though maybe the King Library has other authors represented? Whitley Streiber comes to mind. Clive Barker, Dean Koontz. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] The SFBC offers selections from all sub-genres of speculative fiction: fantasy, horror, techno-thriller, paranormal romance, and more, even some non-fiction. Since I've rejoined I've seen they even have a mini-catalog (part of their full catalog) called Altiverse which handles graphic novels, non-fiction art books and media tie-in pubs. As far back as when I joined originally, if any book had crossover appeal, it was usually made available to as many clubs as possible. In creating the SFBC list, I've tried to make sure that the selections were actually available through the club. These days if you're a member of any of the clubs you can get titles that are offered to every other club (through the website, not the mail catalog.) I'm not even sure if the Stephen King Library still exists, but all selections were by the man himself. It was handled almost like a subscription service. You join, get a discount for the first one or two books, then buy book club editions of King's books and quit after you've got all the titles you want. MHHutchins 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones I've seen listed were all from the late 80s for the authors I mentioned above. Other than the Locus listings I have no idea which club offered them. I remember lots of fantasy when I was a member ('84 - '90, if memory serves) but no horror. Wish now I had kept the flyers! Had them for a long time. Oh, well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

SFBC listings update
When you get a chance take a look at the SFBC selections for 2009.


 * WOW!!!! You have been busy! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Late nights or should I say early mornings. When a person retires it gets easier to stay up late (and harder to wake up early). MHHutchins 00:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't wait! Of course when I retire the Golf course will be home, but this far north that leaves six months for the hobbies! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This will give you some idea about what I'm aiming for with the other listings, especially those since the 90s. I've finally got the lists complete through 1999. That leaves 2000-2008 (about another year's work at this pace!) Those first four decades were easy when there was only 1-3 selections per month. For the past decade or so there's been eighteen offerings per year, with about ten selections per month, coming to almost 200 selections per year. The hard part is that my sources are drying up. I've still got the Locus online through 2006, but the usenet list ends in 2001 so there's no backup. And believe me, it's needed. When I was entering the nineties I found there were dry patches where Locus didn't list several titles. After 2006, I've got the hardcopy issues of Locus, but it's hard to determine when selections were actually published. For instance, in late 2007 into early 2008 there was a long stretch when there was no SFBC pubs in the Locus Books Received listing, followed by a single month when there's forty titles! When I get to 2007 and 2008, I may just have to list selections without a month. The SFBC website has been useful, but when a title is sold out, it's listing is removed from the website, not likely to be reprinted unless it's a big seller. The dates on the website will give the publication date of the trade edition, but these days the book club edition and trade edition are almost always simultaneous. Remember when you had to wait months for the cheap book club edition? Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts, and hope that you can lend a hand when you wrap up your current projects. That "Future Project" posted on your wiki page isn't just a tease? :) MHHutchins 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC) -
 * No teasing from this boy, at least not without some clear indication! I know virtually nothing of the SFBC past the mid '90s, but that won't prevent me from helping in any way I can. My "current" projects are slowly getting to the shelf, and a few future ones will be an hour here and there just to mix things up. I work best with book(s) in hand and with current verification changes and some really sparse/bad edits on much early stuff (I never used a template for about 500-1000 images) it will be some months before I can even get back to where I WAS about three-five months ago...... That being said, when you're ready to roll let me know and I will help as I can. Sounds like even getting a year done will be quite the undertaking! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently, what I need help with the most (and probably the easiest task) is linking the titles to the ISFDB records. I stalled in 1981 and never got around to finishing the remaining years, even though the titles are listed. (When I started the 2009 list, I forced myself to add the selection, create the record and link it to the list at the same time.) Also, I've discovered when I've finished 1999's listing that up to 25% of the selections have no ISFDB records at all!  I'm thinking there may have been a mass import of records from Locus1's 1984-1998 listing, but that anything after that was probably entered manually.  So records will have to created for those titles.  What I find is that by having several concurrent projects I always have something to turn to when one of them starts driving me nuts. Let me know before the Currey project sends you to Milledgeville (a phrase we use in Georgia, indicating the state mental health hospital). MHHutchins 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I worked in a mental health hospital the summer before going to University, in 1969. Currey could never send me that far, but it's close. I'm actually skipping some authors and plan to post on my page that I will scan those pages and send them to anyone willing to tackle them! Hope-Hodgson and Lovecraft come to mind, Derleth as well. I just don't do Horror and anything before 1940 is another millennium! In fact, I don't mind giving anyone a complete author IF they will do the whole list for that author. Anyway, adding the links is easy enough, just copy/paste. That would be a good hour to use at the end of the day. I have found even some early SFBC editions missing as I've been going through the DB and have been adding them, but still haven't done them all, for sure. I have quite a few notes accumulating as well, as when I'm on the hunt I look at ALL the SFBCs I find and scribble the gutter codes, jacket numbers, etc. on my list and haven't transcribed any of that as yet. This last Saturday I came across TWO SFBCs of STAR WARS and picked up two new gutter codes. The one was in FINE condition but a second printing (only $35). I digress.... shall start doing links later tonight. "Tis a just cause! Do I get a t-shirt??? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've stopped looking for my t-shirt to arrive, but I wonder what it would look like. Hopefully not that banner with the bug-eyed peach!  About the links, you can start with 1981 using the template links, which will be easier than those links that I used before the template was created.  (Still hate that lime green background though!) MHHutchins 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add, when you get a chance let me know of any missing titles. Or you can just add them to the listings as I have the pages on my watch list and will know when they've changed.  Something to keep in mind is that not all Doubleday's book club editions were offered by the SFBC and should be entered as "Publisher / BCE".  This would include such fringe genre books, usually those near-future thrillers and disaster novels (like The Glass Inferno) or some horror novels (like The Reincarnation of Peter Proud from the seventies when there was a larger divide between the sf and horror readership. MHHutchins 00:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do both when I remember! Up to '75 with notes.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's edition code
I'm not sure that Scribner's edition code should be place in the ISBN/Catalog # field as it is neither, and that placing it in the notes is sufficient. Your thoughts? MHHutchins 22:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin (Pulliam) started that with another Heinlein. He mentioned in a post to my page he was doing or will be doing a major Heinlein project to catalogue all the printings and bindings for the HC editions. I don't put this anywhere else. Check [this] page for what he's been adding. While it's not really correct, it doesn't do any harm either, and if that code is specific to one printing, isn't it the same thing as a catalogue #? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I rescind that last, as that code would apply to ANY book they published in that month.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that practice rubs hard against an unstated policy of using fields to record info other than what they're meant for. Marc Kupper tried using the date and publisher fields to record printing numbers and gave up the practice (although he didn't go back and remove those edits from records, which makes those pubs sometimes not appear on searches by publisher.) The listings of the Heinlein title which you link to looks OK, but I worry that someone might think these are catalog numbers.  And once ISBNs kick in, the codes are no longer listed, leading someone to possibly believe that the codes were no longer in use.  I'll go ahead and accept the submission, but will remain skeptical about the practice. MHHutchins 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you! Look at the DAW publisher page and there's all sorts of things by printing # that shouldn't be there. Makes them easy to find and 'fix' though! This Heinlein is the only one I've done like this, so will remove the code from the field. It was already in the notes. Maybe a copy of this discussion to Kevin? Are the codes still searchable if in the notes? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notes are only searchable if you have downloaded a local copy of the db and know how to write a script to search them. (I've yet to do the former and can't do the latter.) Feel free to ping Kevin to the conversation, but I don't plan to go any further into the discussion. I've discovered lately that my appetite for arguing has been extremely diminished by learning how little value there is in the sport.  I'll state my position and will refrain from being dragged deeper into the quagmire. MHHutchins 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Preaching to the choir on the "argument" line! How does one "download" a copy of the DB? And once you're done, how do you load it back so the work gets onto the "real" Db? Of course, that asks the obvious, when you do work "offline" do you accept your own submissions there as well? That would be a real reason to be a Mod.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Download a copy here. But you have to have certain programs on your computer (MySQL, for instance).  Any changes will only be to your copy, and I don't think you can make submissions en masse to the server.  I believe the main reason to download a copy is to run scripts for searches and to test software changes as the guys on the Development team are doing. A non-techie like me will sit on the sidelines, or even worse, be the waterboy. Albeit one with 100,000 moderated submissions. MHHutchins 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

-
 * As long as the water has a little Vodka.... and those kind of numbers make me dizzy! I think I'm just coming up on my first year and simply can't imagine doing nearly 10x of what I've already done..... of course if I ever get a hankering to describe every book as if an elephant to a blind man (á la Harry) it could be a long century..... (just joking, Harry!). Being a total non-techie, will leave the boys to play in their own sandbox. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer my water frozen, and mixed with Bourbon personally, though I will settle for whiskey. As for the Scribner's codes, I'm not overly attached to them, and I understand that they can and will be duplicated across Scribner's titles. The best example of where they help alot is Have Spacesuit - Will Travel where I've documented a fair number of the different codes. They really 'pop' when you look at the title listing and can see the printing codes cascade across the years. The funny thing is it wasn't even my idea. I found a couple listings where they were already there, and it made the title listing page so easy to read to find a particular printing it seemed silly not to use the catalog field where it was otherwise blank. (This being different from overloading just a portion of the date field). (shrug). As long as it's recorded in the notes, I'm copacetic.  Kevin 02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bourbon popsicles...... hmmmmmmm! I agree with how easy the codes make the printings easier to read. There has been sporadic talk about adding a printing field, but it's probably on a back burner somewhere. And while the Scribners' codes don't give printing number, the month/year is still worth recording them. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Three to Dorsai
Can you recheck the gutter code for your copy of this pub? Mine definitely has "R39" on page 532. (I saw that I'd not verified it until now, because on my first go round someone else had already verified it, and this was before more primary verifications were allowed. One of these days I have to do another go round to verify all my pubs.  Not this day.) Thanks. MHHutchins 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't wait too long... more than a few have 4 of 5 Primaries taken! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Most definitely "39 R" with the space. Will add the second to the field in the SFBC page if you want to add it to the pub? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can update the pub record with your gutter code. I should have figured that this was going to happen eventually.  Out of hundreds of pubs from 1958 to 1987 at least one title had to have differing codes for the first printing on the same press. We've already discovered a book published the same week but on two different presses, so with two different gutter codes. MHHutchins 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Flight of Dragons
Is this nonfiction, ? Thanks!Kraang 03:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Dickinson proceeds on the premise that dragons were real, but that's about as fictional as it gets. He explores and quotes all sorts of sources but it was NEVER a novel as the previous record indicated. He even quotes McCaffrey ! This was advertised by the SFBC as a companion piece to the Dragonriders McCaffrey books. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And the artwork is awesome! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask only because of this "The Flight of Dragons Ditmar Award, Best International Long Fiction". If it's nonfiction the other record should also be changed. Thanks!Kraang 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He does "speculate" on why there can't be any dragon fossils, but not sure that qualifies it as spectfic in our definition....? It isn't a novel, no matter what. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would call it non-fact, along the same line as Wil Huygen and Rien Poortvliet's Gnomes or Brian Froud and Alan Lee's Faeries. Art books disguised as speculative treatises (or vice versa). MHHutchins 03:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have such a category??? Wouldn't a lot of wiki discussions fall into that category?¿?¿ ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ill Met in Lankhmar (The SFBC Collection series)
Can you tell me that the publisher as stated on the title page of your copy of this book is the Science Fiction Book Club? An uneasy number of Abebooks.com dealers give the publisher as White Wolf, but I'm guessing there's some kind of acknowledgment such as "by arrangement with" because White Wolf held the publishing rights to Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser series. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Printed by arrangement with White Wolf Publishing…" The only mentions of the SFBC [as The Science Fiction Book Club Collection] are on the jacket and spine of the book and on the title page, no mention on the copyright page at all. Of the other five in the series [that I know of] all list the author and/or agent/agency as "arranged with". ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Image for BCE of Ellison's Shatterday
Is this image a good representation of your edition of Harlan Ellison's collection? It's very monochromatic, even for a Dillon work. My copy (the trade edition) has shades of pinkish-purple in the mask, the "real" face, behind the trees (mountains?), and the sun (planet-thing). The fly-thing has blue highlights. Everything else is in shades of black to grey. Also is yours a standard book club size (roughly 22cm) and quality? The trade edition is 24cm. If your cover doesn't match mine I'll scan and upload my copy's cover. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Both are trade editions, so both the same size and identical covers other than the backs. Scan was done before I knew how to play with the images and my first scanner tended to wash out the images. If yours is handy, go ahead. Mines is in arm's reach also.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember now why I did the image that way. The scanner doesn't see the grey as grey but as multi-colored wavy lines which simply won't go away. If you can get yours to scan properly, go ahead. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My scanner had the same problem with the wavy lines, no comprehende. So I did a little Paint Shop magic.  It looks better but can't seem to get the green out.  I left your image on file in case you want to revert it.  If not, I'll try again tomorrow.  See if I can doodle with some of the scanner settings.  Thanks. MHHutchins 05:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of Brunner's The Shockwave Rider
Can you re-check the gutter code of your copy of this title? I have it as "15R" in the SFBC listings, so I wanted to make sure it wasn't a typo on my part. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My copy is a later printing, "47R". I didn't put that number in the notes. Thing is it could be either! Sorry I can't be more help. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Loser{'s|s'} Night
User:Jonschaper wants to change to Losers' Night and the cover seems to agree. Can you confirm? BLongley 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He is quite correct! And I just had that one out to confirm the artist and didn't even notice the apostrophe..... of course they do tend to move when not watched closely! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Brunner's Altar
I'm holding two submissions to update this title. The first wants to change it from "The Altar at Asconel" to "The Altar on Asconel". This title has been verified for the magazine serialization, so I don't believe we should change it. The second submission doesn't make any changes. Looking this over, it seems to me that we need to reverse the variant/parent, in this case, as all book appearances were as "The Altar on Asconel" which should be the parent title. So I'm going to reject the submissions and do the variant reverse. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly! I submitted the title change with book in my face, then saw the magazine serial, all just with a year date! Brilliance on my part! Then, to compound the clarity I had thus achieved put the original title data, unchanged, as a separate submission to cancel/reverse the first submission! Again, brillliance!!!!! ......please shoot me...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't do that. I'd have nobody to help me with the SFBC listings.  I appreciate the work you're putting into linking and creating the missing pub records.  Starting with 1985 you can use the template for linking which is what I've been using in linking for the most recent years.  You should find it easier because all you have to enter is the record's tag (along with the template, of course.)  Wonder how we can go about changing that green background for the links. :) MHHutchins 04:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wear rose-tinted glasses¿?¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just suggest a better one. DES and I settled on such a revolting colour to provoke discussion, it's never been meant as a final solution. I'm surprised people have put up with it so long. BLongley 18:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tenth Planet
FYI, your verified Captain Future novel The Tenth Planet , which appeared as by Brett Sterling, was written by William Morrison rather than by Edmond Hamilton. A regular paycheck is nice when you are a freelancer, but what happens when you get sick?:) Ahasuerus 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An interesting tidbit... being a freelancer myself, in a completely unrelated field, of course, sick = no income. Those are good times as ones gets to catch up on all the important things that work gets in the way of! My story and I'm sticking to it! Between the heart surgery and the busted ribs it's been almost a year of catch-up. This winter I plan to r-e-l-a-x. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Intruder/Falcons of Narbadedla -- Question on Black and White?
Morning! This. . I have the 1972 printing and it is NOT "Black and White", instead it is "Black & White". Could you check this please? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch, Harry! It is indeed an ampersand and not an and, both TOC and story title page. I shall submit a change. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, It just bothered me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Del Rey (Canada)
I added this originally to distinguish them from the US priced version. They begin in late 1978 and end in 1988, the CDN printings before and after these years are identical to the US printings and I only mention the two printings in notes when I find them. Marc and I did the same thing with DAW books. The attached (Canada) makes it easier to find all the other known editions with the cover price in Canadian $'s.Kraang 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay! Reject the change. The pub didn't specify Del Rey (Canada). I think we three are about the only ones who do distinguish CDN editions with any regularity. Bless the Queen, or whatever the phrase is! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Transient Verifications
You mentioned you'd like to know where your Transient verifications are. I think I have a script that will do that, can you check these example results and see if it works? If so, then you should probably tell me where to put the other 1300 before I break this page entirely... BLongley 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1300?????? All the links I did look at found transients, so the script obviously works. I created a new page [here] that you could drop them on. That way I can link and delete as I go. Muchly appreciated! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, dropped. BLongley 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did several hundred and you may want to look at the script again. While it caught every transient that I have ever done, and in the order they were done. any that I had already caught and changed were still listed. If you ran the same script right now I would bet it would still show the same 1300, even though about a third have been changed. FYI as I'm sure the script is usable for any editor. Thanks again!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, I did indeed miss an "and v.ver_status = 1" from the script. Will fix. By the way, what does a Not Applicable for a Transient Verification mean? E.g. these three? BLongley 18:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Means I can't see a straight line....... and I call myself a carpenter..... hoo-boy!!! Fixed them. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Best of John W. Campbell On the Run The Rolling Stones

Science Fiction Worlds of Forrest J Ackerman & Friends
Found a cover for. BLongley 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And . BLongley 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Ackerman I don't even own. The Muller I just haven't got to yet to upload the cover. Think this cover's been used at least twice as I think I have another pub with it on. Nice clean images! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Ackerman means I can't see straight either. :-( You verified something about it, and I lost track. The other - yes, it looks awfully familiar. We need a "Pelmanism" thread somewhere. For things like this. BLongley 00:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was catching...! LOL!!! How do you get two images side by side like that? Would it work with the ACE Doubles? Lots I only have one copy of and would much rather post the images together. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On a Wiki page, just don't put any sort of newline/break between the image URLs. (Edit the example page to see how I did it.) So you could put Ace Double covers on each Publication's Wiki page easily. BLongley 19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I put the wiki page URL in the image field would the pub image show as the double image? I'm going to try that and see what happens!! Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that won't work. The image field needs just an image, not a whole page. BLongley 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bummer! Wonder if I could "capture" the two as one image back to my computer and then upload as usual? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work either. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That should: just print screen, paste into your favourite image manipulation program, crop, resize, upload. BLongley 19:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something... how can I print and then paste?? Printing does the images separately and I can't paste the page into my photo program?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're not a PC user? The Print Screen button just copies the screen to the clipboard, for use anywhere else. It doesn't require an actual print. I'm not sure how "capture" works on Macs or anything else. BLongley 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Think I found a way. My print screen gives me the option of PDF, which then gives me the option of moving to IPHOTO. So have created a double image!!! Lots of fun! Thanks!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Try it with this. BLongley 19:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DeCamp Ace Double
Do you intend to remove the link to the larger image for The Search for Zei in your submission updating this pub? It looks you wanted to add the OCLC numbers but the note with the link disappeared in your update. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Replaced the single image with a double one as I now have two copies, so the deletion was deliberate. ~bill, --Bluesman 00:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Time to Teleport / Delusion World (Dickson)
I've placed your submission on hold. I wonder if you could check the cover art artist: you are changing from Steve Hickman to Steven Hickman but I notice upon doing a search of the database that we also have a Stephen Hickman who seems to be an artist & has a lot more covers attributed than Steven. Are there 2 similar name artists? ...clarkmci/--j_clark 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't have added the "n" as the name on the cover is "Steve Hickman". Afraid I did that knowing his canonical was Steven or Stephen and went by memory instead of just checking the book. Don't remember all that was in the edit, but it's probably easier to just change it back. Your call. ~Bill, --Bluesman 07:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OCLC #. I'll fix. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Was in a bookstore today so checked out about a dozen Dickson covers and Hickman's first name was Steve, Steven, Stephen - take your pick! And these were books from roughly the same time frame. Guess he just couldn't make up his mind! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Enigma From Tantalus / The Repairmen of Cyclops
We seem to have verified to death now. I'd like to see both covers at once rather than show one and link to the other, so I've uploaded. Would you mind if I replaced the current image with that one? BLongley 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do prefer the side-by-side pictures but this one is pretty ratty. Is there any way to combine the two existing ones? I still can't get two images together in any format that isn't in the MB range. I am definitely leaning heavily to taking some classes in how to deal with pictures the way I WANT to, not just for uploading here, but for personal projects. The MAC is the preferred graphics platform, but only if you know how to use it. ~bill, --Bluesman 22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For a publication that's as old as I am, I thought it was pretty good. :-/ But yes, we can work with the best scans we have from any source and create a better image. Just needs someone with more interest in artwork to remove coffee-stains, cigarette-burns, pen-marks, etc. BLongley 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And when they've done that to me, they can work on the book-scans as well. :-) BLongley 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You still haven't found your cleaner??¿¿?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I'm afraid to search, just in case she's buried beneath a pile of "duplicate paperbacks to be swapped" or "fanzines to be catalogued". But it's been long enough that I think I would have noticed a smell of decomposition by now, so she's probably not here. However, I can't find several of my anthologies, so maybe she found a rarity or two, sold it and is living the life of Riley somewhere? BLongley 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, tell Riley to send her back! Coffee stains are really hard to remove once set! Whether in parchment or skin! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all my coffee stains are internal now. Changes at work have reduced us from having four on-site Starbucks, to three, to two, to none - we still have two coffee-bars but they're now serving some sort of Fair-Trade coffee that tastes slightly worse. But you can still buy coffee in big ostentatious cups to prove you don't have to drink the pretty-acceptable free coffee from the vending machines. Personally, I'm following doctor's advice to cut down - the breakfast coffee now lasts me all day. BLongley 21:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that sames to be the first pub with all Five Primary Verifications filled now, unless you know different? Bit of a milestone I guess. BLongley 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seen a few verified four times, none five until now. Just need someone to fill in the transient.....! ~bill, --Bluesman 22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost there: who are "Bleiler" and "Reginald" anyway? BLongley 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bleiler did a book in 1934 that was kind of the pre-cursor to Tuck. Not sure exactly what the '78 version adds or corrects. As to Reginald, Mike uses that sometimes so he could probably answer. I just looked them all up in the HELP to find out when they cover to and tick the N/A for any pubs newer than that. ( HELP does note a 2002 update for CLUTE/GRANT but isn't very specific about the scope). The only source we have that is always current is OCLC, though it's hard to sift through the chaff there at times. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just kidding - Bleiler and Reginald (and Tuck, etc) are well credited in Clute/Nicholls. I have Clute/Grant somewhere as well, might be the 2002, but I prefer Primary Research, and Science Fiction over Fantasy, so it's almost unused. If you see me doing a lot of Clute/Nicholls or Clute/Grant verifications, you'll know I'm unwell, confined to bed with a few books and internet access only. Which seems quite a pleasant prospect really, over being mobile but going through a PCI-DSS assessment. :-/ BLongley 20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazon misinformation for The Best of Arthur C. Clarke
Thought I'd better tell you I've reworked. I removed the image - it was of the paperback that I've just acquired. Even without that, the major clue was that "1937-1955" is not the same as "1937-1971". I've notified Amazon of the error as well. I removed the Chris Foss artist credit too as we don't really know who did the S&J cover - I suspect whichever abebooks source you used was propagating Amazon misinformation. Your note also mentioned taking the price from an abebooks listing - but there wasn't a price on the pub? I found one at The British Library, so have used that instead. I have left the month of publication as from Amazon UK, as I've not yet found that to be totally inaccurate if they get the year right. BLongley 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of a massacre, but the contents still look good and the cover, artist, and price are minor details in comparison - I just don't want you to trust Amazon quite so much! BLongley 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't trust Amazon.com at all. The UK site seems much more accurate for dates. Every once in a while a massacre is what's needed..... ! ~bill, --Bluesman 20:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I too suspect Amazon UK is a little better, but I wouldn't trust their Publisher info at all (although they often have the correct data in the title - go figure!), and if they get the year of publication wrong the month and day is almost certainly wrong too. I'm still not sure about whether when they get the year right, the month is right. Month of January, especially with day of "1" I always mistrust - it's only recently that Amazon UK allowed you to enter less precise dates like we do, so people were rather forced to give a date of "Correct Year / Default January / Default 1st of Month" even if they had a primary reference for at least part of the date. I personally don't add any data from Amazon.anywhere unless it's going to be viewed as untrusted, which thankfully seems to be the default here. (ZZZZZZZ images and all that.) BLongley 21:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How true! I'm amazed at how much work publishers must do just before X-mas to get all those books out on the 1st of January... when the stores are closed.... Of course that seems to be for everything prior to 1975 when they didn't have computers to TELL them the stores were closed!!! ;-)  ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It almost feels like Amazon UK acquired a fairly good set of old publisher catalogs at one point, so much of their pre-1994 data is surprisingly accurate. The rest varies, although it tends to be somewhat better that Amazon.com. Ahasuerus 03:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Godmakers
I approved the addition of the OCLC number to the Putnam edition of The Godmakers, but I am curious about the following line:

LCCCN: 74-186649 [this has to be a misprint]

Do you think that it's a misprint because the publication date is 1972 while the LCCN code stars with 74? If so, keep in mind that it wasn't uncommon for LCCN numbers to be a few years off back in the 1970s. In this case the Library of Congress catalog confirms the LCCN, although it spells the title "The God Makers". Ahasuerus 03:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely why I put the note there... also before I found out that the LOC sometimes assigned numbers well after publication. I'll go back and delete the note. They are right about the title, too. Guess when one blows it might as well go all the way!!! ~bill, --Bluesman 03:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Outbound -- Inteview subject/authorship question(s)
In your verified, is the Interview, conducted by Thomas Harbach for PHANTASTISCH 2004 by both Harbach and McDevitt, or is McDevitt the interviewee? If the former, what author is the subject of the interview? Thanks. --MartyD 11:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely McDevitt is the Interviewee and Harbach the Interviewer. I seldom ever enter one, so not surprised to get it wrong. Think my problem was not realizing one has to create the interviewee field, it's not already there, which seems odd... sometimes the interviewer is not known (magazines don't always say who's conducting it from their end) but can't ever recall an interview where one didn't know who was being asked the questions....? I'll shall correct it~ Good catch and I learned something. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sturgeon's Aliens 4
In your verified publication of you link to The original version of "Killdozer!". Other pubs link to The revised version of "Killdozer!". Does your pub have the original, or the revised, version? I understand the differences are largely at the very end of the story. -DES Talk 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of a revision and the stories in the '59 and the '70 are the same length. Last page of each reads the same. I guarantee the story 'link' was there before I verified the pub. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Great Kladnar Race in The Infinite Arena
I noticed you Contento + OCLC verified, and it contains two variations of "The Great Kladnar Race", one of which is marked DEL. I don't know if it's your doing, but do you have an opinion about removing it even if not? --MartyD 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually keep notes to go back on these. Missed this one. I picked up the SFBC edition which has the story as by Silverberg and Randall, no mention of Greer. Doubt Doubleday would change the credit from the trade so changed it to match. Contento notes it as by Greer in the trade but they often miss how it's noted in the book and go by original magazine credits. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

David H. Keller
Keep in mind that you can't add Chapterbook and Anthology publications to Shortfiction Titles. Well, technically you can, but Bad Things (tm) will happen :) Also, author mismatch is a bad thing as well, so we shouldn't be adding "David H. Keller" titles to "David H. Keller, M.D." titles and vice versa. When in doubt, it's always safer to enter a new record and then do the necessary merging and set up VTs after the submission is approved.
 * I did not know that about adding to shortfiction! I usually try to add a new pub where the variant is already done.... few conflicts, then. I still don't get how the "M.D." should even be a part of his name, much less be a pseudonym. I can 'do' the dance, but it has no rhythm I can follow. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, Chapterbooks are now "container" publications similar to Collections and Anthologies, so we need to enter Shortfiction Titles as well as Chapterbook Titles when creating Chapterbook publications. This will become much easier when we add the long-awaited "Add Chapterbook" option. Ahasuerus 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can hardly wait.......... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kneale's The Year of the Sex Olympics
I accepted the submission updating this pub but wonder about assigning story lengths to each piece. If they are teleplays as the title implies they probably shouldn't be designated as novella or novelette, but simply remain "shortfiction". MHHutchins 03:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought about that, too. One already had a length assigned so flipped a coin and went with that. I just tried to import the contents from Tomato Cain to the Knopf and it comes up with a "Python" error "tuple index out of range" ????? I'll go back and remove the lengths on the plays. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The only Python I know has the first name "Monty" so I can't help you there. Let me try.  MHHutchins 04:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tried it with the pub tag and it worked, but the number 812945 wouldn't work. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I see. 812945 is the title record #, not the publication record #. You can't clone contents from a title only from a pub. MHHutchins 04:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like it worked on your second try. Still don't know what the problem was.  I try to stay out of tuple's way. MHHutchins 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed an error. The Bowen introduction must have already been a part of the Knopf edition, 'cause when you imported the contents from the Collins edition is was duplicated, even though it's not visible in the pub record display. Take a look at this and you see it's listed twice for the Knopf edition.  It will have to be removed.  Weird thing is, you have to remove it entirely and add it back again (do that in one submission).  Then merge it with the Collins record.  The lesson to learn here (and believe me I learned it though trial and error), if you're importing contents from another pub, remove all the current contents that are the same.  Otherwise you have this situation to deal with. MHHutchins 04:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rats!! Waited to import to avoid any merges....... sigh..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You only have to merge one record: the Bowen introduction. I thought you created the Knopf edition, so I wonder how it already had the Bowen introduction.  Another thing, I Tuck-verified both editions, adding the prices for both, and noting that Tuck gives only the contents of the US edition without stating that there are differences in the two.  Also, I wonder that you call the Bowen piece an introduction. Both OCLC and Tuck give it as a foreword.  Even though we can't be sure exactly what the piece is called, I would lean toward "Foreword".  Was there another reason for titling it "Introduction"?  Thanks. MHHutchins 04:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the only thing there in BOTH editions. Just left it the way it was. The difference in the contents I got from Currey: he's selling the US edition on AbeBooks and noted the story differences in his ad. OCLC has the different contents as well, and does call Bowen's piece a foreword. This is going to be another one of those pubs I'll never see the end of, right?¿?¿ ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we've reached the end of the tunnel. But don't look back at that fast approaching train.  (Just kidding, it looks in fine shape.) I see now how the introduction was duplicated (because it was the only content record in both pub records.) Just remember the next time to remove any common titles before you import from another record.  With importing you can't pick and choose.  You get the whole box of toys.  MHHutchins 04:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The World of Null-A  -  Third edition check please
Morning! This. . How is this different from this. . Does your ver have the second's date with Third printing below that? I have a fourth printing with a differeing date and ISBN, but am wondering if the copyright page formatting is confusing? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one, my ver. is the third printing of the revised edition, whereas the second one IS the revised edition (unstated first printing). Mine has "Third Printing" (without a date or mention of a second printing) below the  "Berkley Medallion Edition, MARCH, 1974". Covers and prices the same so there must have been small print runs in a short time. The [second] printing is already verified with the same "Edition" date as mine. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I am following this correctly, the first revised edition is 1970, the second and third printings are "March, 1974" with my fourth printing with the same format as yours but showing "Berkley Medallion edition, January 1977". I think they used a printing date edtion with "Second, third, fourth printing" spaced below it. Check the sequence on the and see if it makes sense to you. In any case, it is how it looks to me, not an expert, but I think I see the sense of it. Kind of a curve ball pitch. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by the copyright dates, the printings seem to flow as you have stated. Not quite what we would want, but there 'tis.... Still leaves the third printing without a date, though I think the second printing that has the 0000-00-00 is = the March '74 record. Unfortunately it's the only one unverified. Always the way! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nightmares of the Classical Mind in Dancing With Myself
I just submitted a merge of "Nightmares of the Classical Mind", which appears in your verfified. The merge normalized "Of The" -> "of the", added the month, and most importantly changed the length from ss to nt. The page count in this pub and in suggest it is borderline ss/nt. If you have a strong contrary opinion, let me know. --MartyD 11:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave up on lengths a while back. Short of an actual word count, the same page count can mean different things from a hardcover to a paperback to type size/margins....                                                                                    When in doubt I just look up the story on Locus. (Which has the length as novelette!! Congratulations, young paduwan, you have won an all-expenses paid week for one in sunny Death Valley!!)  ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Goblins of Labyrinth
I'm holding the submission that wants to unmerge a publication from this record. I think it's because you wanted to create a variant for the 20th anniversary edition. I'm not sure if this warrants a variant, as it appears to be the same book with a few more paintings and a new afterword. What do you think? Because most of the titles were simply The Goblins of Labyrinth I made the title record match them. Also, the NOVEL type doesn't appear to be quite right. It looks like an art book with text based on the movie, like The World of the Dark Crystal another book by Froud that's typed as NONFICTION. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I had intended, but figured if I didn't unmerge, make variant, all that, it would be the wrong way. Can't seem to win with variants. The original pub, the 20th Anniversary one was as a novel. I wouldn't call it non-fiction, but what else is there? All this to get something to link into the SFBC page for this book! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it can appear very subjective about when a variant should be created... and it really shouldn't be. As it currently stands, there's two changes that DEMAND a variant: a different author credit, and a change in the title.  Some editors think the latter includes the addition of a subtitle.  I don't, but I don't argue.  Some editors think a variant should be created for a change in text, but the database really doesn't support that.  The only way this works is if they add parenthetical titles like (revised) or (19XX version), which I overlook but don't do personally. Once/If/When the database can handle variants based on text, these will have to be updated.  Till then, just look at those two factors: change in author, change in title.  As always, here on the ISFDB, there are exceptions, but if you follow that rule you can't go wrong.
 * Wanna bet!!! There seems no end to the ways I can get variants wrong... and without even trying!!! Imagine if I concentrated.... maybe don't..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-fact non-fiction rears it's ugly head again. What can I say? My personal rule in the cases of these art books, do they tell a story with plot and character.  If not, they're non-fiction. If so, they're fiction.  You can come up with your own set of rules.  I don't think the "help" pages are going to "help" you. MHHutchins 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DeFord's Elsewhere
I see you verified this record based on Contento's listing (maybe created it as well.) I've been unable to find any copy of a Ward & Lock edition of this book, either on OCLC, BLIC or Abebooks.com. Funny this is, Contento doesn't even list the Walker & Co. edition, making me suspect that he somehow confused the names of the publisher. What do you think? MHHutchins 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, those two stories are not in the Walker edition either. I wonder if they're listed in the acknowledgments of that edition. MHHutchins 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember creating that record and thought at the time exactly as you do here, but no way to prove it, other than ask Bill Contento to re-check? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Date of Mr. Jinx in Unknown Worlds
I changed the date on "Mr. Jinx" in your verified from 1988 to 1941-08-00 and made it a variant of the same title by Arthur and Brown. The Locus1 contents list cites the first publication as the Aug '41 Unknown (which had the dual authorship credit). --MartyD 02:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Science Fiction
I just fixed the Bookscans.com cover for and noticed the cover Serial Number doesn't match our Catalog ID. Can you check your sources again please? BLongley 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does match the ID#.....???? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Mike fixed the typo on the ID#, no conflicting sources here, just dyslexic fingers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Prospero One authorship in The Hunters of Pangaea
In your verified (and Locus1-verified), is the authorship of "Prospero One" just Baxter, or is it also credited to Simon Bradshaw? Other printings of that story credit both, and the Locus contents list does likewise. Thanks. --MartyD 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The only mention of Bradshaw is in the acknowledgements section, nothing in the table of contents or story title page. But then the copyright is for both authors....... and Baxter isn't mentioned in the ToC or the story title pages either, for any of the stories. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, seems like enough of an excuse to merge it with the dual-credited one instead of making it a variant. I will do that.  Thanks for checking on it.  --MartyD 10:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

F&SF #6
My copy of this book, with the same LCCCN has "The Shoddy Lands" on page 158 instead of 159.--swfritter 14:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And so does mine! Change/correction submitted. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad we are on the same page (horrible pun intended).--swfritter 12:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Astounding SF Anthology
My copy of this pub lists the author of Invariant as John Pierce rather than John R. Pierce.--swfritter 14:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite correct. Both TOC and title page. Is this the only place it's credited with the "R"? No point keeping a variant if it's not necessary. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the only place.--swfritter 12:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Checked out all the editions and every one has "as by John Pierce". Does that mean I can just change this one to match or will that affect the canonical? ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would affect the canonical. I will go ahead and fix it. There are a number of different ways but what I am going to do is add the title with the correct name to the pub, remove the title with the incorrect name from the pub and go from there. Thanks.--swfritter 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! For you it's a quick fix, for me two submissions. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fire Past the Future
The submission updating this pub added a bullet point, but nothing else. Perhaps you intended to add the OCLC number? MHHutchins 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops! Fixed ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Avalanche Soldier
Your recent edit to appeared to make no changes at all. I approved it, but please check to make sure that the changes you intended were made. -DES Talk 23:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An html error so the change wasn't visible. Fixed. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ole Doc Methuselah
I changed the pagenumbers in this verified pub for the stories "Ole Mother Methuselah" (from 7 to 164) and "Ole Doc Methuselah" (from 164 to 7) to get them in the right order. Thanks Willem H. 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

nowiki and template examples
When creating an example to show someone how to use a template, you can show the opening and closing braces by using the nowiki tag. For example:

 

Edit this section to see how this is typed in.

Note that a nowiki tag must be matched by a later /nowiki tag, or it will turn off all wiki formatting form there on.

I mention this because after your note to him, User:Mjparker0 uploaded an image with a C3 tag without opening or closing braces. Exact examples seem to work best with some users.

I hope this is helpful. -DES Talk 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mike had already done one that way so I looked at how he did it. Stating that I had deliberately removed the brackets was all I knew to do to show the method/template. Hopefully Mr. Parker won't think we're hammering him. I know how daunting the first few months can be. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect having seen your more recent message, he didn't read mike's at all. Remember this is ther same user who earlier followed the template documentation pages by leaving in the angle brackets -- he entered something like


 * I also hope Mr. Parker doesn't feel hammered. I am trying to be as polite and helpful as possible, and not to send more messages than are needed for the situation. -DES Talk 17:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

People of Pern
Please recheck the link for the back cover of this pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Think I fixed it?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. MHHutchins 19:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Untold Stories
When I saw this anthology had no contents, the Sherlock Holmes in me went investigating, never even thinking you might be doing the same. Sorry for stepping all over your submission. I've been able to find the complete authors name as well from various sources, including Google Books for some. MHHutchins 16:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at this Spanish translation of the book! MHHutchins 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was copying as fast as I could... knew/felt you were on the trail!! Doesn't that cover look eerily like Emilio Estevez??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah! But that one has a brain! (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) MHHutchins 16:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen that cover before, too! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd have a great time going through some foreign-language websites, recognizing all the cover art that was used for different books in the US. MHHutchins 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanctuary in the Sky -- artist credit
Your of Sanctuary in the Sky / The Secret Martians, credits the cover for Sanctuary in the Sky to. But on which you are primary2, Credits. Is it possible that these are the same artist? I ran into this handling categories for wiki images. -DES Talk 23:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything is possible... After again attempting to decipher the signature (no success) I am more tempted to eliminate the credit altogether. It's not like just a letter or two that isn't clear, I can't get anything from multiple scans. Think the AIL credit is more hallucination than substance. The only two hits on Google of Gogot reference back to the AIL and Gogos gets no hits. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ARRGH! Well when there is no data, there is no data. Thanks for checking. -DES Talk 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is
 * Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos, ISBN 1887591710 listed on amazon with some interesting "Look inside" data"
 * Book publisher's site
 * Basil Gogos on Wikipedia
 * www.basilgogos.net (a truly poorly designed site, IMO)
 * These may be of some help. Unfortunately, according to OCLC, the nearest Library to me with a copy of the book in in NYC. -DES Talk 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately these don't solve much. The Gogot/Gogos credit for the ACE is still just fog. You're right about that site.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Groff Conklin's Omnibus of Science Fiction
Could you check your verified pub for the following • The Choice • (1952) • shortstory by Wayland Hilton-Young • The Doorbell • (1934) • shortstory by David H. Keller, M.D. • Trigger Tide • (1950) • shortstory by Wyman Guin [as by Norman Menasco ] My copy has W. Hilton-Young, David H. Keller, and Wyman Guin. If they are listed as such in your copy, let me know and I will fix them.--swfritter 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Our copies match exactly; acknowledgements, TOC and story title pages all have the authors' names as directly above. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Changes made. Thanks.--swfritter 12:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Day of the Ness
OK, I've just fixed the Chapterbook, now you want to add an Anthology to the Shortfiction? What's the plan? BLongley 18:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Plan? Surely you jest! I completely forgot about not adding to shortfiction. Not sure what you mean about fixing the chapterbook? No anthology intended, just what came up with the creation of the new pub. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Chapterbook now exists as a book, with a shortfiction content. You can add another publication to that if that's the intent, and I'll reject the Anthology submission. BLongley 19:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gotcha! Will do. Since Chapterbooks are "official" now, do we have a definition/guideline as to what qualifies? That way in future, assuming the sieve that is my memory holds onto something, I can 'fix' the appropriate ones? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitions and guidelines? Now who's dreaming? :-/ BLongley 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment, I'm adding a CHAPTERBOOK content title to things that have been called CHAPTERBOOK publications but don't have a Chapterbook title record yet. That will create the 'book'. If it's really a chapterbook but it's been entered as a NOVEL, I convert the NOVEL publication and content to CHAPTERBOOK and add the SHORTFICTION (and ESSAY, INTERIORART, etc) entry or entries as needed. This might need additional merges afterwards. (Actually, adding CHAPTERBOOK contents might need merges as well, see Pulphouse Short Stories where there was often a special hardcover/leatherbound edition too - only merge the CHAPTERBOOKs with each other though, NOT with the SHORTFICTION.) BLongley 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's a novel that just isn't long enough to win an award (juveniles, older books) I leave it alone until one of the lengthists complains. BLongley 19:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would include 75%+ of most pubs pre-1970!!! Will attempt to be discerning. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Prices in OCLC
If you look at Help:Using Worldcat data you will find that it says "Original Price (Under 'Vendor Info:' Without currency symbol)". Note that this field is not displayed through the "Public" Worldcat interface, only through the "First Search" interface. Our link to this interface seems not to be working at present -- in the past its URL has changed, and it is not guaranteed to be available. Officially, First Search is only supposed to be available to people physically at a OCLC member library, or using a special account provided by a member library. -DES Talk 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The FirstSearch "back door" site was taken down a few days ago, this time apparently permanently. Ahasuerus 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Too bad, that would fill a lot of holes! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OCLC's data ultimately comes from libraries (although they massage it in various ways) and we could fill a lot of holes by interrogating library catalogs -- which are, in many cases, available online -- directly. Unfortunately, it's not easy to get to that data even though it's freely available. Our choices are:
 * pay for programs like BookWhere ($100/year for their "lite" version, a couple thousand dollars for a full featured one), or
 * use somewhat unstable and slow free Web search engines like Singla, or
 * write own own software
 * It so happens that I have been working on a system that talks to library catalogs, downloads their SF data and creates ISFDB submissions from it (in my plentiful spare time). At the moment that effort is on hold since I am busy trying to improve our core software while other developers are mostly unavailable. Once more developers become available and/or the core ISFDB software is more stable, I will re-start my work on LIAM (Library Information Acquisition Module). Ahasuerus 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That will be sweet! Then we could charge for access and have a yearly beer-bash!!! :-) :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Chapterbooks
I'm holding some of your submissions concerning chapterbooks which I'll get back with you about tomorrow. Tonight I'm going to take a break. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all atingle with anticipation! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're aware of the software change that allowed the creation of chapterbooks as container-type records: novel, collection, anthology type pub records can contain contents, like stories, essays, etc. when shortfiction records can't.  Previously the chapterbook type was just like the shortfiction type. We have to convert the previous chapterbook records from the non-containing record type into a container-type record.  The record for Outside is currently a shortfiction record (a content).  Your submission wants to change it into a chapterbook record (a container).  Because this story appears as both an individual book and as one of the stories in a collection, we have to leave the record as a shortfiction record.
 * Looking at Outside, the book, I see that it has not been completely converted to the new container type.  It's title reference record is the shortfiction record, and it should have a chapterbook record as its title reference.  If "Outside", the story, only appeared as Outside, the book, I could accept your submission (making the shortfiction record into a chapterbook record), but we'd still have to add a content record for the story itself.  But because "Outside", the story, also appears in Moon Mirror, the book, we can't do that, otherwise Moon Mirror would contain a chapterbook, impossible now that a chapterbook is a book, not a content.  Whew, making myself dizzy here!
 * So, how to complete the conversion of Outside the book into a chapterbook: Go to the pub record here, choose "Edit this pub", go down to contents (skipping the two current records) and choose "add title", complete the title and author fields, choose "Chapterbook" as the type, leave the other fields blank, then submit. You'll need to do the same for the UK reprint of the book.  Hope this makes clear how chapterbooks work now.  There are probably still dozens of chapterbooks that haven't been completely converted.  (There's a list somewhere that editors could work from.) Now stop tingling and get to work. :) MHHutchins 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My tingle faded quickly to a throb - as in headache - how does adding a duplicate contents entry (other than the designation) turn a pub already with the type Chapterbook into ... 'more' of a chapterbook? All of the publications that deserve this type appear somewhere in a collection. I don't get it. It may be what the current DB set-up requires but I still don't get it................. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You can see a detailed description at ISFDB:Chapterbook cleanup. In general a "proper" chap(ter) book will have three things: a type CHAPTERBOOK title record, a type CHAPTERBOOK publication record, and a type SHORTFICTION title record. This is very much like an anthology, which always has a type ANTHOLOGY title record, a type ANTHOLOGY publication record, and several SHORTFICTION title records. Most of the "incorrect" chapterbooks have only two of the three records needed. The trick is to add the missing one. The three are all needed because: a) the CHAPTERBOOK publication record represents a specific printing of the chaptebook -- the think in hand; b) the CHAPTERBOOK title record links multiple printings (if there are such) or editions of the chapterbook together; and c) the SHORTFICTION title record identifies the actual work of fiction, and links the chapterbook with other publications of the shortfiction, such as in a collection or anthology. I hope that helps a bit. -DES Talk 22:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, DES' explanation is as comprehensive as we have in our bag of tricks, so I am not sure how to make it more clear. Perhaps Bill (Longley)'s diagrams explaining the relationship between pubs and titles might help? Ahasuerus 23:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure either. There just seem to be certain aspects of this whole process that, for me, just draw blanks. Variants, for sure, and now chapterbooks. As I have pointed out somewhere, I can do the dance (at least for variants and mostly with many missteps) but I don't understand it. It would take ten minutes of sitting with a keyboard/screen/tutor and I would get it, but it just doesn't 'present' without one element. The 'Help' pages always read like a bad english translation of the Japanese. The most succinct explanations here, though well-intentioned and welcomed, cause my eyes and brain to simply glaze. I don't get it, hate it, want to learn it, but just get so frustrated by what seems so simple.....  it escapes me. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry my attempt to explain what is going on was not helpful. If you like, we could try to arrange a date for working together over the telephone, both at a computer. That is the closest I can think to come to an in-person tutor with the screen. would you like to try to set that up? If not, I'll try to reword my explanation, and link to some examples. I would really like to help make things clearer to you. Let me know what you would prefer, if anything. -DES Talk 23:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I await your choice, or will let this drop if you prefer. -DES Talk 03:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Took me a couple of minutes to find this! One thing about "New Messages" is there's no way of knowing which thread they are in. Hope no-one ever leaves one on my archived pages. Background: I am a carpenter (finishing). I never build the same thing twice. If I build something and the color/stain needs changing that doesn't make the piece different, just a different color. Once built the design is simply eliminated from memory (not the techniques, just the plans). To translate, doing editing is like building the same box over and over. The nuances (variants and chapterbooks) are just fog if I don't do them often. I sort of had a handle on variants when I went through my anthologies and now I can't think my way through one if my life depended on it. Chapterbooks will be the same. Simply the way my wiring works. If I don't use it I lose it and I do mean in short order. I really appreciate all the help I get and all the offers of help. We could do a 'tutorial' and if I didn't use it for a week... poof! I'm still at a loss why chapterbooks even exist as a category. I can't figure out why just because some publisher/editor missed an initial ( or, heaven forbid, a period after an initial) suddenly it's a pseudonym. The extent to which some editors will go to create a variant for the sake of a punctuation mark boggles the mind. Of course it's kind of forced when the search engine for the DB is about as intuitive as a bagel. Short story: just let it drop. Appreciate the offer! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and there are a number of stories that were published only in chapterbooks, never in any collection or anthology. In a sense a chapterbook is a one-story collection. -DES Talk 22:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Sorry, it wasn't my intention to start this discussion and walk away. I was taking a break the last couple of days and came back to discover the results. I fully understand there are certain areas in the process that would be hard to grasp if I didn't do it on a continuous basis. Sometimes we moderators can forget that, and are surprised that editors don't catch on as quickly as we would like them to. And none of us want to force editors into doing anything they are not fully comfortable with. I apologize if it appears that way. I've completed the process to make Norton's Outside into a true chapterbook. BTW, DES, I like your definition of a chapterbook being a "one-story collection" and will steal that for the next time I try to explain them. (See, Bill, we all remain on the uphill side of the learning curve. It's just that for some of us it's steeper!) Thanks. MHHutchins 05:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you said "Let it drop", but before we give up on you, (other) Bill, can you have a look at http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Fixing_Chapterbooks and see if that helps? BLongley 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New image upload process
As one of our most (mostest?) active uploaders, you may want to review this announcement :) Ahasuerus 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tried it once already and it takes one to a new window. When I upload an image I use copy/paste as often as I can but by being in a single window I can't bounce back and forth to fill in fields (artists) or title if it needs editing as none of my tabs show in the new window. I'll try it a few more times to see if I can figure out a way to make it as fast as how I do them now. Like the idea, just need to work on the functionality of the process. Even 10-15 seconds per image adds up when I do hundreds in any given week. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When editing in two windows at the same time -- which happens very often -- I typically use "Alt-Tab" to go back and forth. Is this functionality available in your browser/operating system? Ahasuerus 03:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know. My tabs all show at the top of the window and I can go back and forth with a click (all are active). I'll try it. Not sure if it will just go back to the last tab visited and I usually have 16-18 up at any given time. "Control-Tab" works from THIS window but not from a separate window. And it just defaults to the first tab on the bar. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hitting Control-Tab repeatedly should cycle through all tabs within the current window. Hitting Alt-Tab should take you to the last open window. Hitting Alt-Tab again should take you back to the window you were in to begin with. Also, what operating system (Windows? Mac?) and browser (Firefox 2? Firefox 3? Internet Explorer 8?) are you using? They handle tabs and windows somewhat differently and I don't have a way of testing all possible permutations. Ahasuerus 15:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OSX 10.5.8; Safari 4.0.3 and Alt-Tab does not bring one back to the existing tab. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what's going on! It turns out that OSX doesn't let you use Alt-Tab to switch between windows, but you can cycle through all open (and not minimized) windows using Command-Tab, where "Command" is the key with the Apple symbol on it. I don't have an OS 10 computer to try it, but it seems like it may help. There may also be other quirks associated with Safari (we had some when we put the current version of the Web site together), but I am not really familiar with it. I should probably download it one of these days just to see what it looks like... Ahasuerus 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what browser you are using, but if it's Firefox, you can go under Options, then Tabs and check the "Open new Windows in a new tab instead" checkbox. Something similar may be available in Internet Explorer, but I don't have a current version loaded on any of my computers to check. Ahasuerus 04:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Found that option but it doesn't work for this. Did find that I can use 'Control-click' on the link and that opens the page in a tab in the current window. Too bad this has to be opened in each case or I would just keep it as an open tab to replace the current upload page that I always have open. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Control-click is a known way to do it, but "Open new Windows in a new tab instead" should also work. Something is not right here, but I am afraid I can't diagnose it remotely :( Ahasuerus 15:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do have that "Open in a new tab" option checked, but it doesn't seem to work with this link without using control-click. Just uploaded a newer version of Safari a few days ago and lost a couple of keyboard functions; maybe it may have worked with the old version (and I may revert anyway, not really happy with the look of the new version). I had not used that option before as all my available visible tabs are always used and any new ones are off the screen. Even to make this work I'll have to keep one tab space vacant. By keeping the upload page open all the time I have to do little typing as the template is always there. This will work well when I already have an image (when I'm uploading from my own books) but when I'm looking for an image it's not quite the same process. I use the data in the pub record, copied and pasted into the search boxes of various sites, and I find that easier from the edit page than the record page. It will be a mixed usage for me for now. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Explorers
Hi Bill, can you check the title of the afterword in your copy of this pub? I own the second printing, and there the title is "About C.M. Kornbluth". Can I change the title or should it be a parent/variant construction? Thanks, Willem H. 09:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Morning! Mine is the same as yours, so no varianting required. Change away! ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the title and added a note to the pub about the coverartist. Thanks, Willem H. 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wandering Stars - Geo. or George
Your verified pub. Geo. Alec Effinger? If Geo. I will fix it up.--swfritter 13:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Geo. in all places. Just noticed the note on the story title page that this one is original to this collection. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to Geo. Thanks.--swfritter 12:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg and re-uploads
When you upload a new version of an image, as you did with Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg the upload comment does NOT overwrite the image description, but merely is a change comment. If the permanent file description, including the license tag (template) needs to be changed, then you must separately edit the image page. This is unlike the initial upload, where the upload comment becomes the initial image description (until and unless it is alter edited). Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki mentions this. I have edited STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg but take a look at. -DES Talk 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

cover change to Star Ka'at
I presume you recent edit, adding the cover Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg to was a mistake. The edit also set "Bernard Colonna" as the cover artist. I have the edit on hold. -DES Talk 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Most definitely. I did not do it that way. All the data from the previous upload transferred when it was overwritten. Most strange. Fixed the data through the upload log. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * see the section above. -DES Talk 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I now see you have reverted the image, was it the change to that was an error and needs to be corrected? -DES Talk 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember that a publication record holds only an image URL. If you change the image on the wiki, as it seems to me that you did, you will automatically change the image displayed on the pub record. -DES Talk 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you reverted the change to the wiki image, the edit to Star Ka'at appears to give the correct result. I am going to approve it, and you can asses which records need correction afterwards. -DES Talk 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Approved. -DES Talk 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Both are fixed. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that they aren't. You currently have both publications pointing to Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg. This cannot be the correct cover for both pubs (unless something very unusual happened, which i doubt). You have switched the image back and forth on the wiki page a couple of times, but this has the effect of fixing one publication and breaking the other at the same time. You will need to choose which publication Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg is to be for, and change the image on the other one to point to a newly uploaded copy of the correct image. Actually with the various versions already on the site, i can probably fix things if you want, or you can do it yourself. I will await your response as to which course you want to take. -DES Talk 22:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The correct image I uploaded for Star Ka'at is gone. Not even in the upload log anymore. It was there only a few minutes ago and now it's just gone. Too weird. I'll reload. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is completely insane. Uploaded from scratch and now both pubs show the Ka'at image. The only way to break this "bug-link' is to erase ALL the images from both records and the log and start again. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, don't do that. Both images are there. I understand what is going on here, I'll fix things, with your permission. -DES Talk 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Both pubs are now fixed, if i have understood what they should be correctly. Plese double check, but I think and hope that all is now well. If you like i'll try to explain more clearly what went wrong and how I fixed it, but if you don't want to bother there is no need. -DES Talk 23:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I definitely want to know. ~bill, --Bluesman 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Fair enough. I'll try to be as clear as i can. A little of this is speculation, but for most the wiki histories make it pretty clear. The sequence seems to have been as follows. I hope that makes things a bit clearer. -DES Talk 00:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You uploaded the cover for Star Ka'at to the wiki as Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg.
 * 2) You then edited to have the image URL of  http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/b/b8/STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg .
 * Not! Because I tend to type erratically, I stop and check BEFORE hitting submit. The second image, meant for an entirely different pub, got transposed onto a previous edit. Here nor there in the final analysis. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, in any case, the 2nd upload to the same file name (by whatever mistake) and the edits to both pubs occured. -DES Talk 03:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) After the upload had been done, but before the pub edit had been approved, you uploaded a new image to Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg, the same wiki file you had used before. This was a cover for Star Man's Son. You put the tag for Star Man's Son in the upload comment, but it didn't replace the existing image description, because that's how re-uploads work.
 * 2) I saw your re-upload in the wiki recent changes display, and edited the image description of Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg to apply the tag in your upload comment. This was ill advised without finding out more clearly what you had in mind, and helped to make the confusion worse.
 * There was nothing 'in mind'. You said there was a problem and I attempted to fix it. The timing definitely didn't work and thus the recursive loop. LOL! My brain from the 60s.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I should have made sure of "what was happening" or "had happened" an not made assumptions, I should have been celarer in my communicatiopns with you. -DES Talk 03:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You edited the pub record for and set the image URL to the URL for the image you had just loaded, namely  http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/b/b8/STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg . At this point we have two different pubs with the same image URL. (Or we will have once both edits are approved.) Once this is true, any change to the image will affect both pubs at once, and as long as this is true nothing will make them show different cover images. This was the key to the problem.
 * 2) I then approved your edit to, as it now looked correct.
 * 3) I then saw that the edit to would add an incorrect cover, held the edit, and sent you the first msg in this thread.
 * 4) I then saw that you had reverted your change to Image:STRKTFWBSH1976.jpg, approved the edit to, and sent you another msg. The problem is now fully displayed, with two different pubs showing the same cover.
 * 5) You changed the image tag back and forth on the wiki page, and re-uploaded the Star Ka'at cover image a couple of times, but no change to the wiki image would make the two pubs show different images.
 * 6) You got very frustrated, i suspect.
 * 7) I went into the image history, and then into the file history and found the version with the Star man's son image. I downloaded this to my local computer, and re uploaded it as Image:STRMNSSN1952.jpg.
 * 8) I then edited, changed the image URL to  http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/1/1f/STRMNSSN1952.jpg , saved, and approved my own edit.
 * 9) All was now fixed: the two images had different file names, and the two pub records had different image URLs, each pointing to the proper image file. That was the needed fix.
 * Crystalline. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Story titles and dates in One More For the Road
Bill, DES caught me trying to make some changes to story titles that would affect your verified. Would you check on a couple of story titles and dates for me? I have a copy of the, and its content has a few differences from your entry's:


 * "Diane de Forêt" vs. "Diane de Foret" (1 diacritical)
 * "Tête-à-Tête" vs. "Tete-a-Tete" (3 diacriticals)
 * 1966-07-00 vs. 1967-07-00 on "The Dragon Danced at Midnight" (from the extended copyright page: "The Dragon Danced at Midnight" first appeared in the July 1966 issue of Cavalier under the title "The Year the Glop Monster Won the Golden Lion at Cannes," copyright &copy; 1966....)
 * 1984-08-00 vs. 1994-08-00 on "The Enemy in the Wheat" (from the extended copyright page: "The Enemy in the Wheat" first appeared in the August 1984 issue of New Rave; copyright &copy; 1984....)

The Locus contents list agrees on all four counts with your entry. I found this Google scan of the 2nd printing of the Avon paperback showing the same thing as my 1st printing.

It looks to me like the "Enemy in the Wheat" credit in my copy is mistaken: New Rave's premier edition (Vol. 1, No. 1) was August, 1994.

I can't find a contents list for July '66 or July '67 Cavalier; some other places cite 1967, but it looks like they might be propagating the info from Locus.

Thanks. --MartyD 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Marty, Marty, Marty... you're supposed to make these changes when he's not looking!!!! All are quite correct. This book was done before I knew how to make all the "furrin" marks and from what I dimly remember the contents were already there. The "Enemy in the Wheat" credit is 1984 but if you know the magazine [?] didn't exist until 1994, then both books are wrong. The year for "The Dragon Danced at Midnight" is a miss on my part, so while DES is looking at me and shaking his head sagaciously, just sneak the edits by him!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, I know. I still have so much to learn... :-)  Based on what you have said here, I will change the title spellings and the date on "The Dragon Danced at Midnight", and I will add a note about the dates of "Danced" and "Enemy" to both your pub and mine (and probably to those two title records as well).  Thanks for checking.  --MartyD 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ... Or I'll discover you already went and made all of the above changes! Double thanks.  --MartyD 16:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was the culprit. When I accepted Bluesman's submissions updating his verified pub, I saw that the two stories (with the funny letters) only appeared in two other printings of the same collection.  So I merged them with the new funny-letter versions. But I didn't do anything about the other stories (with the bad dates.) Updating the date of the title record would have changed the dates of all printings of that title. MHHutchins 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No complaints on my end. Less to edit.  --MartyD 21:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New Messages
Just in case you lost track of why you got the "New Messages" warning, I added to the "Chapterbooks" section above. I'm not giving up on you just yet! BLongley 19:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just finished reading the "help" link you planted. I still don't get why doing that will make a difference but then I don't really have to, I guess. Appreciate all the help. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah well, you're not the only editor that doesn't get it just yet. I/We will keep trying to explain things - I think pictures / diagrams are one of the avenues we haven't explored properly yet. Thanks for looking anyway. BLongley 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) if you have new messages but aren't sure where, you cna click the "history" tab at the top of this page and get a list of all edits anyone has made to the page, most recent first. This may help, I hope so. -DES Talk 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. it does! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wandering Fire
(copied from User talk:Ahasuerus/Changes to Verified Pubs) Added SFBC to the publisher field and a note that it was the September selection to [Wandering Fire]. You wouldn't know the gutter code to add to the notes? A first printing would have "Q3?" ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It turns out that I do have a copy, but the gutter code on p. 243 is "Q35". Ahasuerus 00:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Bladerunner
(copied from User talk:Ahasuerus/Changes to Verified Pubs) Added a decent image to [The Bladerunner] and am curious if the month of the McKay edition is mentioned on the copyright page? That edition's record lists october but no source was cited and I haven't found one that does (not even Amazon!). Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The copyright page says "This edition published by arrangement with David McKay Company, Inc.", but the month of the McKay edition is not stated :( Ahasuerus 01:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bummer! Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of Barker's The Inhuman Condition
I accepted your submission adding a new pub of this title, but then saw that it already existed. The reason we didn't see it at first was because it was under the under the wrong title record (Books of Blood IV). I moved all of those pubs under the correct title record. Then linked the existing SFBC edition to the SFBC Wiki listings. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of wondered about that, but being totally unfamiliar with his work, didn't really know where to look. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

SFBC Listings Milestone
Yesterday I completed adding titles for SFBC, March 1953 through October 2009, and have begun linking the titles to database pub records. I'm starting from the most recent and going backwards, having finished 2006 last night. Your having finished the linking for 1987 the other day leaves us with 18 years to go. Coming from my end, I can tell you it's going to get rougher for you, and easier for me. There were 60 titles in 1987, and in 2006 there were 205 titles! Of those 205 titles, I had to create roughly fifty new records, and that tends to be the hardest part of this effort. I believe most of the titles up through 1998 should already have pub records in the database (they were imported from Locus1, I think.) Tonight I'll start on 2005. I just wanted to let you know the project's progress and thank you for your assistance in linking the pub records. MHHutchins 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds easy when you say it fast enough!! Shall meet you somewhere in the middle? Almost finished with Pohl and will tackle '88 then. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, considering what happened the other day when you lost data because of an edit conflict, when I was entering 2006, knowing it was going to take some time to complete, I placed a large notice on the top of the page that the page was being edited and asked that everyone please hold off editing the page until the notice was removed. It worked.  Something to consider doing before you begin working on 1988.  Thanks. MHHutchins 22:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where would I put that? There must be an 'edit' button for the page as a whole? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

date change on "The Head Hunters" in Omnibus of Science Fiction
I submitted a merge of "The Head Hunters", which appears in your verified 2nd printing, that changes the date from 1953-04-00 to 1952-00-00. Looks like the date probably just missed getting filled out on entry. We do have the from 1952 showing the same title present there. --MartyD 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

From the Land of Fear
Hi Bill, you scanned (or found) for this pub. I scanned my copy of the book, and it has a different cover (see ). The difference is in the upper right corner. I can't see the contents of the box in your scan very good, but could it be a british price? The only problem then is, that we don't have a british edition. Any idea where your scan came from? Thanks, Willem H. 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The image came from a British seller on AbeBooks (still there, too). Even if it was the correct image yours is MUCH better. If it is one of those 'sticker' editions, it's better that some I've seen... at least the sticker is straight!! By all means replace it since you have book-in-hand. And that's true of any image. Cleaner is better. If I don't have a primary on a pub then the image came from somewhere else, and even if I do and yours is better, go ahead and replace it. Ideally we'll end up with images as close to the 'factory/publisher' ones as possible. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on SFBC "catalog" numbers
I've updated the section of the SFBC page about "catalog numbers". The name was changed to "identification numbers" with an explanation. I'm interested in what you think about the change. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reads very well! Is it the eventual intent to narrow these datelines down to within a month or so? I have number information on every edition we have listed (up to 1989 and counting). The first one with a number is easy and I can point to a two-month window when the fours became fives (Locus doesn't help because they ignored the '0' for quite some time). I can comment with 90% certainty that ANY SFBC reprint of a book originally pre-September '68 did get assigned a number if re-printed post '68. Fortunately there aren't that many. ~bill, --Bluesman 23:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Eventually, I would like to narrow it down to months for the "switchovers" as far as these identifying numbers are concerned: such as, when the cycles began repeating with a certain regularity, what month (or quarter, at least) they went totally schizo, when four digits went to five, when five went to seven (and luckily, this last system has become very stable, at least five years now.)  A situation that's arising now is that Locus, the hardcopy version, no longer gets copies from the publisher.  Those that have been listed in the past six months or so have been noted as "[not seen]".  I knew there was a problem, when in 2008 there were long stretches when no SFBC editions were listed, and then fifty of them would show up in one month.  Then they stopped listing SFBC selections in the "Forthcoming Books" section.  It was almost as if there was a break-up in the relationship between Locus and those SFBC executives who decide how review (or free) copies are distributed. You mentioned doubts in the posting on my page that Locus receives actual copies of these books.  I can assure you that Contento in the online version would list everything he doesn't see as "not seen".  Because Locus no longer gets copies, it must rely on the catalog, just like I've been doing since rejoining the club in March of this year.  That means catalog numbers only ("12-3456" numbers), not the "identification number" ("1234567" numbers) which Locus used to show on all SFBC editions.  All of the ISFDB records that I've created for SFBC selections this year give the actual catalog number in the ISBN/catalog number field, unless it has a SFBC-assigned ISBN which comes from their website only.  The print catalog only lists the catalog number, not the ISBN.  The website gives both.
 * In the meantime the "identification number" is still being printed on the back of each and every selection's dustjacket, and this number will become impossible to know unless someone does a primary verification of the ISFDB record. (I think our dependence on Locus for these numbers has come to an end.) That's another reason why I've stopped putting these "identification numbers" in the ISBN/catalog number field.  I place them in the notes field as "SFBC ID #123457".  Having been out of the club for more than 20 years, I can't say exactly when the catalog number and the identification numbering system diverged, but I suspect it was in mid-2004 when the new seven-digit numbering system began.  Looks like we may have to create another column in the SFBC wiki pages for these numbers, just to get a handle on how and when changes occurred. MHHutchins 03:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like the sound of that last idea. By printing out the entire SFBC listing and adding every number I've come across, what little there is in the way of patterns becomes much more evident. The first couple are easy: the very first numbered (jacket-wise) edition was Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey in September '68, #1499. The transition from four to five was in the Spring-June '85 months as I have a first of Adams' "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" with four (4082) and Pohl/Kornbluth "Venus, Inc." with the correct gutter code "P24" and 01272 as the number (even though Locus has just 1272). The five-to-seven is beyond my involvement/knowledge. One thing is, if we add a column for the number, then the order of the editions would need to change. In the late 80s there are up to five per month with consecutive numbers but are currently listed out of order. Not a big thing, just a little shuffling required. The Alternate selections are often out of sequence BIG time, but I think they get slated when there's an opening, and has been noted before are often from a different club so the number can be months different. Los of fun yet!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree we can change the order in which the titles are listed based on the ID #, but really want to keep the main selections as the first two of the month (in fact, I changed some while creating the column, and testing with some of the numbers).  This, of course, disappears after 2001, when we have no source that tells us if a title was a main or alternate selection.  At a certain point (1995), I gave up indicating alternates and plan to go back to indicate mains.  I may go back to the point where alternates outnumbered mains.  You can see how I've indicated the mains in 2009.
 * Looking at the small amount of IDs that have been entered has already brought something to my attention. Look at the first months of 1987.  You see several that are 7 digits long.  I think Locus was given the extra digit that appears in the printed catalog, not on the book itself.  Take away the final digit and the numbers fall into the pattern.  What do you think?  Another pattern has emerged regarding non-science fiction selections (horror specifically).  You see that they tend to be earlier numbers which leads me to believe they were selections for other clubs before the SFBC, probably Doubleday Book Club or the Literary Guild selections.  Look at the Dean Koontz and Clive Barker titles in 1987. I'll be adding the column to other years over the next few days. Thanks for help in filling in the numbers. MHHutchins 17:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The main selections were nearly always the consecutive numbers for any given month, with the alternates sometimes in succession or erratic... flip a coin! I've abridged quite a few of those 6/7 digit numbers that have appeared for unverified pubs. I think, too that the alternate selections get 'slated'/'slotted' so they could just have a number assigned at one time but don't get put into a flyer for a while. I'll add up to end of '89 (that's all I have written down for now) and add them as I race you to the middle!! Cheers! And Tally-ho! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Gehenna by Malzburg
See this note about your verified pub.--swfritter 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think.... will head for the verifier's woodshed for a tanning.... and this was recent! Don't think I pay enough attention to pubs, particularly anthologies that have already been verified by an active editor. By an inactive one I check more thoroughly, I hope... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be glad to do an archive of my talk page at the end of the year. Plenty of notifications of my oversights and mistakes there. Thanks.--swfritter 00:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeps us all honest, and hopefully humble. I recently revisited the 'horror' days of my first month or so.... a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away!! ;-) ~bill, --Bluesman 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Shadow of Tomorrow
I accepted your submission updating this anthology, but wonder why the price was changed to $0.39? MHHutchins 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Late-nite brain cramp. The Canadian price is 39¢, which should have gone in the notes. Shall fix. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

First to the Moon! authorship in The Hunters of Pangaea
A question similar to that about "Prospero One" above. In your verified, is there a credit to Simon Bradshaw for "First to the Moon!"? Locus lists it as by both Baxter and him, published in Spectrum SF Jul, 2001. We also have a title record for that pair of authors, but it's strictly based on several awards and hasn't any pubs. Thanks. --MartyD 11:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And a similar answer! Only fitting. Bradshaw is mentioned only in the acknowledgments, no credits of any kind to anyone in the TOC or story titles. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like this calls for a similar merge, then. Wouldn't want to deviate now....  Thanks for checking.  --MartyD 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Where would we be with without a little deviation?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh Bill, you deviant! BTW, the date on that title is going to change from 2004-03-00 (the date of the pub) to 2001-07-00.  --MartyD 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And what does your "D" stand for, youngster??¿¿ :-) :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Verified pub Alone Against Tomorrow
See this note.--swfritter 13:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Book Tag clashes?
Having just added a cover to I was a bit concerned that it invited me to overwrite your cover for. I've renamed mine aside, but do you have any idea why you have a BKTG10581 image under a BKTG10584 pub image tag? BLongley 19:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nary a one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Charles Wilson's 'Julian'
'Julian' and 'Julian: A Christmas Story' seem to be the same novella, with four different publications as a chapbook (two of which you verified, that's why I'm putting this here). I'm not sure how to merge these properly, perhaps you can do it? Also, 'Julian' shows up as a Chapterbook on the author's page, while 'Julian: A Christmas Story' does not. Thanks -Fsfo 23:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Titles merged as "Julian: A Christmas Story" and the duplicate pubs deleted. MHHutchins 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Date change on "The Monadic Universe"
Hi. See this note about a title date change in your 2-verified pub. --MartyD 11:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up on Heads
It seems it's only a Novella, so I've converted the Novels to Chapterbooks, one of which you verified. Pipe up if you think there's a Novel-length expansion we should keep - I'm not word-counting mine in the meantime though. BLongley 21:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine has 150+ pages that could have fit in less than a hundred, so I'm fine with the novella designation. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bradbury's "The Fire Balloons"
You added the title November 2002: The Fire Balloons to this pub. Now I'm holding a submission that wants to merge the title with The Fire Balloons. Is the prefix not actually a part of the title in your pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 21:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So it should have been a variant? There were two titles I had to add and couldn't even find the other in the 'dup' candidate pages. Think I can get this one if I lust hold my tongue the right way..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Variant made, I think? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI in future, titles already marged as variants are not currently found by the "Check for Duplicates" logic. -DES Talk 21:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Variant approved, result is here. -DES Talk 21:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Postings moved to talk page
I moved a couple of your postings on my verified pub changes page to my talk page, because one asked a question and the other prompted a response. I didn't know whether you'd notice the responses if I left them on the other page. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually check, but sometimes forget. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to SFBC editions
I changed the publisher credit for two of the SFBC editions that you just created records for: Cold Fire and Wings of Pegasus. The first was changed to Putnam, the publisher of the American trade edition. The second was changed to GuildAmerica Books, the imprint used by the SFBC for original editions 1989-1998. Locus1, alas, never gives the publisher credit in their listings, so it sometimes takes some detective work to get the right one. Thanks for your efforts in creating records for these missing SFBC editions. MHHutchins 20:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just used what Locus had for the original trades, figured they could be corrected later. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghost-Maker in Pohl's Alternating Currents
In your verified pub. Changed "The Ghost Maker" to "The Ghost-Maker" as it is listed on thetitle page of story - listed as "Ghost-Maker" on toc.--swfritter 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! See I caught the difference between the TOC and title page and didn't catch how it was in the contents in the record...... one of those days.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Universe 5 - changed contents
Afternoon! This. . I submitted a del for the George Alec Effinger title as it is GEO. Alec Effinger. I changed the page number of the Goldin story from 79 to 141. Del left for attention. Message to Mhhutchins also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub Turn Left at Thursday
This pub. Changed page number for "The Hated" from 122 to 120. --swfritter 15:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

City - Ace editions
Is there a reason why you didn't export the data from this pub to this pub? Page numbers, etc. seem to identical. You have a primary verification on both pubs.--swfritter 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Later printings, of whatever edition, are in boxes that were gone through very quickly way back when I first started doing this and I simply haven't got back to them yet. Right now I've just got back into the "Ss" of the "main" titles (first editions/printings) and hope to tackle those boxes before X-mas. Back then I didn't even know about importing contents. If it's more in your immediate line of fire, go ahead. Otherwise I'll get to it in a couple of months. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub The Infnite Moment
This pub. "Stitch in Time" was entered as "A Stich in Time". Removed that and added correct title.--swfritter 14:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The War with (or Against) the Yukks
Hi Bill, you might be interested in this discussion and that one. It concerns your verified It's a Mad, Mad, Mad Galaxy. Any other thoughts? Thanks Willem H. 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub The Others
this pub. The Blue Lenses by Daphne du Maurier instead of Daphne Dumaurier. Eight O'Clock in the Morning by Ray Nelson instead of Ray Faraday Nelson.--swfritter 14:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub Science Fiction Oddities
this pub. The Water Eater is credited to Winston K. Marks rather than Win Marks.--swfritter 15:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Thinking Machines
this pub. Skirmish is credited to Clifford Simak rather than Clifford D. Simak.--swfritter 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with all the above changes, but would like to point out that I have this very large notice in quite a lovely teal color at the top for just such notices as these. You will no doubt find many little errors in the collections/anthologies as I did most of them without the 'training' that the site has proffered. There will be a second go-through of these after I do the 'other' editions I have, though it looks like you'll beat me to most of them!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Undefeated
In this verified pub the cover art is credited to Bob Pepper (explained in the notes). If I look at the signature closeley however, I see Berkey (is John Berkey). Can you agree with that? Thanks, Willem H. 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! See the pub has been changed already (no problem) so I can't comment if the note or credit for Pepper was mine. Seriously doubt that as this is definitely not Pepper's style, and with there being no credit in the book.... I wouldn't have given a maybe credit for this one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Baxter - Manifold
Hi Bill. I see you're a vivid Stephen Baxter collector and you verified all Voyager first editions of the Manifold series with Locus1. I received the first three books today - all voyager hc first printings. None uses the title which its entry show. The covers just state "Time", "Space" and "Origin" whereas the half title and the title pages state "Time: Manifold 1", "Space: Manifold 2" and "Origin: Manifold 3" (Like the Voyager paperback of part 1 you verified primarily). So I'm wondering whether I should change the pub titles to what the title pages state. I even think that should be used as the title-titles. Do you have any suggestion? Thanks. --Phileas 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The British editions, which I assume you have, title differently that the North American editions. The British have TIME/Manifold 1 (I used '/' instead of ':' because neither is really there and the title could just as easily be Time Manifold 1) whereas the US edition has Manifold: Time. Same for the other two in the series. Since Baxter is a British author, it is likely that those editions preceded the US ones, but I don't know for sure. If variants are created the relationship should run in that direction, with the US titles being variants of the British. If the editions are simultaneous I would still give the British editions the nod as the author is from that side of the 'pond'. Of this series I have only the one British paperback and that a later printing, so was leery of creating variants (always am anyway). I'm sure a Mod or two will read this and offer some sage advice?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the British editions preceeded the American ones. There's no ":" in the British title but I think it's a common seperator to put between the title and the "tagline". Using the British titles and creat a variant for the american editions sounds reasonable. But what british title to use? Personally I'd go with the short ones. Like the covers don't mention "Manifold" anywhere - they're mostly refered as "Time", "Space"... and that "tagline" doesn't seem to belong to the actual title anyway - like Emperor is just Emperor and not Emperor: Time's Tapestry Book One. I'll ask the mods, before they have to reject a lot of edits, unmerges and merges. Thanks. -- Phileas 12:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest scans
A couple of your latest scans have been quite dark when compared to the one that you replaced from Amazon. The author's name is not visible on this one (compare Amazon's), and the face in the background is barely visible on this one (compare Amazon's). Have you changed the settings on your scanner? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No changes to settings. Many of the Sheffield covers use a gloss silver for his name or the artwork (as in the face) and I can't quite seem to get the images to display as the eye sees them. If the Amazon ones weren't the unstable ZZZZZZZs I would probably have left them. Any ideas? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're unable to get the glossy titles more visible, we could copy Amazon's images and upload them to our server. MHHutchins 05:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Another solution is to make a photo from a "uneven" angle instead of scanning. The cover I scanned for this was terrible. You couldn't read the title because everything was near black using the normal settings. I had to brighten up the picture a lot to get this. Whereas this photo gives you a much better idea how the book looks like in real life. --Phileas 10:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried that and it doesn't work here. Seems to for the "moire" effect but the gloss beats that, at least with a scanner. A camera may work that way but that's a level I'm not going to go to for a few images. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Rulers of Men
This pub. Added page numbers. Changed catalog number from R1227 to R-1227. Added cover artist. Author credit is Bertram Chandler rather than A. Bertram Chandler.--swfritter 14:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub Last Train to Limbo
This pub. Who Shall Dwell is Who Shall Dwell. . .--swfritter 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wolfe's "The Never-Ending Penny" in Merril's 6th Annual
Can you verify that the story by Bernard Wolfe in this anthology has a hyphen in the title? Thanks. MHHutchins 17:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No hyphen anywhere. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A Word from the (Human) Editor . . . or Author
Hi Bill. You verified one of the publications of War with the Robots. All pubs have the foreword as "A Word from the (Human) Editor . . .", but in my copy it definitely is "A Word from the (Human) Author . . . Can you check your copy? If all entries are wrong (a human error, even Contento lists it with editor), the title can be changed. Thanks, Willem H. 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don Erikson agreed (on three printings), and so did Swfritter, who made the change at the title level (with a note about Contento). Thanks, Willem H. 08:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good! I'd have to dig big time to find this one! Makes me very glad of multiple verifications. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dolphins' Bell by Anne McCaffrey
I am converting, , and one UNverified pub to CHAPTERBOOK publications, as the fiction content is SHORTFICTION. -DES Talk 06:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't need to be notified about this, as the chapbook transition needs to be done and it's not as if it changes anything other than that designation. Have at 'em!!! ~BIll, --Bluesman 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for notifying you was in case you thought they should be considered as novels. Had they already been chapterbooks but malformed ones, i wouldn't have bothered -- that is a mere technical correction, like fixing a typo, IMO. But novel vs short fiction is a significant distinction to some. -DES Talk 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much of a lengthist, I guess. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to your verified pub Destinies January-February 1979
See Primary verifier notes.--swfritter 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Silverberg's Thorns
The ISBN you added to the Walker edition is the same as the Rapp & Whiting edition. Walker wasn't using ISBNs in 1969. Must be OCLC conflation of the two edition. MHHutchins 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you updated the note but kept the ISBN. MHHutchins 04:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought I just updated the note? I had put a note on the Moderator Noticeboard to reject the edit for just the reason cited here (caught the inaccuracy in OCLC too late). I re-did the edit and didn't put in the ISBN, don't know how it managed to get there? Maybe the same gremlin that did the OCLC mix-up??¿¿ ;-) Shall fix. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I missed the notice on the moderator board (sometimes I'm too eager in clearing out the submission queue and fail to check there as often as I should.) Your original submission was accepted which prompted my message here. If you updated the note on the second submission, it would not have changed any other field. Third submission cleared it up.  Thanks. MHHutchins 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Moderator???
I saw the note you left on Bill Longley's page about being a moderator, and think there's a strong case to bumping you into the position. Your submissions hardly ever require more than a quick perusal. And when they do, it's usually a typo or something simple. Rarely would the approval of such edits do much damage to the data. In the case of something more complicated you almost always ask before you proceed. Yes, there are certain areas in which you are weaker than others, but I believe you're aware of your limitations and are communicative enough to make inquiries to other moderators if anything unusual arises. If you would feel more comfortable only moderating your own submissions, that shouldn't be a problem. It took me awhile to get the feel of other editors and their submissions. It's a learning process. Even tiny steps get you somewhere. If you're willing to accept the challenge, I'd be happy to start the nomination procedure. What do you say? MHHutchins 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rock my world!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, the rockslide seems to be heading your way. ;-) You might want to have a look at the Moderator Help Guide in advance. (In fact, all moderators should look at it again, as some of the examples are a bit out of date after recent software improvements. But it's still a good start, and anything that's unclear should be pointed out soon so we can fix it.) BLongley 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're a bit quiet today - I hope this isn't because we've scared you off, and you're just revising? BLongley 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Energy levels are barely at consciousness levels. Been building an attached garage for a friend (portions thereof, not the whole thing, though it seems that way) and have had one day off in a few weeks. While, under normal circumstances, I would either be agog/excited/flabbergasted/deer-in-the-headlights-what-the-hell-am-I-doing or at least up in any given way, at the moment I can't even concentrate on the Mod how-to page. Give me a couple of days and I'll be back much more myself. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Day the Martians Came -    added contents
Afternoon! This. . I added contents after matching my copy to your ver. I imported so it will be a day or two before it's all straight. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just went through Pohl... and even found the note to import still on my sheets! Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thorns
Hi Bill, I saw your note on Kraang's page about the cover of Thorns. When I saw the signature, I remembered you asked about this one before here. I think it's Bob Foster again. I added the signature from Squares of the City to the Artist Signature Images, but I don't know how to rename the image (it should be called Foster or something), so for now it is under. Perhaps you'll remember next time you see another of these "maddeningly familiar in style but I can't quite put a name to it" cover images. Cheers, Willem H. 19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, though, I do not have the book. The style is familiar and I think you are probably correct. Perhaps bring this to Sean's attention and he can be the judge? As for renaming the image, I'm at a loss as to how to do that, though with any page/section/piece here there should be an 'edit' function attached somehow..... Maybe DES would know? He's done a lot of work recently on the image area and might have a suggestion or two? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you can't rename a file once it's uploaded. I asked the helpdesk here. Dave (DES) re-uploaded the image, and now it's called Bob_Foster-sig. I added Bob Foster to Thorns, verified the pub and notified Sean (is Kraang?) of the change. I thought your OCLC/Worldcat verification was a primary2. Eyes aren't what they used to be. Willem H. 09:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Maine's The Man Who Couldn't Sleep
I linked this pub to a perhaps better cover image. If you feel this cover is better, I'll change it back. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First is much better! Wish I had a cover at all.... one of the few that are jacketless. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a good cover for another jacketless book. Or more correctly an image.  Don't you wish you had the cover? BTW, these covers are from the French website Collectors Showcase.  You seem to be the ISFDB's cover image finder, and this site should make you drool. MHHutchins 05:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation: Outer Space
I Identified the cover artist of this verified pub as Robert E. Schulz, added the information and adapted the notes a bit. Also added the to the Signature Images. Thanks, Willem H. 08:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One down, many to go! There are quite a few covers with the RES initials and I only recently found out it is Schulz, but of course can't remember all the pubs....... Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)