User talk:Bluesman/Archive4

Long's The Martian Visitors
You changed the author of this title's only pub to "Frank B. Long". So a few more edits are necessary to get this title record into shape. Would you like me to walk you through the procedure or do you think you've got a plan of action? Remember, changing a pub record doesn't change a title record. MHHutchins 03:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Plan of Action"?????? Funny guy you is. Changed the title record. It already shows up correctly in the bibliographic 'tree' of the canonical (as by …) the way it should. There's more? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see it on 's page. What 'tree' are you looking up? Look across the forest at the summary page for .  Both of those titles will have to be made into variants by Frank Belknap Long. MHHutchins 05:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And don't forgot lonely Lyda. All of the titles on the summary page for  will have to be "varianted" as well.  If it were up to me, you'll never get out of these woods. :-) MHHutchins 05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Varianted the lot, including the lovely/lonely Lyda. This is too much like work........... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shiver/shake/sputter/quake....... moderate me, whew, not as hard as it seemed (famous last words). ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like something went horribly wrong and all the variant titles are pointing to a Spider Robinson novel (oh, the embarrassment!) They are currently on hold and Kraang and Michael are busily investigating. Stay tuned for more updates! Ahasuerus 04:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! - My First Victim
Your new pub became my first non-self approval submission that I got to approve. You have now been touched by history... and your life will never be the same again. If I were a Chinese fortune cookie I would say "This portends great things to come", but since I'm not, I thought I would let you know that you were my guinea pig for testing purposes. Thanks ! Kevin 03:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been 'touched' by many things, not so sure about any of them being "historical" though! LOLOLOL! At least you got to do a good one, as this Barker work has never been published before, though written while he was still a teenager!! And referring to editors, fledgling or antiquated, as 'victims' is probably not the preferred mindset, youngster!!! hee-hee-hee!!! Enjoy the power while you can, as eventually you will have to deal with the "what-the-*#^*-is-this" submissions as well......... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem, isn't it supposed to be "Maximillian" rather than "Maxmillian"? :) Ahasuerus 03:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And there's always the party-pooper........ ;-)!! Right you is! I shall correct! And don't forget to let the rookie know he let an easy one slide through!!! LOL! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem...What I approved was a new pub to an existing title that already existed. I didn't know I was supposed to READ the titles.. just make sure he wasn't changing the title to 'Debbie Does Sirius' or some such. Kevin 04:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk.... just goes to show you Mods are human, and now the blame can be shifted to Chris!!! Is it a full moon???? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, we may need to add "possesses a SF-aware spellchecker" to the list of moderator qualifications. I think the worst submissions that I ever had to approve/correct had about a dozen typos in the Notes field alone! Ahasuerus 04:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Variant trouble
I'm holding a bucketful of submissions (the Frank Belknap Long variants), and they all want to be variants of record #1123 (Starseed by Spider & Jeanne Robinson). I can't for the life of me figure out how that could have happened. Maybe there's a bug in the system (the swine flu bug?). Make another submission of just one of the titles to see if it has the same symptoms. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Small bucket! I went to the author data page for Long to get that number 1123. What else do you use? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had this happen in the past a couple of times, the number is correct but you get a different author. I tried the number and got the same result. The only thing to done is use the authors name.Kraang 04:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the same thing. We're talking about creating title variants MHHutchins 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your correct, but in the past I've had the author's number give a different link(only one or twice) when trying to set up an intial authors pseudonym.Kraang 04:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, yes, I remember something along those lines happening at one point, but it's been a while. I wonder if it may have been fixed ca. 2007?.. Ahasuerus 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where on the submission page do you enter that? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't enter the author's number in the first field, that's for the existing pub title number. The author's name is filled in down in the bottom section of the submission page. MHHutchins 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Big bucket (ten submissions). Back to ISFDB 101.
 * Click on the pub link to go to the title record page.
 * Click on "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work"
 * In the bottom section of the "Make Variant Title" page overwrite the Author1 field with the name of the author for which you are creating a parent record. In this case "Frank Belknap Long"
 * Click "Create New Parent Record"
 * If you put a number in the upper section of the submission page, that's the number of an existing pub title ("1123" is the pub title record number for the Robinson novel.)  There are no pubs which currently exist for these titles, so you use the bottom section of the page. I'll reject the current submissions. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Michael meant "an existing Title" in the paragraph above. It's getting late :) Ahasuerus 04:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. MHHutchins 04:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Thank you all gentlemen!! Fun as always. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Face of Chaos
You've got a secondary Contento verification to this pub which is nearly identical to this other one with the exception that Asprin's name is listed as "Robert Lynn Asprin". I'm working on the second pub (the Lynn pub) from a primary source which does list his name as "Robert Lynn Asprin". I also checked the online Contento, which also lists his name with the Lynn, however, I think Contento conflates the variations on name. In any case, I'm don't think the Ace edition was ever published as simply "Robert Asprin" and was wondering if you wanted to move your verifications to the second pub and then we could delete the first. Let me know if you agree and whether I should request the delete. Thanks. --Rtrace 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Delete away! --Bluesman 22:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Green Millennium / Night Monsters
is an image that you uploaded for this Ace Double. However, it only has one of the two sides of the double. You previously pointed out to me the various styles by which Ace Doubles are presented, and if I had to pick a preference, it would be the single image with both covers side by side (this is how I upload them to my LibraryThing account. In any case, I have an image file that has both covers side by side which I'd be happy to upload on top of your image with your permission.  If you prefer a link to a second cover scan in the notes, I'm sure I could find one of those also.  I'll also drop a note on MHHutchins talk page as it is his verified pub.  Just let me know your preference.  Thanks. --Rtrace 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did upload the second cover image, and simply had not added the link to it. That is now done. If your double image is of at least equal quality (and so far 99%+ of the double images are simply awful) to the two separate images, by all means replace them. I, too, prefer the double image, and when I have two copies will (nearly) always go that route (sometimes the second copy is a little ratty and I like clean images). ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll leave yours as is. I suspect mine are from the same source (Night Monsters has the same cropping on the top).  When I resize mine to fit 600px, the resolution isn't as good.  I usually get my images from either the Ace image library or Bookscans and rarely resort to scanning my own copies.  Bookscans almost always has a cleaner image than my own copy.  Thanks. - Ron --Rtrace 02:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlikely as this image is from my copy and I don't think I've put it anywhere else?!?!?! ;-) I always scan my own whenever possible as 98%+ of my collection is in the Very Good+ range and most of the images online are extremely restricted as to DPI and/or simple clarity (an odd state when one is trying to sell the book???) and the upload process is SO easy. At present I am scanning every book I have into an internal DB so adding them here is no problem. Always will welcome a better image. Wish the DB could/would handle high-resolution scans. To me the artwork, especially for the old stuff, is quite exceptional, and deserves more than we allow. Happy editing!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bluesman that the images with both sides are usually rather small and not as good. If I had to choose between together and crappy or separate and better, I'd choose the latter. MHHutchins 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Malzb erg's Phase IV
Please check the URL provided for the cover image of this pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks! ~bill, --Bluesman 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Peruvian Nightmare
Could you please double check whether Peruvian Nightmare really has 1898 pages? :) Ahasuerus 02:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Los Angeles Holocaust. Ahasuerus 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. Re-using the same submission page and didn't quite delete enough numbers. Peruvian 189 pages; Los Angeles 192 pages. Haven't quite lost my mind! These are all a Malzberg pseudo which I will delineate when I've got all 14 entered. Thanks. (That would be an awful lot of pages of awful.....) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks! Ahasuerus 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Series data and Variant titles
I see that you would like to add the "Mike Barry" Lone Wolf titles to the "Lone Wolf" series. All of these titles will soon become Variant Titles under Barry Malzberg, so any series information that you may enter now will become hidden. If you set up these Titles as Variant Titles first, then you will be able organize the parent, i.e. "Barry N. Malzberg", Titles in a series later and everything will look OK on the Malzberg page. Ahasuerus 03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just came back to the moderator queue after a few hours, and approved all of those title updates to the Lone Wolf series, not knowing they were written pseudonymously by Malzberg. You'll have to update them again once the Malzberg variants have been created.  Or if you like, I can do them for you. MHHutchins 03:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made Barry a pseudonym of Malzberg, then did the series. Now that's all 'hidden'? Every title has to be made a variant first? This is just SO counter-intuitive........ --Bluesman 04:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not hidden yet. When you start creating variants of the Barry titles, the series info will not be seen.  Do one or two and you'll get the picture. And, yes, as Ahasuerus said, it's better to create variants before updating the titles. You'll have to update the newly created titles anyway and the info you just put into the old titles won't be seen.  Remember, once a variant title has been created, it's no longer visible on the pseudonym's summary page.  It's moved to the canonical author's summary page. Well, not actually moved, because you've just created the titles which will be visible on the author's summary page. It's like putting gutters on a house when you know you're going to have to replace the roof.  Wait until after the new roof is on before installing the new gutters. MHHutchins 04:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And why didn't the series numbers come up? --Bluesman 04:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because you placed a number sign before the number and I didn't catch it. Even if I had caught it, you had already made the submissions and it wouldn't have made any difference. I can't change submissions, only accept or reject.   MHHutchins 04:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet for catalogue IDs we use the number sign...... gee, golly, gosh-almighty........And I did it the second time,too...... --Bluesman 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another cleanup action for correctly listing a series under the canonical name is to remove the series information from the non-canonical titles. [The Lone Wolf Series] will continue to show 'Mike Barry' until the series data is removed from those varianted titles. Kevin 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Severn House
Re the notes in this pub: some publications from Severn House have been distributed in the US (I have several Clifford Simak collections from them). The UK price is sometimes stickered over with the US price which may have been the source of the dollar price in this pub. MHHutchins 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you note this? Does it qualify as a different pub if just a sticker is the difference? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No new record is created. Just like those US books with Canadian prices, you just place the US price in the notes.  I'm not saying that's the case with this particular pub, but it's a reasonable scenario for explaining the US price.  Or it could just be the price one of Amazon's "partners" placed on it, and an editor took it as the list price. Anytime one of my pubs has a stickered price on it I try to reason out the whys and wherefores. MHHutchins 04:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of (The) People of Pern
I've started adding 1989 SFBC selections (from various secondary sources) and have discovered that this edition was a club selection in June 1989. I also notice that the cover has a "The" in the title. Does it appear on the book's title page? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "The" is on the title page. as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I Am Legend/Hell House
For more information on this pub go to OCLC Record 181088497. It states the publisher as Quality Paperback Book Club, gives the page count as 317+301, and reprints a statement from the book "This edition was especially created in 2006 for Quality Paperback Books Club by arrangement with St. Martin's Press.". MHHutchins 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried OCLC and got nothing, even with the ISBN. I rarely get much from the site, no matter how I enter a search. How does a QPBC book get an SFBC #? So does the publisher become St. Martin's / QPBC? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When Bookspan/SFBC started publishing unique editions (like this) and gave each their own ISBN, those books started getting into libraries, thus records appear on OCLC. In most cases, these are the only hardcover editions available so libraries would be smart to get these (relatively) cheap editions. And how did I find this record?  I entered 9781582882338 in the search field. As for OCLC, it's my number one source for information when I'm approving new pubs, entering new pubs, looking to complete blank fields in existing pubs.  I couldn't do without it. MHHutchins 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I entered that exact ISBN and got nothing. Weird.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weird indeed. Are you entering it on this page's search field or even in the ISBN field of the advance search? MHHutchins 02:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither. Have never seen either of those pages. Didn't know they existed. I have been using [this page]. Think I'll replace it with those other two. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't depend on OCLC. It's useful, but it is still woefully incomplete or inaccurate for non-US publications. BLongley 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, now, Bill, I think you're a tad too harsh in the extremity of your statement. Even if I granted that perhaps there is a difference in the handling of US and non-US pubs, I'd have to deduct points for hyperbole.  OCLC is only as good as the librarians entering the information.  If your statement is true, then it would only mean that US librarians are better at entering information.  Hmmm? MHHutchins 02:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think it would mean the opposite or that US librarians have tunnel-vision! ;-) But then how many non-US editions would they even see? ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, proving my point. UK Bill says OCLC information on non-US publications is inaccurate. Who enters that information?  Would US librarians be entering information for non-US publications?  MHHutchins 04:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it proves my point. You can't depend on OCLC because of these failings, it is just one useful tool among many. BLongley 12:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are very few sources you can depend on 100%. OCLC has its problems, but so do the Amazons, the Library of Congress, Tuck, Reginald, etc. The best we can do is determine the areas where a particular source has known weaknesses, e.g. Amazon's page counts are notoriously unreliable.


 * As far as I can tell, the problem with OCLC's non-US contributors is threefold. First, different countries sometimes start with different data sets. To use 's case referred to below, a German library and a Swedish library used his middle name while other countries' librarians were either unaware of it or decided not to use it. Second, non-US contributors may not be using the OCLC guidelines for data entry, which makes it harder to match their data against the main data set. Third, non-US libraries are more likely to use earlier flavors of the MARC format (CanMARC, MARC21-Fin, FINMARC, etc), which increases the likelihood of code translation failures. Oh well, we'll just have to make the best lemonade we can with the lemons that we have :) Ahasuerus 16:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OCLC has a number of member libraries outside of the US, but the bulk of their customer base is here. Admittedly, they have a serious problem with record duplication even within the US-based domain and it gets progressively worse as you move farther away from their area of expertise. I was working on earlier today and found that OCLC had two records for the William Morrow edition (15283117 and 260138076) and four records for the first Russian edition (7857815, 13248568, 185428597, 123166807). Nonetheless, OCLC is very useful and should be an integral part of every genre bibliographer's diet :) Ahasuerus 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you enter the postal code that showed up in the record, or was that already there? Had a little start as the first library it showed is only 30 miles from me. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but if at any time in the past you gave OCLC your postal code it stored a cookie on your hard drive. And I have no idea where you live, other than somewhere in the UK, so I wouldn't know what postal code to enter.  BTW, there's a library 15 miles away from me with a copy of the book. MHHutchins 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in Canada and have never put my postal code in OCLC (the one that came up wasn't mine). And it was entered all lower case, which I also never do... another strange one. Must be the book content having a cyberspace presence. I saw the movie Legend of Hell House when it came out and to this day it is the only movie that ever scared me, even if just for a few seconds. I have no doubt there is life there somewhere!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot you're the Canada Bill (not the UK Bill). Here in the US our postal code is all numbers.  OCLC must have known where your ISP is located and chose that postal code, perhaps...  Ever look at those ads on Google and wonder how the hell they know so much about you! MHHutchins 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A Web site can determine where you are located in a couple of ways. The first one is, as Michael said, by checking your IP address and mapping it to a postal code area. It's not 100% reliable and can be thwarted if you really want to stay anonymous, but it works OK in most cases. Another way is a little more devious and has to do with sharing cookie information between sites (directly or indirectly) so that if you gave your address to another site in the past, it may also be accessible to OCLC. It seems unlikely, though, since OCLC is a non-profit organization and has little reason to go out of its way in this area. Ahasuerus 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IP lookup does vary a lot - my last ISP was almost always classed as being in the US despite being a purely UK-based business. And at work I'm often considered to be in Germany just because the company is owned by Deutsche Telekom. At home, they're getting closer though - some sites can get within 20 miles, although none has yet identified my town correctly. Which is pretty poor as a reverse DNS lookup gives it quite clearly to a human - but I'm in Luton, not Wellingborough. Try http://whatismyip.com sometime. BLongley 12:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Find The Changeling
Hi Bill. In january you asked Gloinson to recheck his copy of Find The Changeling. I saw your question as I was notifying him about changes I made to his pub (cover artist + note). To answer your question, the cover price of my copy is really $2.50. The cover is identical to yours, except for the price. Your copy could indeed be printed for the Canadian market (prices are normally higher there, aren't they?), but I think there should be something in the book about that. Maybe they changed the price during the printrun or something. Thanks Willem H. 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about the inquiry! On the second go-round of my collection I just entered it as a separate pub and added the image. It is just very rare that Dell has ever done this. I took a very close look at the pub just now and the text for the price is just slightly larger than the catalogue #, and with the predominantly black cover a 'print-over' would be easy to hide. My edition was printed in the US, as well. I'll add an appropriate note. Much thanks for the info!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Singer
Just noticed the pub "Crystal Singer" is under the wrong title. Do you want to fix it?Kraang 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Started the dance... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The variant already exists, you just won't be able to find it using the "Dup Candidates" function. To find duplicate variants use the "advanced search" and then merge the two two titles. I've put the variant submission on hold and will reject when the merge turns up. :-)Kraang 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Dragonflight
Since these are graphic novels I was thinking of unmerging them and giving them a separate series heading. Do you know if any others in this series are in a graphic novel form? Thanks!Kraang
 * First one I have come across. I was surprised they were even on the DB, as I didn't think we did comics? The Locus data seems strange as I can't see there being two completely separate HarperCollins editions only two months apart with seemingly the same contents. The US$ price on the March one can't be right. I think that entry is a mistake and only the January issue is correct. Unfortunately there is a valid ISBN.....?? Got me. If I find more do you want them noted on your talk page? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Locus has a little extra info from what I put in the notes: adapted by... not doing comics I wasn't sure if it all belonged.
 * Normally they don't but this author has enough genre work to also include her graphic novel versions and yes let me know if you find any others. It's late and I'll put the three on hold through tomorrow when I have more time to fix thinks up. Thanks!Kraang 03:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [This] might help. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Squares of the City---Do You Have?
Morning! This. . I am looking for the first printing of the Introduction page 5 (actual count) by Edward Lasker, M.E., E.E. and Author's Note page 316 by John Brunner. You transient ver'd it and I found it already entered for the 4th edition in 1978. Mine 1973 and I would like to date it correctly. The why is they both refer to the actual game which was used to outline the story. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Both the introduction (and it is page 'v') and the author's note are in the first edition. Following the author's note on pages 318-319 is an 'essay' called "Pieces" which identifies each character with a particular white or black piece and two sections : "Taken in the course of play—White" and ditto for "—Black". I shall adjust the record and contents accordingly. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I love it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Milington edition of McCaffrey novel
I'm wondering why Currey has this book stating "first published in 1977", when the date given in the record is September 1976? Thanks. MHHutchins 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Corrected. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Double mistake! Currey has Kilternan and Merlin one after the other and I was reading the text for the wrong one. Kilternan is a '76 and Merlin a '77, both by Millington. Time to retire for the night I think..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Seed of Earth
Just a note that User: Don Erikson identified the cover artist of your verified The Seed of Earth based on the signature on the cover. Ahasuerus 02:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It is quite buried at the moment, but I shall check it out when that box surfaces. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "Look Inside" link from Amazon images
Two submissions (here and here) kept the "Look Inside" links from the Amazon images. Let me know if you have any questions about removing the link. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Embarrassing! Don't think I've done that since the first few images uploads. Both are fixed. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One in Three Hundred
I approved the change in the title from One in 300 to One in Three Hundred in this pub knowing that it would screw up the variant relationship. As you can see the title is now a variant of itself. Can you figure out how to repair the titles? If not, ask and I'll lead you through the steps. MHHutchins 04:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're asking about plans again..... I build things from plans/diagrams/measurements, none of which the Variant dance has. The only reason that, incorrect, variant existed was from a wrong title. Logic says if you fix the title the variant should go away. Methinks the DB runs on "pretzel logic" - not a straight line anywhere. Lead on MacDuff! ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not fixing a problem if you only change the title of a title record. The database assigns variants based on the number of the title record, not on the title of the title record.  Otherwise same-titled books by different authors would get mixed-up.  Rather linear logic, IMHO.
 * If one is a DB/programming oriented person, which I am not. --Bluesman 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Break the variant relationship: Go to this title record and choose "make this title a variant title". Enter "0" (zero) in the first field and submit. After the submission is accepted...
 * Merge the two duplicate titles: Go to the summary page for J. T. McIntosh and choose "dup candidates". Merge the two novel title records for One in Three Hundred (not the the shortfiction record).
 * MHHutchins 16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And once again the chaperoned Lone Re-Arranger learns another 'quirk' of the system. The ancient arabs would be proud that the zero has become half of our universe! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fantasy Worlds of Peter Beagle
I wonder if it was just a slip of the finger. Does the introduction to this pub really have an equal sign in the title? MHHutchins 03:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange! I'll create the variant. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes
Please don't upload images with dimensions greater than 599 pixels in either height or width, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. When you look at Image:THVRMNCLTR1973.jpg you get a thumbnail error, or at least i do and anyone who hasd not changed image display prefs from the defualt does. Crop or rescale, please -DES Talk 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you click the "Full Resolution" link just below you get the full image and that's the actual image link, not the link to the Wiki page that your cited. No big deal, IMHO. This is a software display issue, not a user issue. MHHutchins 15:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michael. In fact I believe this problem goes away if we upgrade the Wiki software.  The latest wiki software handles Large to Ginormous images being properly thumbnailed for the image page view. The actual software limit I believe is 100MB per file. Well beyond what we need for the foreseeable future of archving cover art and related images. Kevin 15:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does. Strictly speaking this is not an upgrade but an installation of optional packages, as i understand it. When i discussed this with Al last year, he estimated that installing those would take 1-2 days full time, and did not think the retuen worth the effort, as the package involved has multiple dependancies, several of which have other dependancies, IIRC. Franky I think that pretty mcuh all cover art can be usefully displayed with under 600 pixel dimesnions, and surely 602 pixels gives us no real gain over 599. In addition, keeping the image sizes limited saves server and backup space. -DES Talk 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Alvonruff for previous discussion/ -DES Talk 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll continue to disagree that 600 pix is plenty. This does not take into account Doubles covers, wrap around covers, Large format book covers, Covers where we want the artists signature to be readable online, webzine Tables of contents, etc. Also, when scouring the web for already scanned covers, or downloading them from the publishers website (Baen for example) it's a pain to and a waste of effort to resize them to 600 when they look just fine at 640 pix wide if you update your preferences (which everyone who is a regular ISFDB wiki user (all 12-20 or so of us) can do with little effort. Heck, why don't we have Ahasuerus see if he can change the 'default' setting for all users to larger thumbnails (Which will cause these medium sized images to display just fine on the description page). Kevin 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd guess that most Wiki-users don't even know this is changeable in "My Preferences". I know I don't revisit it very often, and there's a lot of settings I should probably change if people are changing conventions. Asking for 602 to be reduced to 600 is probably OK in most cases (doesn't have to be 599) for the Wiki-challenged. But we should probably explain the possibilities of moving UP for other things, e.g. my screenshots of proposed software changes. I'd rather they were seen full-size rather than have to reduce resolution to make sure they're seen. BLongley 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past four (?) months I may have uploaded some 2000 images, and those just from my collection. They have ranged from about ten different sizes of paperbacks and at least as many sizes of hardcovers. This amount is quite out of the normal range, I know, though the image 'movement' seems to be getting a lot of users adding colour to the content. I think that is great. To alter every image to what appears to be an arbitrary size ( and that just for the ones I do have control over) just isn't going to happen. Right now it is one extra step to do as Michael noted to click on "full resolution" and then copy the address into the record. To re-size could take three or four tries changing the DPI setting on my scanner. And this to meet an arbitrary number. If the storage capacity of the server required it, no problem. That does not seem to be the case. So many of the images existing on the DB are simply dreadful, and I say that from a bibliographic slant (our main function). At low resolution, the catalogue number, the price (dual or not), the artist's signature as Kevin notes, simply become a blur. At that point, what end does the image serve? Mr. Longley has correctly chastised for images that carry the wrong 'blurb', as they often change from binding or country. Blurry, undersized images hide that, and thus are useless. If we seek to be clear in the textual body of a record, why should we settle for less in the image? My 2¢ (CDN, of course). ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I scan asm image I ALWAYS edit it localy before uploading. First, i crop. Then I adjust brightness and contrast, and once in a while color balance. Finally i resize. All this takes only a few cliks, then i uplaod the edited image. No need to play with scanning dpi, i scan at a higher res than is needed (usually 600). I don't find that ordinary MMPBs scaned and resized in thsi way have unreadable cover text. Sigs do need enhanced res, but any res that makes sigs readable is likely to be WAY oversized for covers as a whole, thats why sigs can be adn are scanned separately. -DES Talk 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you DES in the fact that when you have an image open in an 'editor' (I use irfan view myself) it's only a few clicks to do as you describe, But many of us upload pictures without ever opening an image editor. Requesting people to keep images to 600 pixels in a dimension or less, because of one behind the scenes page, that you cannot get to from the isfdb proper that will eventually be fixed with a software upgrade (in 5 days or 5 years or whenever the next time the server is 'rebuilt') seems outside the bounds of worth our time. Kevin 01:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All I did was say please. Our upload help pages include the 600 pixel limit, and this was discussed and there was soemthing like consensus on this as a reasoanble limit shortly after image uploads were enablled. (I agree that thinks like doubles and warparounds need exceptions, I did say in my inital post "unless it is absolutely unavoidable"). You should also note Feature:90170 (Feature:90170 OPEN Provide a separate link for cover art listed on the artist's page to previously linked or uploaded images, rather than to the pub, or alternately generate an catalog of thumbnail images for the artist) or Feature:90159 (Link locally hosted images to their wiki description pages) are implemented, the wiki image pages will be linked to from the ISFDB routinely. I do think that for ordinary covers dimensions far in excess of 600 are unnneded and waste server space, which i gather is in somewhat limited supply. However, i won't dispute this matter furhter. -DES Talk 02:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)In terms of server space, our images take up less than 600Mb (thumbs and all) and the download process doesn't take too long. At the rate we are going, we may start running into problems in a few years, but it's quite manageable for now. However, I have also seen (and adjusted) very large (multi-Mb) files uploaded by new editors, so things can quickly get out of hand if we don't pay attention. If we decide to relax our current guidelines, we will need to start running periodic scans for abnormally large images. Ahasuerus 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I pay little attention to the pixels, I do pay attention to the file content and try to keep within the 150KB limit. Less than 1-2% of the scans I have uploaded have exceeded that limit, and that really should be the determining factor. As long as we are all aware that there are limits I doubt anyone will truly abuse them. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor credit
Re:. The editor of a novel or author collection is not credited in the author field, only in the notes. MHHutchins 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. The two records had the author twice and the editor twice and I deleted the redundant entries and should have deleted the editor totally. Will fix. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Moon Pool
Link to cover of this pub didn't come through. MHHutchins 01:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It had the Amazon "wings". Must have deleted too many letters? Entered new pic. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rhythm of the Spheres
I'm not sure what you intended with your update of this title, but there doesn't appear to be any change (from SHORTFICTION to SHORTFICTION.) Thanks. 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited the title data to change it from a novel to shortfiction. If there was another submission (other than the subsequent merge) it was accidental. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what happened. You had a previous submission which merged two records with this title, retaining the SHORTFICTION type. Once it was approved by Ahasuerus, you didn't have to change the record's type again.  I'll go ahead and approve the submission even though it doesn't actually change anything.  Thanks. MHHutchins 04:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cover art credit for book with no cover
Ordinarily we would just leave the field blank instead of "none". (That actually creates an author record.) The notes explain that this book had no dustjacket. MHHutchins 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Bluesman 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sleeping Sorceress
Hi! I broke the variant for "The Sleeping Sorceress" from "The Vanishing Tower", was that what you wanted? While check this title I found this pub with the wrong cover and still under the wrong main title. Was your original intent to unmerge this pub and merge it with it's correct title record? Thank!Kraang 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the variant should be the other way around as The Vanishing Tower title didn't appear until 1977, so it should be the variant. I will fix the image, too. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost done, I put the variant submission on hold. What needs to be done now is do a title search in "Advanced Search" of "The Sleeping Sorceress" and merge the to title records. When you unmerged "The Sleeping Sorceress" it created a new one. Making it a variant of itself would be incorrect.Kraang 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get this one day.... submitted the merge. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Thanks!Kraang 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Stormbringer
You added the 1965 cover image to the DAW edition. Did you put the wrong image ot not mean to put one at all? Dana Carson 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops..... fixed. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking Permission
I see you have added a cover image to, and the image is from www.berkley.bookscans.com. That site is not on our list of sites granting permission for deep linking to the ISFDB, see ISFDB:Image linking permissions. Do you have explicit permission from the site to deep link? Failing that, do they have posted terms of use that make this OK? If the answer is no, you will need to explicitly request permission, see the sample letter in ISFDB:Image linking permissions. Alternatively, you could simply download from their site and upload to the ISFDB, just as if you had scanned it yourself. (In such a case, it would be a good idea IMO to credit the source site on the image description page. Cover Image Data provides for this with the source= parameter, but you could just add a note to the page. )

I have the submission on hold pending your response. -DES Talk 23:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sent them the permission letter, then downloaded the image in question and uploaded, with note. There are hundreds of images from the site on the DB already. Not so many from the ACE Image Library. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we already have the correct image in ISFDB wiki why are we bringing in an image from Bookscans?Kraang 01:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Same image. Just 'laundered' it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Since your later submissiion has already been approved, i rejected the one that was on hold. -DES Talk 04:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see from my email that you've secured permissions from BookScans.com - well done! I guess you need to update the help page, and the developers ought to look at Feature Request 2799082 a bit more urgently. BLongley 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just went to that page to attempt the edit but nothing comes up except for the first line??? None of the existing permissible sites show in the 'edit' mode. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That part of the page is a template called Image Host Sites. You go to the template page to edit it.  (I learned this not so long ago myself.)  Templates are used for sections of text that are used on different wiki pages without having to re-enter the same text. Once you've changed the template, the change will be seen on every page that uses this template. MHHutchins 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Done. How come the link is red and the others are green? I didn't see any way to do a color change? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Penguin SF Omnibus
You added Russell's "Sole Solution" to this pub, but there's already a record for it. MHHutchins 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most strange. When I transferred all the page numbers I had that one story left and nowhere to put the page number. Think I'll clean my glasses, maybe the monitor screen, too........... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When you remove a content record from a pub, and that's the only pub in which the content record appeared, you create an orphan record (a title without pubs). You should either delete this or merge it with the other "Sole Solution" record.  Thanks. MHHutchins 04:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted only one of the two entries. Why should that 'create' anything? ~bill, --Bluesman 04:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Create" as in "make happen". E.G. an accident that kills a mother and father "creates" orphans. You created an orphan record by removing it from a publication (its parent).  Also, you didn't "delete" the record.  You simply removed it from a pub.  Any time you add a story ("Sole Solution") to a pub, you really are creating a new title record (here).  ("Create" as in "making something where there was nothing before".) MHHutchins 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding a pub instead of cloning New Worlds: An Anthology
I wonder if it would not have been better to have cloned the existing edition of this anthology rather than adding a new publication. There are differences in contents, but enough so that it would have just been a matter of dropping and adding the differences. Now all of the newly created content records will have to be merged with existing records. Or did I miss something? MHHutchins 03:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, OCLC gives the publisher as Thunder's Mouth. Where did Four Walls Eight Windows come from? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As does Locus1. The publisher was already there but no confirmation. I didn't find the other pub until after I entered all the data. Still not sure there are two pubs, as there is only the one ISBN. I think the Four Walls one should just be deleted and keep only the Thunder one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not clear enough. The other pub is just called New Worlds. If it had been merged with the Flamingo pub this wouldn't have happened. They are basically the same collection..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean there. I verified this edition almost two years ago, and it has the same title record under which you entered the new pub.  The title record that's just New Worlds has a stub record of the pub you just entered. MHHutchins 03:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not create the Four Walls record, just filled it out. Should have imported the content, but didn't think of it. Then found the stub record. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a bit of the history of this press "In 2004, Four Walls Eight Windows was acquired by the Avalon Publishing Group. Its entire list was incorporated into the Thunder Mouth's Press imprint of Avalon, of which Oakes became publisher. Thunder's Mouth Press itself was acquired in 2007 by the Perseus Book Group. Oakes then became executive editor at Atlas & Company. Perseus stopped publishing books under the Thunder's Mouth imprint in May 2007.". I'll have a look at these publishers and see if anything is mixed up and do a little fixing.Kraang 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the pub titled New Worlds, merged the title records for New Worlds and New Worlds: An Anthology (keeping the latter title), changed the publisher of the pub you updated to Thunder Mouth's Press, and merged all of its content titles with the titles records that were already in the database. MHHutchins 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your 10,000th Edit
When Don Erikson mentioned his 10,000th edit I looked at the list and saw that you passed that landmark last night! Congratulations, and here's to 10,000 more! MHHutchins 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10,000 more???????? You are a bad man........ LOLOLOLOL!!! Maybe by the 20,000th I'll get Variants...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the club! Now, which of you two is going to overtake Dissembler first? BLongley 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was surprised that I had hit that milestone.... and still (relatively) sane! And there's no challenge to 'beating' a robot..... Just keep plugging away and see where it goes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dissembler has been sleeping lately, and you're less than 2000 edits behind him. Don't make any noise to wake him and you should catch him in relatively no time. MHHutchins 00:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy for you to say, Mr. 200/day. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dissembler still lives, but he usually hunts in the wee hours of the morning. Ahasuerus 00:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agent of the Terran Empire
I've put this on hold because I don't believe it should be deleted. It was not unusual for ACE to give a new ISBN # for a new printing. The 1st is and this is most likely a later printing, one vender on Abebooks has it as a 4th and two give the date as April 1981. Eventually the data on this pub will be entered. Thanks!Kraang 02:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just reject the edit, no need to hold it. There are still two that have been held for quite some time and I don't even remember if there was a reason. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.Kraang 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Triangle by Asimov
I'm holding your submission updating the trade edition of this title. The price of $3.95 is Tuck-verified and changing it changes the verification. Does Currey give the price at $4.95? If so, we need to make a note that the secondary sources conflict. I'll try to contact any abebooks.com dealers that may have a copy of the trade edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Currey is specific about the price of $4.95. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've sent e-mails to five abebooks.com dealers. Hopefully one should respond soon. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's been one response to my inquiries and it said the price was $4.95. I didn't specifically ask if it were one or the other in order to avoid any prejudice toward a certain price.  I'll accept the change but add a note that Tuck was wrong.  Thanks. MHHutchins 03:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I emailed just one with a very high-priced edition and have yet to hear back. I also didn't mention a price to keep 'em honest. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Barjavel's Future Times Three
Re: your verified copy of this title. Reginald dates this as 1970. The OCLC record that you refer to in your notes gives the copyright date, and in brackets. This is standard OCLC policy when the date is not published in the book itself. Also, it's not listed in Tuck which would include 1968 publications. My only concern is that this is the first English translation, so why would it take two years for it to be published after the translation was copyrighted. Oh, well, so goes the trials of the bibliographer! MHHutchins 04:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the only date I found. If Reginald is correct it should be changed or at least noted. Does Tuck go right to the end of '68? Currey cuts off sometime in '78 though he says Dec 31 '77 (a few snuck through). The tribulations, indeed...... if it was easy, anybody could do it! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kéthani
Hi, the collection you verified was displaying an extra record of itself and the only way to fix it was to make a clone and delete the original. How these are created is still a mystery(I think). Fortunately they don't appear to often. This is the pub you originally verified. The original verifications are Primary, Contento1 (anth/coll)(N/A), Contento2 (zine)(N/A) and Currey(N/A). Sorry about this. Thanks!Kraang 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sean! I think they must be the result of inadvertent double-clicks when submitting?¿?¿ Re-verified. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the duplicates are created in the submission acceptance process, not in the submission process. Otherwise there would be two identical submissions in the queue.  There's been several times that I've accepted a submission only to discover two records were created.  I can usually tell by looking at the integrations list and seeing the creation of two records for one submission.  I've never been able to determine if it were caused by my inadvertent double-clicking upon accepting a submission. At one point it happened so often that I started tabbing down to the "Accept" button and then pressing the "Enter" button on my keyboard rather than using the mouse to click the button.  Have any other moderators experienced a similar situation? MHHutchins 03:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Three Hearts and Three Lions cover
Hi Bill. I did check on the cover for, and the cover you added does not match my cover at all. I see it's an image you uploaded. Did you scan an SFBC copy, or did you get the image from somewhere else? I was going to just remove the cover URL from the pub, but I'd like to figure out what's going on before making any edits. BTW, I have been unable to find online a copy of the cover my book has. Unfortunately, I have not had luck getting my scanner working, so I can't scan mine in, either. --MartyD 13:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was from another source, but was with the SFBC description. Have deleted the image. Thanks for the feedback! My old scanner/copier was expensive and temperamental. Went out and bought a cheapy from Staples for about $60 and it works superbly. They aren't even worth fixing anymore. And the newer ones are so much more user-friendly. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that cover was for the 1983 book club edition (there's been three different book club editions of this title.) MHHutchins 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the cover art for the Doubleday edition (and the 1961 SFBC edition) and updated the records. MHHutchins 20:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good sleuthing! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the cover! Where did you find it?  --MartyD 00:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Claimed by Francis Stevens
I rejected your submission changing this from a chapterbook to novel, because it appears to be a novella, and listed under the shortfiction type. (I'm not sure why a 192 page book would be a novella unless it was BIG type with MANY illustrations and WIDE margins.) When I merged the two title records, the record for the novel type was replaced by the merged record. Subsequently, when you added a pub to the novel title record, the system was unable to find it (it no longer existed) creating an error that could only be removed from the queue by a hardreject. I'm not sure how (or if) a hardreject will show up on your list of rejected submissions. Anyway... you'll have to make a new submission for the pub under this title record. We'll probably have to go back and get the verifiers together to determine whether this should be NOVEL instead of SHORTFICTION. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It shows up on OCLC five times as an individual publication, four times in book form and all at lengths that belie shortfiction. Even the e-book is 173 pages. I looked at it for awhile before submitting anything as it was/is a strange combination. Thought if I could get a novel in there then the rest could be merged and get straightened out, especially as the Avalon is the first book form publication. The original magazine publication must have ben a serial or it was expanded to novel length later. I'll re-submit. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have held your new submission. is verified by Swfritter, and shows only 66 pages, including three pieces of interior art. That seems unlikely to be a novel. I don't know if Avalon was using big type, or if this is an expansion, or what.  Perhaps someone is willing to buy the ebook edition and do an actual word count? -DES Talk 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Think the e-book [] has been verified, by Swfritter, as having 173 pages and the Carroll & Graf had 192 pages . [OCLC]shows them. Maybe the e-book explains the 'expansion'? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Swfritter has now posted that the ebook has over 44k words. i will approve your edit. Swfritter says that he is going to check the magazine version. -DES Talk 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My word count spreadsheet estimates a total of about the same number of words for the magazine version so it has not been cut. As soon as the dust clears I will add the Complete Novel serial to the mag and remove the novella for both magazine versions. Will I be able to convert the CHAPTERBOOK to NOVEL? 60 pages of text in the pulps is generally a borderline case; 80 to 90 pages is generally borderline for the digests. In a paperback with normal size type the story would probably be about 130 pages.--swfritter 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I originally tried and led to the hard reject. Probably a separate entry then delete the chapterbook?? As far as the dust, the Avalon was the only one I had to enter so it should be settled. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks.--swfritter 23:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And now another problem to resolve. Gertrude Bennett is given authorship of some of these titles. I will have to try to figure out if they were actually credited to her or her canonical name of Francis Stevens. What fun!--swfritter 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have taken care of my pubs and some others. Do you want me to resurrect the other CHAPTERBOOKS as NOVEL's? It takes quite a few steps and it might be easier for me. Now I also notice that that Serapion might have the Novel/Novella problem. I guess this is my Francis Stevens day. Note that I also added some serial entries from original publications, in some cases on the last part of the serial.--swfritter 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Library of Congress numbers
FYI the accepted abbreviation for a Library of Congress Control Number (formerly a "Library of Congress Card Catalog number") seems to be "LCCN". That is what OCLC uses, and it is what the LoC web site uses. I suppose that is what any google searcher would check for. -DES Talk 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the designation from the LOC changed when they went to the extra long numbers and dropped the hyphen after the year. But the books themselves still had (up to and including early 2001), when spelled out, the full 'Library of Congress Card Catalog Number' so for those books I put the full abbreviation and for anything after 2001 I use the shorter one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * However, "LCCN" was, as i understand it, already in use in bibliographic systems before the change, and it is what OCLC now shows for all such records, regardless of date. And at least some books (mostly paperbacks i think) printed the number with no title, merely expecting it to be recognized by its format. Anyway, I record this as "LCCN" in any book where it is known, regardless of date, and I suggest this practice to you. This facilitates google searches for an LCCN, and would facilitate scripted conversion if we ever add an LCCN field to the DB. Having given my reasons, it is up to you. -DES Talk 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think DES may overestimate the power of Google. Our search results are more part of the deep Web and Google doesn't find them easily. If we really want to make Google find things this way, we should create Wiki pages for each pub and put the LCCCN, the LCCN, the SBN and ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 on them. Too much work for me, so maybe we should just recommend our data to Wolfram Alpha instead. BLongley 00:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but when searching on a book title or ISBN I have seen google return isfdb db result pages fairly often. Try it on a pub that's been in a while, and see what you get. also you can try a google search with the site limited to isfdb.org. -DES Talk 00:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course, any page linked from one of the Wikipedia isfdb templates is thereby part of the surface web, as will be any page directly linked there from (so all titles and their pubs for linked authors and series). Also, the author directory is linked from our main page, so google will crawl that, and from that pretty much every pub is directly linked in a fairly short chain of pages. I'm not sure that we are not part of the surface web after all, given that fact. In any case, having a uniform style for identifying LCCNs is IMO desirable whether google indexes our db results or not. it would surely help if we ever decide to move this to a db field. -DES Talk 01:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We are part of the surface web of course, and I suspect that a lot of Google users that also use us are helping them (possibly unwittingly) go deeper. BLongley 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think LCC(C)N should be an (optional) db field. But I've thought that about OCLC references too, and that we should fix ISSNs. But most of these wouldn't help me much so I'm not making it a priority. BLongley 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a wiki page listing metadata for each pub is excessive. -DES Talk 01:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to have figured out programming for links to wiki-pages recently - it might be possible to generate a wiki-page for every pub. Although I wouldn't recommend doing such in one go, unless we can spare the server from normal work for a few days. BLongley 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For example, I just searched "metallic muse site:isfdb.org" on google. 34 hits. "Lathe of heaven site:isfdb.org" produces 78 hits. '"Green Tea" site:isfdb.org' produces 81 hits. "Hiero site:isfdb.org" produces 65 hits. A search on "Asimov site:isfdb.org" returns over 8,000 hits, with 923 being distinct as estimated by google. And finally "LCCN site:isfdb.org" produces 160 hists. I don't think we're all that "deep". -DES Talk 01:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Our previous host, TAMU.edu, had all robots disabled, but we have been fully crawlable since April 2008 when we moved to commercial hosting. We saw Google's (and other search engines') spiders hammer us for a couple of weeks after we went live, so I am sure they have all of our data by now. Having said that, our Title and Publication pages do not seem to appear at the top of Google search pages unless the book/story in question is quite obscure. I guess whatever algorithm Google uses these days doesn't think much of us... Ahasuerus 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) According to Wikipedia, Google ranks results using "PageRank". "PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves 'important' weigh more heavily and help to make other pages 'important'." I find that gogoel searches on a specific ISBN often turn up an ISFDB page in the top 10 results, usually after an amazon page or two and an ABE page. -DES Talk 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you see Google work from pl.cgi?1 up? Or title.cgi?1 up? Unless they've exhausted all our publicly available scripts with every combination, they don't have all our data from spidering alone. But if a Google user uses our site as well, I think Google keep track of that activity and that gets entered into their algorithms. All our static data should be completely covered by now, it's a small miracle (or worry) that so much of our dynamic data is already there. BLongley 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the crawler visits our main page, crawls from there to the Author directory, then crawls every link on that page, it will visit all active author pages. If on each such page all active links are crawled, all valid title record pages should be visited. If on those pages links are crawled, all valid pub record pages should be visited. That is pretty much our entire active db content, just from spidering. Users who have the google toolbar installed may bring pages to their attention also, and will surely influence the effective page rank of our various pages. -DES Talk 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Metallic Muse
Which publication of The Metallic Muse did you want to drop the intro from? -DES Talk 23:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The SFBC. I have that one and there is no introduction. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok will approve. Thanks. I am panting for the update that will let a mod simply click a link to get this kind of info. -DES Talk 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do the submissions not at least come with a pub tag? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Remove Title" screen is very rudimentary at the moment, I am afraid. There is a fix for it in the queue, though. Ahasuerus 23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, the "dumpxml trick" can help mods. E.g. for "Remove Titles from this Pub" submissions changing tv_remove.cgi to dumpxml.cgi in the URL reveals xxxxxx for the publication affected and possibly multiple yyyyyys for the titles affected. You just have to know a little XML. See also ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard for another place it is useful. BLongley 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that was directed at DES as I don't speak XML! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * DES and maybe Ahasuerus, and any other mod watching this that hasn't learned the dumpxml trick yet. BLongley 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, XML is supposed to be human and machine readable, so you shouldn't be too afraid of it. BLongley 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah! The no-fear gambit! Will reserve that for the day I give in and become a Mod. Then all this NEW stuff..... oh joy! oh joy! now if I can just get out of this strait jacket...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I had to deal with entirely too much XML when I was working on Fixer last year, but I wouldn't say that it's human readable out of the box. I suppose we could put some XSLT together to make it more human readable, but the ultimate goal is to hide submission (and other) XML behind nice human-readable Web pages. Ahasuerus 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly happy with the XML - working on ISFDB helped me learn it, and as I've just pointed out sometimes it's better to have the XML available rather than the "this is what the programmer thinks you want to see" version. But so long as both/all versions are available we should please everyone to some extent. BLongley 02:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sure, XML has its uses, e.g. the reason why dumpxml's exists is to display XML. I was thinking mostly about our post-submission pages, which show XML to our users who, for the most part, have no interest in XML. Ahasuerus 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to have a more user-friendly version posted first on the post-submission page (preferably matching exactly what the mod will see). I'm not so keen on removing the XML as well - after all, that is what we really have to work with, and we're not going to get as many IT-savvy people stepping up to help if we hide it too much. I know I mostly got into coding here from seeing that it's not as difficult as it might seem, and some things I can read from the XML could be used to improve other areas: I think what the mods see when approving, say, a big new anthology with lots of kerned authors or invalid dates might be trimmed a bit, but if we hide all the techy stuff away too much we won't encourage other techy help. I'd probably be more worried if I hadn't used GML, SGML, and then HTML a bit first, but if they'd been totally hidden from me I wouldn't have learned (and now forgotten most of) those either. BLongley 03:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) "NEW stuff", Bluesman? All this ML stuff is 1960s technology with a few extensions. BLongley 03:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep! New to me, and Swahili as well! If it post-dates punch-cards it's new. And I have no clue what you guys are talking about. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was still dealing with punch-cards and paper tape in the 1980s. Not in the 1990s though. But look at the GML page and tell me that what you're already using in your posts isn't old stuff. They've just made us use "<" and ">" rather than colons, and we can put things on the same line now. BLongley 04:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Binder's The Mysterious Island
I had accepted two submissions earlier for this title which appeared to be identical, so I merged the title records and deleted one of the pubs. It now looks like you want to add another pub which, to my weary eyes (it's almost 2am), appears to be identical to the pub already in the db. Am I missing something or is this a duplicate submission? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two bindings, hc and pb, and Currey does not give anything to really separate them except the bindings, though he only lists the price for the pb. I can't find this publication anywhere else that says any more. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll accept the new submission, but I was unable to find a hardcover edition as well. OCLC gives the size as 21cm so the softcover edition should be a trade paperback. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek 12
Your page and cover art update are fine but you want to remove the cover art credit. In note I presume Willem H. added this "A very faint signature in the lower right corner looks like S. Fantoni." If its at the bottom of the book your copy could be cut such that it doesn't appear. Was there a reason to remove the artist and the note? I'll ask Willem H. if he added the note. Thanks!Kraang 02:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See his talk page for a discussion. The "SFantoni" [Eddie Jones] signature is quite large when present. And it's not there. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't see the earlier exchange. I've approved the submission. Thanks!Kraang 03:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

T2: Infiltrator
Can you check the verification on this pub? The ISBN comes up as the eBook from PerfectBound on OCLC. Your Locus1 verification may have been intended for the Orion UK tp. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most strange. I do check them thoroughly, not that much to check.... Fixed. Good catch! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gladiator-at-Law
Can you double-check the printing history stated in your verified pub of this title? The price seems too high for 1969, and there's another pub from 1972 with the same catalog number and price as yours (except that yours has an ISBN, which I assume was derived, because Ballantine wasn't printing ISBNs in 1969.) Thanks. MHHutchins 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like they were! The printing history on the copyright page shows the first four printings, ending in July 1969 and the ISBN, minus the leading '0', is on the spine. And yet..... on the back cover is a blurb about "Ballantine Books Twentieth Anniversary Classic Science Fiction Celebration". I believe the first Ballantines were in 1953 so this would have to be at least 1973. Some copy-editor screwed up, methinks..... or there were only four printings up until this 'Anniversary' and the copyright page from the last one was just recycled? Another clincher is the last page [171] advertises four other Pohl/Kornbluth titles at 75¢ each. Looks like the whole text was recycled and just a new cover added. "Classic" indeed! Cheapskates is more like it. Obviously the "anniversary" wasn't that important. I'll "0000" the date and add an appropriate note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll work. By "derived ISBN" I meant a Standard Book Number that has been converted into an ISBN by adding numbers either at the beginning or at the end.  Most US publishers took several years from the late 60s into the early 70s before they gradually converted to the ISBN-10. Some did a half-step (like Ballantine) with the SBN. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, knew what you meant and what I expected to find...... ~BIll, --Bluesman 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Self=Made or Self-Made Werewolf?
In. BLongley 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered above at . Aaah? I forgot to create the variant. MHHutchins 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange. I created the variant, and noticed it was as by "Peter Beagle".  It was the only record on that author summary page.  It didn't show that this was a variant of Peter S. Beagle, so I made it a pseudonym.  Now I see that Peter S. Beagle has two "Peter Beagle"s as variants.  How did this happen? MHHutchins
 * Now there are two author records ( and ) for "Peter Beagle", each having only one title record. MHHutchins 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I see! The second one has two spaces between his names.  The only way I was able to see this was in the link, not in the author's name on each of their pages.  Anybody know how we can correct this?  Or are we stuck with two Beagles like Aldiss and Heinlein? MHHutchins 18:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Author Merge took care of the second "Peter Beagle" :) Ahasuerus 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I didn't want to take a chance of screwing it up more than it was.   I should have realized that the fact that there were two different records it wouldn't have wound up like Aldiss and Heinlein.  Also, the fact that I didn't get the warning that a pseudonym for that name already existed. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am reasonably confident that we will be able to delete Pseudonym associations before long, which should addresses these issues :) Ahasuerus 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does that mean you're considering my fix script, or that someone is working on a more general solution? BLongley 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is working on a general solution yet. First we need to figure out how we want to delete Pseudonym associations, i.e. do we want a new choice in the NavBar or do we want to enhance the current make variant screen? A new screen would be more logical, but the NavBar is already crowded as it is. Ahasuerus 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Was there a question in this for me or are you boys just playing in my sandbox again....?¿?¿ :-) Bill, --Bluesman 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's a fairly comfortable sandbox! :) Ahasuerus 00:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mi casa, sou casa!! :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Pseudo People: Androids in Science Fiction
I'm changing the title of your verified to The Pseudo-People: Androids in Science Fiction. I'm adding a hyphen between "Pseudo" and "People". The title is stated with a hyphen on the title page, front cover, and spine. I'll also make it a variant title of the Pseudo People version. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Exactly as you say. But how come every time there's a change to one of the anthologies it's in the back row in the bottom box...........? Next time can it be in the top box at the front? Please? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can relate to that problem fully and it'll be worse for a while as last weekend I reorganized many of my storage boxes to make space but did not record what is in each box. Thus it'll be hard to find a significant chunk of my collection until I get a chance to go through each bookshelf and box to update the inventory list. The good news is I can walk through some of my office again. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that was silly! (Other than the gained room, which we both know is always a stop-gap measure!!!) But now you get to see what you have.... see you in a few months?¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Beyond 1984: A Remembrance of Things Future - Chapterbook
I cloned and edited Beyond 1984: A Remembrance of Things Future before I accepted your change from 'Collection' to 'Chapterbook'. Take a look at and  versions of the same information. I did this to illustrate that our Chapterbook/chapbook support is halfway working now, and has only been halfway working for some time. We are working hard to get ourselves up to speed on 'self development' what with the founder's absence, and hope to soon be able to support real chapbook and similar publicaitons, but right now, this publication is really better off staying a 'Collection'. Thoughts? Kevin 01:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate chapterbooks because they are so easily broken (so far). Wish I never had to enter anything as such. Give me an option!?¿ WHile we have the "ph" designation for actual binding, the chapterbook designation is woefully inadequate. We use it to cover exquisite hardcover editions right down to 20 page pamphlets. I don't know what should replace the designation, but we really need something. This has been discussed before, but the fragility of the DB with respect to the current designation has rendered any changes hopeful at best. While we don't need to create something special we do need to create something special. We're very capable of doing so, and with the current small publishers issuing delightful editions that deserve more than we give them, it behooves us to do so. We are starting to get noticed and this is an area where we could take the forefront. Gauntlet down, gentlemen! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to massage the entry some, and ended up deleting the one you had verified. Please see and re verify per your sources. There's nothing I can do about the chapbook content item until we get an upgrade.  Kevin 05:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Heinlein's We also Walk Dogs
Your verified pub appears to have a unique variant of We also walk dogs, that I need to connect to the other publications. Can you confirm the leading space between the first " and the first -. Yours is the only record showing that, and I imagine it might be a typo. Thanks Kevin 02:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just my typing. There is no space at either end of the emdash. Submitted a corrected edit. That's really splitting hairs. ~BIll, --Bluesman 03:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturgeon's Alien 4
Please see this discussion concerning a change in your verified pub of this title. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. Cool photo/art gallery! No note as yet but if the source is given I'm fine without one. Some of the other images ring some bells for covers as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Creating variants of a non-parent variant
Even though it wasn't the right thing to do, I approved your submission that made Anything Goes by Morgan Ives a variant of Spare Her Heaven by Morgan Ives which you already made as a variant of Spare Her Heaven by Marion Zimmer Bradley. You see how it doesn't display correctly. Anything Goes doesn't show up under the Bradley name because it's a variant of a child variant. It should have been made a variant of the parent variant this one. Do you wish to do the de-varianting and re-varianting, or would you like me to do it? MHHutchins 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Practice, practice....... I shall endure... ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Reed's The Cuckoo's Boys
Is there a reason that the story "Abducted Souls" and the afterword are in all caps in this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you would notice it?????? Not a clue why I would have deliberately done that (I did enter the contents, too); accidentally I can vouch for anytime!! ;-) Since this is a Golden Gryphon edition, did you get the e-mail about their sale? I ordered ten. Since there is no reason for the CAPS, can these two be edited in place instead of a delete/re-enter? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I started updating all of the Golden Gryphon editions when I returned from the SFRA conference, having met Warren Rochelle who signed my copies of his Golden Gryphon books. But I didn't know about the sale.  I'll have to check out their website.  Thanks. MHHutchins 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did forward the e-mail I got from Gary to you about three days ago....? Sale is a 2-for-1 and is on until the 23rd of June. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Did you use the Bellsouth address?  I've checked my inbox and wasn't able to find an e-mails from you.  I'm a little wary about how they want you to order from the website using Paypal (how would Paypal know to only charge you for only one of the books?)  Also, the website doesn't mention that you can order in multiples of pairs, only buy 1 get one free. I want to pick up several Jeffrey Ford titles and the Richard Bowes collection.  MHHutchins 23:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the one I have is @sondheimguide    And I just e-mailed Gary directly and ordered what I wanted and paid by credit card. As long as they have multiples you can order what you want. Just tell him how many of each (I just used their catalog #s) and if it's a lot he'll do a little better on shipping, though I think it's free in the US????  ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Planet of No Return
I approved your edit, but I'm afraid the change from "Rick Demarco" to "Rick DeMarco" did not and will not stick. As I understand it, when an author is entered the software checks for an existing author with the "same" name, and links to that record if it finds one. But this check is made case-insensitive. So it is effectively impossible to have two different author records where the canonical name differs only in case. I think there is a pending request to change this behavior. -DES Talk 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If we determine that "Demarco" should actually be "DeMarco" that can be changed in the author data, but all records will be changed. MHHutchins 23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just have this example, so can't say. He does sign his work with the capital "M" ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Happily, I have every appearance that's listed under "Demarco" and they all should be "DeMarco". I'll change the author data.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 00:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploading new versions of cover images
I see you uploaded a new version of Naked to the Stars without replacing the old version. (They appear to be identical.) Did you mean to delete the old one or have any particular reason for keeping it? Thanks. MHHutchins 02:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to delete the old one and it wouldn't go away! Tried using the same URL for the new image, hoping it would overwrite, but that didn't work either. Just deleting the image from the record doesn't really delete anything. Bought a new copy in fine condition so wanted to upgrade the image. Edited the page with the old image and it still wouldn't disappear. Stumped.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The ISFDB record has no connection with the image on the Wiki until you link it. If you delete the Wiki image, it doesn't change the ISFDB record. (You just won't have an image on the record.) If you delete or change the ISFDB record, it doesn't affect the Wiki image. It will still be there, it just won't be linked to any record.   MHHutchins 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Had this problem myself, the delete and the replace don't appear to work.Kraang 02:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fact! Wouldn't be so bad if the new image would come up to get it to paste into the record, but only the old one shows..... at least that's all that will come up for me. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To update an image you need to go to the wiki image description page, not the actual image file URL. This is the page now luinked to in the "Hosted by ISFDB" msg on a pub page. In this case it is image:NKDTTHSTRS1961.jpg. On that page click "Upload a new version of this file" and proceed much as with a normal new uplaod. See if that does the job. -DES Talk 04:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just discovered that when I put in a new image for a Farmer pub. You get the same warnings but at least the new upload will overwrite the old one. The new link for the images is a good addition. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the new link makes the wiki image description pages much more visible to users, and indeed to search engines, than they used to be. Using fair use templates is therefore, IMO more important than it used to be. -DES Talk 04:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any time I'm upgrading an image I make sure to use the same file name as the original. Upon submission, I get a warning that the file already exists, and do I wish to replace it. After clicking that I do, it accepts the new image.  I've never had a problem upgrading an image.  Let me do another tonight and see what happens. MHHutchins 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the original Naked to the Stars image. No problem.  And I just overwrote the file for the cover you just uploaded for Across Time.  If you go there no, you'll see at the bottom under File History both files.  You can delete the one you uploaded or revert it back to being the visible file.  (It doesn't matter because they're identical, because I simply copied the one you had uploaded and then uploaded again to see if the overwrite would work.) MHHutchins 04:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:HLLSGT1970.jpg
There is something odd to me about Image:HLLSGT1970.jpg -- are you sure it scanned correctly? -DES Talk 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the image. Crooked as it is on the cover! That little white area on the bottom right just seems wrong, doesn't it!?!? Artists........... ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I thought maybe it had slipped or folded or something in the scanner, but if that's the cover... Thanks. -DES Talk 01:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Draco Tavern
Your verified publication contains both an essay entitled "Introduction (The Draco Tavern)" on page 11, and an item entitled simply "The Draco Tavern" on page 15. The latter was, earlier today, of type ANTHOLOGY -- see ISFDB:Help desk for more details on the situation here. What, if anything, is actually on page 15, and do we need a record of whatever it might be? -DES Talk 16:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Nothing on that page but the title of the book. Submitted a deletion. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Title Removal Submission accepted. Don't forget to go clean up the free floating essay now. (Removal of a title from a collection, still leaves the essay record floating around) - Thanks for checking this! Kevin 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An essay without a home! What's becoming of this Db anyway.... and now I have to track it down and kill it..... where do I start?¿ ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And the homeless essay has been expunged. Thanks again. (BTW - I LOVE The big wrap around scans you've been uploading) Kevin 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True art needs some R O O M!! Just had 10 Golden Gryphons arrive (They have a 2/1 sale on until Tuesday) and their covers are always killer! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rogue Moon
The edit you submitted for appears to substitute a cover for a different edition. The existing record and cover image is for a book with a price of $0.35, but your new cover shows $0.45, so it is a different printing or edition. Also the new images shows the text "A Great Science Fiction novel" where the old one doesn't.

Also, why delete the note about "Stated 1st printing of 1960 Gold Medal ed."?

It looks like you have is the cover for.

I have this on hold. -DES Talk 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the catalog numbers can just be seen at the top of the page. Your image is for L1474, not S1057. -DES Talk 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct as to the image. Knew I had it in my database and thought I had missed adding it and just didn't look closely. As for the note, I simply altered it to what is on the copyright page [per Currey], which gives the same information plus the month. Reject for the image, as for the note change.....? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the note is primary verified, perhaps check with Kraang as to what is on his copy? Curry can make mistakes too. The thing I wondered at was losing the explicit statement that this was the fist GOLD MEDAL edition. Will reject for now. -DES Talk 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The explicit statement makes no mention of first edition: "Stated 1st printing of 1960 Fawcett Gold Medal ed." Since 1960 is in the date field and the publisher is in that field, all that is left is the "Stated 1st printing" part. By quoting directly, instead of 'paraphrasing' (for lack of a better word) the source for the month is shown, and nothing is lost. Not trying to be a perfectionist or anything, but I have found that direct quotes really can't be equivocated, and if unclear are the 'fault' of the original writer and not the editor who does the quoting. Simplifies things. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Boarders Away!
You have submitted an edit which would merge 1015321 with 1015355 Unfortunately, this would be merging a title with its own parent in a variant relationship, and would create a situation in which a title would be its own parent, or else have as a parent a non-existent record. This is not a good thing. Also it looks to me as if this would lose the authorship of "Adam Hardy" from some publications, which i think may be incorrect. It would also discard the series information. Was this intended?

From the records and the Wikipedia article Kenneth Bulmer, it appears that this book Boarders Away! was written by Bulmer under the name "Adam Hardy". We do not seem to have any publications recorded under the Bulmer name, n or any under any name but "Adam Hardy". However, two pubs are directly under 1015355 which has the author as Bulmer. I suspect this is the problem you are trying to solve. I think the better way to solve it would be to unmerge those two publications, and merge the resulting new titles, one into 1015321, and the other into 1015340, because of the differing titles (one with and one without the !). This will be a little tedious for you, because of the multiple approvals needed, so if you wish and if I am correct about the desired outcome, I will do this. But I won't do anything until i hear from you on this matter. i have the current submission on hold. If I have misunderstood the existing situation or the desired outcome, do let me know better. You are the expert on Bulmer here, AFAIK. -DES Talk 13:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The same issues are involved in the other merges of yours I have on hold. -DES Talk 14:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I still can't figure out where the extra records came from?¿ I entered the whole series, and a few titles were changed between the NEL editions and the Pinnacle ones, so I got the variants correct but am just trying to get rid of these extra titles. Each book in the FOX series should have "as by Adam Hardy", none were published under Bulmer's name in these editions (I think there are some omnibuses in recent years (?) ) but as you have noticed a couple have extra variants as by Bulmer. These should go. Other than showing up on Bulmer's bibliography page, none should have his name. Had a feeling the merge wouldn't work but couldn't think how to get rid of them (tired brain...). If the merges don't do the correct thing then reject them, of course. I would like to get it right and I don't learn by someone else fixing things. I'll be 'in' Bulmer for a couple of days yet (lots of pseudonym pubs, some of which don't exist in the DB as yet) so multiple steps is OK. The more I do them, the easier and more accurate the process will become. Still doesn't help me figure out where these extra titles came from, though. Hard to avoid if I can't know what caused them in the first place. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I will reject. It looks to me as if we have publications by Hardy with an exclamation point in the title, and publications by Hardy without an exclamation point. The "canonical" combo, which should have no pubs, is by Bulmer with an exclamation point. This cannonical title has -- incorrectly, two pubs. The first step is to go the an canonical record, which is 1015355, and select "unmerge titles". Select allthe checkboxes, and click submit. When this has been approved, two new titles will have been created. These will need to be merged, one with 1015321 and the other with 1015340, based on the exclamation point. Both of these should have 1015355 as parent in a variant relation when this is done. There was -- it may have already been deleted, i can't seem to find it tonight -- a variant for the title without the exclamation point and author Bulmer, which had no pubs. This should probably be deleted. (No other titles should be deleted, just the pubs rearranged.) I suspect it was created to get the relevant Hardy title onto the Bulmer page before that became a title variant. I hope that is clear. if not, ask here or at the help desk. -DES Talk 03:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not clear at all. Tonight have added another Bulmer pseudonym (Langholm) with series and have ended up with the same completely asinine situation. As soon as a variant of a variant is created the witless DB creates two new records that just don't belong. It is completely stupid that I should have to jump through hoops to get rid of pubs that should never exist in the first place, and do only because of some whacked 'computer logic'. This doesn't happen with a single pseudonym/pub situation. Why does it happen when there's a variant title??? This is so not worth the aggravation......--Bluesman 04:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't ever create a variant of a variant, that is part of what causes the trouble. For a given work, all variants should children of a single parent. That should be the canonical title with the canonical author's name.
 * Let us take the "Boarders Away!" case. There are, it appears, two publications of this, one published by Pinnacle Books under the title Boarders Away as by Adam Hardy, and one published by New English Library under the title Boarders Away!, also as by Adam Hardy. These have two corresponding title records, 1015340, and 1015321. Since Blumer is the canonical name for this author, both of these need to be variants of a title with the author given as "Kenneth Bulmer" -- a title that will hav no direct publications, because The book was never published with the Bulmer name on the title page. We need to choose one of the forms of the title as canonical. It appears the the form with the exclamation point was chosen. Then both the Hardy titles need to be made variants of this canonical title record, which is 1015355. Once these variants have been created, neither should ever be merged with the other, nor with the parent. So there will be two publications, resulting in three title records. If later publications are discovered they should be entered as publications of one of the "real" variants, not of the "master" variant. What apparantl;y screwed this up was that someone went to the master record (Boarders Away! by Kenneth Bulmer) and clicked "add a publication to this title" and added duplicate pubs directly under this title. These appear to have been deleted since my first message to you, I'm not sure by who. Also, someone created a second "master" title (Boarders Away by Kenneth Bulmer). There was no need for this, and it has apparently since been deleted, again I'm not sure by who. In fact, "Boarders Away!" now seems to be correctly recorded, with no further work to do. -DES Talk 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Neil Langholm works, that is the ones that are in the series, seem to be correct as far as variants go. Unless there are more pubs or titles to enter, I don't see any work needed here. If you think there is something wrong here, please let me know what you think the problem is, and i will try to help you fix it or figure it out. The Arthur Frazier titles need to be listed as variants of titles under the Bulmer name, but there is no other problem.
 * I suspect i see what is causing you problems. Let us take as an example Sun in the Night aka Blood on the Sun by Bulmer writing as Neil Langholm. The canonical title is "Sun in the Night", and the canonical author is Kenneth Bulmer. You enter a publication for Sun in the Night by Neil Langholm. When this is approved you use "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" to create a parent record under the Bulmer name. So far so good. But then we get to the publication of Blood on the Sun by Neil Langholm. This is a variant in both title and author. If you simply use "Make This Title a Variant Title" and enter the Bulmer name in the author field, there will be a second "Bulmer" title that should not exist. Instead you should find the title record for Sun in the Night by Kenneth Bulmer, and note its title record number. Then you go to the title record for Blood on the Sun by Neil Langholm. Use "Make This Title a Variant Title", but enter the record number from the "master" record into the "Parent #" field and click the "Link to existing parent" button. That will connect both of the Langholm titles to the single canonical (master) title record as variants. -DES Talk 15:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that makes sense! I did every pub in these series as single variants and then tried to combine them on Bulmer's page. Now that I know why (and I appreciate your patience with me on this) I can avoid this happening again. I will go through the whole mess tonight and straighten out things. And it was me who deleted those extra titles, figured if I could winnow them down I might have an epiphany for the rest! Much thanks!!!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad i managed to write more clearly. And i think your deletions did in fact manage to clear out the underbrush a bit. Actually it looks to me as if most of these are now where they ought to be, but there may be some problems that still need to be cleaned up. I'm sorry the process was frustrating, and the software not as intuitive as it might be, nd my explanations not as clear as they might. I was in a bit of a rush last afternoon when I wrote the "how to do it" section above. -DES Talk 15:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Fox" series really ought to be listed with the non-genre series, but I think that is a software problem because of the two Omnibus volumes, and there may be nothing to do about it for the moment. Thanks for putting up with me, too. -DES Talk 15:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No question the Omnibi [?] keep the series from being a deserved non-genre, and all the individual titles have that designation. Think I'll drop a note about that to MartyD. I will go through and correct the variant/variant designations, though. Thanks again! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See ISFDB:Community Portal where I started a general discussion. -DES Talk 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Omnibus in a Series
I was moderating 'past my bedtime' last night and approved two edits which I should have commented on immediately, but I just didn't have the juice left in me. You submitted a couple of edits adding series numbers to two omnibuses (Omnibi?) The problem is, you added the series number to the 'series number' field, which works for everything else, but not for an Omnibus. The series number field can only have a single number. Your edits submitted "1/2" and "3/4". Because I'm a curious man, I wanted to see what happened so I approved the edits. As suspected, they didn't entirely take. The omnibus you submitted "1/2" for was recorded as "1", similarly the second was recorded as "3". I went back this morning and corrected Fox Double and Fox Double #2. The better way to show series for an omnibus is to put "/1,2" in the "Length" field (Because we are cheating and using that field for multiple things), which will make the Omnibus float to the top of the series with no number, but it will cause it to show "O/1, 2" after it to indicate that it has items 1 and 2 inside. Cheers - Kevin 14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! First time I have created a series and added everything that is in it, and really had no idea where to put the '1/2', '3/4', etc. Figured it wouldn't blow up the database. Still have some trouble with the variants within the series, though... see above... just don't do enough of them to make it easy and there are two more Bulmer aliases with short series to enter. Practice, practice!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, at one point we discussed making the "Series Number" field more flexible so that it wouldn't be limited to integers, but the discussion was inconclusive because it wasn't clear how we would order/sort non-numeric values like "1,2,3" or "17a". We may have to revisit this issue at some point, but the current workaround seems to work OK for now. Ahasuerus 02:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow, the Stars
Just wondering if your Contento/Currey verification of Tomorrow, the Stars could be combined with another Pub for this title. Also, keep in mind that Tuck and Contento state that the first edition appeared in 1951 (Contento's early data came from Tuck), but all other sources indicate 1952. I sent an e-mail to Contento, which, among other things, covered this book, the other day, so hopefully he will fix his list soon. Ahasuerus 02:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. Has the Powers' cover edition been added since the verifications? ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been there for a long time, but we also had another empty 1951 pub, which I deleted a couple of days ago. I suspect that it made the list so messy that you missed the Powers-enabled pub. Ahasuerus 03:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Normally I always go for the pub with the most information and then try to get rid of the lesser one.... on an obvious duplicate situation as this one. And this is a very rare instance where Currey does not use […] for the date, if that matters. Shift the image over and the note and delete and !!!!  clarity. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Duplicate deleted, the survivor is ready for re-verification. Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And a successful simplification!!! Like that! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Publishers
I approved and then edited two submission which included [] brackets around the publisher name. I understand the desire to document that it was anonymously published, but this creates a false new publisher. You may also want to consider updating these records to point at the fuller named publisher Lloyd A. Eshbach which already has a record in the database. Thanks Kevin 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That […] was already there. Actually I think it belongs solely in the notes as this 'bootleg' edition has no stated publisher according to the sources quoted. The Currey note gives the full Lloyd A. Eschbach but I guess the Tuck doesn't?? I'll change the publisher to the full name, but it really is kind of 'wrong'. One of those gray areas. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You said 'two' submissions??? What is the other one? ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ehhh I found two of them, and I thought I had approved both of them by mistake... and assumed you had put both in. Hehe Never mind. Kevin 21:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite all right! Next time I'll put in three to make up....! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Burroughs cover images
A good source for some pretty good cover images is here. For example, this is relatively better than the one you recently uploaded. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Though I wasn't expecting you until tomorrow. Just couldn't stay away from 'home'??? Good image for an 85 year old book, but the image size is extreme! Have found a few better ones that what I've submitted but at 600-800 KB, more than enough to be over the 'limit'. Still haven't figured out how to reduce them in my photo program without them just becoming thumbnails. I have been having some 'fun' in your absence, listing complete series with variants and only one melt-down of sorts. While the cat's away...... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize just how extreme that image was. My computer automatically resized it for my monitor. And yes, I gave myself an extra day not being sure if I'd be up to working on the db on the day of my return.  Looks like I didn't have to worry 'bout that! MHHutchins 21:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I resized the image to 600 lines and compressed it to 144KB - and replaced yours. I hope you don't mind. -- Phileas 12:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as it's a better image, replace away! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Llana of Gathol
I accepted your submission updating this publication, but the content info had already been added to the title record, which is customarily the best place to record contents for fix-up novels. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not see that! Fixed. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Content of "The Challenge of the Spaceship"
Hi. You verified this pub. I'd like to add the German edition of this title. But it doesn't state the English titles of the included essays. If I had an English pub with content and page numbers I could use it to match the German and English essay titles. So if you got some time to spare (doesn't have to be now and today) you would help me a lot if you entered the content of your verified pub. Thanks. -- Phileas 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! The acknowledgments page does not give specific dates matched to specific essays, so they may all display as '0000' until merging. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Phileas 10:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1970 ISBNs
I accepted your submission which changed this pub's ID from an ISBN to a catalog number. It's possible that the ISBN was derived from the SBN and the previous editor failed to note that. In 1969 Berkley Medallion started using SBNs (the precursor to ISBNs) and this may have been one of them. For example, take a look at the record of your verified pub from the same year. Here'a another verified pub that claims to have an SBN. I personally don't mind the derivation of an ISBN from an SBN. I do draw the line when a catalog number is "translated" into an ISBN by adding the prefix used later by the publisher and affixing a valid check digit. When I see them on non-verified pubs, I will do what you did: remove the ISBN, put the catalog number in the ID field, and place a note about what the ISBN could be. Some editors will do this just to get a link to other online catalogs. I don't think that's our job, but others feel it's important. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly! The ability to search AMAZON is quite low on my totem pole.... Creationism doesn't belong in this classroom! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the ability to locate examples of a specific pub in various online resources, quite particularly OCLC, very useful indeed. There is no point to it, however, unless the links are reliably giving records about the same edition, if not the same printing.
 * That said, i can see a good argument for not reporting an ISBN for a pub printed before ISBNs were in use. But during the transitional period, I think entering such "derived" ISBNs can be a good idea, if they reliably connect to the correct records, and if a note clearly explains how the number was derived. I would love to have separate fields for ISBN and cat number, then they could be separately searchable, and the dilemma would be reduced, if not eliminated. -DES Talk 23:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably in the 'works'..... Good notes solve a lot. In this case the "ISBN" drew a blank on OCLC which prompted the change in the pub record. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Carter's Thongor in the City of Magicians
The erroneous ISBN that OCLC gives to this pub is actually the UK paperback edition from 1970. MHHutchins 22:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An odd mistake for OCLC. Pretending to be AMAZON??? Does the note need to be 'qualified' or did you do that? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not changed the notes of either pub, but the mistake is noted in the latter pub. MHHutchins 23:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the note for this one, but will leave the other as is until a verifier can say if there is an SBN. Not keen on speculative notes. Went back and changed the Wallace pub record, and noticed it was done the first day home after the heart surgery.... my story and I'm sticking to it!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange Trades by Di Filippo
I was doing a second verification on this pub (one of my recent Golden Gryphon purchases) and noticed an error in the notes concerning the story "The Boredom Factory". I believe they should say that it is "Strange Trades Drabble" (on the unpaginated page 343) that's not in the TOC or mentioned on the copyright page. Currently the story is not listed in the record's contents at all. You can update the record, or if you prefer, I could. Thanks. MHHutchins 13:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Fixed. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (I liked the sale so much I put in a second 10-book order)


 * Darn, that means we have the same book. Thought I had a rarity there.  When did you place the second order, and did you get the two-for-one deal?  Does Golden Gryphon do this often?  I hope this isn't a going-out-of-business sale! MHHutchins 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to burst your bubble! ;-) Placed it the day before the sale ended, so did get the 2/1. First time I've seen them do this. Just reading the Summation/2008 from the latest Dozois' Year's Best last night and he was cataloguing all the changes in the publishing industry, including the small indies and I thought the same about this sale. Sure hope not as they produce some really fine editions, but people just can't spend a lot on anything right now. Wish I could afford to buy several of all the Gryphons as they will all be quite collectible in a few years. I do have duplicates of three or four, including the DiFillipo, but mostly those were from some 'snatching' bids on EBAY. Fingers crossed!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Best of Arthur C. Clarke: 1937-1971
The price (£18.25) you provided for this pub is extraordinary for 1973. The average price for a UK hardcover in 1973 was around £2. That Abebooks listing from where you got the price sells the book thirty-six years later for less than what the book cost then? (The dollar rate converts to less than £17.) MHHutchins 03:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ABE listing says "...Special Offer: Hay-on-Wye Booksellers are offering AbeBooks customers a 10% discount on all items during the month of June. Original Price: £18.25." I think that "Original Price" means the price before they offered their "discount", not the cover price. -DES Talk 04:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. My mistake there. Looked at the page count and thought "Big Book!", didn't even clue in on the year. Shall erase. Thanks for the catch! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Campbell's Invaders from the Infinite
Does Currey have a listing for this pub in his reference book? I just created this record based on info from Tuck and this listing on Currey's bookselling website. MHHutchins 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed he does, as a second issue following the Gnome Press Edition. The notes he gives are pretty much the same as his listing has stated. Additionally notes "First edition so stated on copyright page." Oddly OCLC 5772659 lists a copy with number 211..... Not sure if this helps? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get the sense that there were only 112 copies, just that there were only that many signed copies. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I interpret Currey's note is that Fantasy Press intended to produce a limited edition of 3000 copies with 300 of them signed and states so in the book. But only 112 copies of the 3000 were actually signed, not the intended 300. The OCLC record seems to contradict Currey implying there were only 300 total. Tuck seems to agree with OCLC, but he may only be taking the publisher statement at face value.  Also Currey makes an ambiguous statement that "these copies were not numbered by the publisher".  Is he referring to the 112 signed copies or all 3000 press run?  If he meant the 112 signed copies, is he implying that they are not numbered at all or that someone else (Campbell perhaps) numbered them? Looking at the Abebooks.com listings they fall into two sections: dustwrappers only (printed in 1990) and signed edition only.  There are no copies of the non-signed 2700-copy edition for sale. You have to question why Gnome Press, a specialty publisher itself, would allow another specialty publisher to publish a "limited" edition plus a "signed limited" edition in the same year as its "trade" edition.  How many copies would Gnome have printed to begin with?  Perhaps the statement in the Fantasy Press edition means that Gnome published 3000 copies and set aside 300 set of sheets so that Fantasy could produce a signed edition?   A lot of questions with any number of possible answers.  The only way out is to make a note on the record.  I'll add the OCLC statement in the notes.  Thanks. MHHutchins 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article sheds much light on the situation. Fantasy Press went out of business before it was able to produce the intended 3000 copies.  Only 112 copies (or 100 according to Wikipedia) were produced by FP.  Gnome Press took over publication and printed an edition of 4000 copies. Do you have a copy of Chalker & Owings?  If not, I'll ask Rtrace to look it up for us.  Thanks. MHHutchins 18:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most odd. Were the 4,000 printed under the FP banner or Gnome? Currey states that the Gnome edition was less than 1,000 copies, some of which 'may' never have been bound. No Chalker & Owens. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another contradiction from a reliable source!!! Ye Gods, will this never end?   I'll ask Rtrace to join the fray.  MHHutchins 22:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier! Dueling experts!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC) [some mysteries are best unsolved.....]
 * Owings is a BSFS member. Want me to ask him? Dana Carson 00:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? Many sleuths... one answer! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wrote most of that Wikipedia article and my source was primarily Chalker and Owings. C&O states that there were exactly 100 copies printed, they were all autographed, most, but not all were numbered.  The dust-jacket was issued by Eshbach in 1990 at the suggestion of George Zebrowski.  Eshbach gave covers to those who he knew owned the book, and sold some at cost.  The remainder were sold through several dealers at $10-15.  C&O offer no explanation as to why there was a limitation statement of 3,000 aside from saying it is inaccurate.  I also checked Eshbach's memoir Over My Shoulder and he gives the copy count as 112.  Both Eshbach and Chalker/Owings give the copy count of the Gnome press edition as 4,000.  C&O go on to say that Martin Greenberg (founder of Gnome) claims all 4,000 were bound but other evidence suggests that it was closer to 2,500.  They also state that the same plates were used for both editions, however a separate title page was done for the Fantasy Press edition.  I looked at the Curry entry and I would assume that the limitation page is only in the Fantasy Press edition and is entirely incorrect, which fits with the other references. ~ Ron --Rtrace 01:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Taking into account all of the references, I've updated the record to reflect all the differing "facts". Conclusion: draw your own conclusion. The Truth is out there. MHHutchins 04:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarke & Kube-Mcdowell's "The Trigger"
Could you please check your verified pub and also the copy you checked via Locus. I have a Book Club edition, and there is no "P." Middle Initial in Kube McDowell's credit on the title page, cover, or spine. I suspect that this book was never published with the 'P' listed, and I'm trying to confirm. Thanks Kevin 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely no "P". As for Locus, they aren't that careful with authors, and always give the full name even when it may not be there. Of course this means an unnecessary pseudonym....... ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I updated all the copies. Between your copy, mine, and Phileas's, comined with all the covers online leaving out the P., I'm confident this was never published with the P.  Thanks Kevin 00:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Watson's The Great Escape
Did you notice the difference between your scan of this pub compared to the Amazon image? More importantly did you notice that the barcode is for the ISBN-13? I didn't think ISBN-13s were generally being used in 2002. Perhaps a question for Gary? MHHutchins 22:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than the vibrant color and full cover? ;-) I really don't think about the ISBNs too much, other than more numbers to input. Have to e-mail him anyway about the last order that just arrived, as you can tell - I'll ask. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The author's name is in a different color and font, and the title is in different colors also. MHHutchins 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not notice that! Sent the e-mail and asked him about the ISBN-13, will add this to the reply. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My copy of Kelly's Strange But Not a Stranger (from 2002 as well) has the ISBN-13 barcode. MHHutchins 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As does mine. --Bluesman 23:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out this page about the creation and implementation of the ISBN-13. MHHutchins 22:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The barcode isn't the ISBN-13 though - it's the EAN (European Article Number). The fact that they are converged now is irrelevant - EANs have been used for books since they invented the "Bookland" country code in the 1980s. BLongley 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Voyager in Night
Regarding - is this printed in Canada? --Marc Kupper|talk 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is, though it carries dual pricing on the cover which was printed in the US. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bill - I updated both the publication notes and DAW spreadsheet. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Explorers
I was doing a second Primary verification (sounds contradictory, doesn't it) on this title and noticed there were two title records (one didn't have the sub-title). So when I merged them, I saw that there were two identical pubs, both verified by you. I chose to verify the one with the most verifications and a cover image. Feel free to delete the other pub, and I'll approve the submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion submitted. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Moon People -- art credit ("Emsh" or "Ed Emshwiller")
On your recent edit of you changed the cover artist from "Emsh" to "Ed Emshwiller". IN the case of this particular artist, he was often credited as "Emsh" -- indeed it could be argued that "Emsh" should be his canonical name. Does the book in question have a printed credit, one way or the other? or is it credited based on a signature, or a secondary source? In any case, what is the basis for changing the credit from one form to the other? I have held this, pending your response. -DES Talk 20:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Emshwiller has been 'credited' in many ways, though it seems he always signed his work as EMSH. Still, his name is Ed Emshwiller. Unlike authors, artists should not be treated as using pseudonyms just because they sign their work in a particular way. Otherwise we would end up with sigils/glyphs/initials being pseudonyms, and impossible to enter in the field. This has come up in several discussions. I didn't do the original entry, which used several secondary resources, so can't speak to how or if the credit exists. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excluding the normalization rules, publication records should reflect exactly what is stated in the publications. The goal is that they will have an accurate track record of what name someone used, what initials, etc. and will also provide a track record for how a particular publisher handled credits at various time periods. Any changes to a publication record should be based on verifiable sources. The default source is the publication itself. When the source is something else we document that in the notes. We could not use "desire to tidy things up" as a source as it's not verifiable.


 * As this particular publication record is is a construction from book seller listings the use of "Emsh" vs. "Ed Emshwiller" does not matter that much other than I try to enter the publication record using the same wording as my sources. If the book seller listings "Emsh" then that's what I'd use as they are the source for this record. If I saw credits for both "Emsh" and "Ed Emshwiller" among the listings I'd add a note explaining this as "Emsh" is likely stated in the book and "Ed Emshwiller" is likely a seller's normalization of the name. We don't know what the actual credit is and for all we know the credit could be an invention and that the sellers then started copying one another and to avoid appearance of plagiarism also changed the name... --Marc Kupper|talk 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I just looked at AbeBooks for this title. Four sellers have copies with no DJ, one has only the DJ and no book, and three sellers have the book with DJ. None of four with a DJ mention who the artist is. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only did EMSH usually sign his works in that form, he was also usually editorially credited that way in print so there is no way "EMSH" can be confused as "sigil/glyph/initials". I think our practices are pretty standard about handling "sigils/glyphs/initials" but it would be nice to see it codified. I wouldn't even begin to trust booksellers when it comes to artist attributions.--swfritter 00:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I correctly understand that your edit, Bill, was based solely on the admitted fact that "Ed Emshwiller" is the artist's actual name, and has no source basis whatsoever? Do you agree that if a book-in-hand credited "art by EMSH" on the DJ or copyright page then the credit here should be for "EMSH" and very decidedly not for "Ed Emshwiller"? I am inclined to reject the edit but I don't want to be too precipitate. I await your further comment. -DES Talk 03:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A source for the artist credit for this particular publication has been found and the artist is EMSH. The web page this image is on is at http://www.collectorshowcase.fr/divers_edit_amer_page_9.htm --Marc Kupper|talk 04:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Delete away! --Bluesman 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Coney's The Girl With a Symphony in Her Fingers
I'm holding the submission unmerging this pub from it's title record. Please enlighten me. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The variant goes the wrong way, with Jaws That Bite as the variant of Girl With Symphony. Was going to put them back together, just the other way around. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't use unmerge, that only removes a pub from a title record. You want to break the variant relation (remove a title record as a variant of another). Make it a variant of title record "0" (zero) and submit.  When that's approved, make it a variant of title record 186709 (The Jaws).  Thanks. MHHutchins 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, if that's the method, I've got the madness to go with it....... ;-) ~Bill,

All Fools' Day
I see that you have uploaded an image for the Corner edition of Edmund Cooper's All Fools' Day. However, the cover seems to read "All Fool's Day" -- note the placement of the apostrophe. Could you please check what the title page says? If it's the same as the cover, then we will want to set up a Variant Title. If the title page reads "Fools'", we will want to add a Note to the Pub. Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No book-in-hand, I'm afraid. Came across the image while looking for the hardcover image. Mr. Longley has a later printing, maybe he can help? Usually the title pages remain pretty much intact even if the cover changes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All I have in my collection is the 1967 Berkley Medallion reprint and it says "All Fools' Day". However, checking the Library of Congress and OCLC, I see that they both claim that the original UK edition used "Fools'" while its US (Walker) counterpart used "Fool's", so I followed their lead and set up a variant title. Tuck uses "Fool's" and doesn't comment on the apparent discrepancy. As far as Coronet goes, it looks like they changed the spelling some time between printings, but it's hard to be sure. I'll ask Bill to double check, thanks! Ahasuerus 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Currey, who notes only the Hodder edition has the title as "Fool's" as well, though the image has "Fools'". And he has seen the edition, as the entry doesn't have an "*" beside it, so maybe the cover and title pages are different for that as well?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, the plot thickens! Ahasuerus 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Coronet 4th impression is definitely "All Fools' Day" - but I wouldn't use that as much evidence for the first, they had 14 years to fix it. As Coronet were a paperback imprint of Hodder and Stoughton, it's quite possible the same mistake was made on the first hardback and paperback editions. BLongley 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Prisoner of Fire
I put this on hold because you would be changing this pub into a hc by Hodder & Stoughton. Did you mean to clone it and add the new data? Thanks!Kraang 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, as there was no PB with that date. Just overwrote it instead of cloning and then submitting a delete on the phantom PB. One step instead of three. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Thanks!Kraang 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Starless World
Your edit to would move our only first printing to an undated third. Was this meant to be a clone rather than an edit? BLongley 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my intent, for sure! I have both a first and third printing and may not have backed up enough pages in doing the second edit. Can't remember which way I did them, though it sounds like I did the third printing second. Reject that and I'll clone the first printing as the covers are identical. My oops! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, done. BLongley 19:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Star Trek...
...I stumbled across some comments at Series:Star_Trek_Bantam_Books_(1970-1981) that I made a while back over the nonsensical state of some series. Would you care to take a look and add some opinions? BLongley 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Went, looked, commented. The whole Star Trek Series "tree" is scary when looked at. I'm a little puzzled over some of the lines that have no contents or say "to be deleted"?¿?¿ I have decided to close Currey for a while and DO my Trek collection... nearly 1000, and that's not including all the reference material and magazines. I'll come up for air in November.... maybe... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is indeed scary, but I'm finally beginning to understand our practices versus other sites. We only get ONE series to put a title in though, so I've reworked the "Crossovers" to my perception of "the ISFDB way" - "make it easy to find the related books you want to read". BLongley 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "to be deleted/reused" aberrations are because we work around the fact that ISFDB doesn't clean up empty series. The "no content" ones are because some editors think that blanking out a series title (or parent) will cause it to be deleted, or break the link. (It doesn't.) We can reuse some though, I think I can use one for "Terek Nor" for instance. BLongley 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How does one "re-use" an empty site? Can I just open and edit the title of it then link pubs to it? I'm sure there are going to be some sub-series popping up during my trek into Trek®. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can helpfully reuse a "delete/reuse" series name by editing the series entry to give it the name you want, then using it for further title (not pub!) edits. We get a lot of stray series due to people typoing the name, and correcting it at title level doesn't remove the duff entry. When I find such, I try and mark it for deletion (if we get such software changes made) or reuse. Reusing does need people to pay attention to what the series is a sub-series of though - you can't break the parent link, but you can redirect it. BLongley 23:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If people don't figure it out, I'll make an effort to round up all the broken series under one big "this is the series that contains all errors everyone has ever made with a series entry", but if anyone can help in the meantime I for one would be glad! BLongley 23:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Trouble With Tribbles
Can I assume that you've realised your "The Trouble With Tribbles" fotonovel is second rather than first printing, so you're moving your verified edition to the correct state while leaving the first available via another edit? BLongley 21:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! It's the only one of the series I don't have a first printing of, but created the first printing 'stub' while I was in the neighborhood. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've let them through. (No doubt someone will make a push to delete "fotonovels" on sight at some point, same as for Graphic Novels, but if you verify such you should get notified about the latest arguments.) As Don Erikson says, they don't have the "vocabulary of a comic", or as I would say, they're "narratively different". BLongley 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I held such a submission earlier this month, but several editors suggested that such books should be IN, so it seems there is consensus for including them. -DES Talk 23:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GuildAmerica or Guild America
Can you join in this discussion to see whether your copies of this title, this title and this title are published by GuildAmerica or Guild America? Thanks. MHHutchins 02:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vulcan's Glory -- non-OCLC note
In you noted "ISBN does not hit on OCLC". However, new records get added to OCLC, sometimes years after the fact, if a member library acquires and catalogs a book. Thus I suggest dating such notes. In this case I added "(as of July 2009)" to your note. -DES Talk 20:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good point! I shall do so from now on. There are maybe 5-6 that, surprisingly had no OCLC record, but all were for the British Titan printings, which are unlikely to suddenly show up in a US library. Of course, I'm assuming OCLC is not tapped into non-US libraries or that it might be one day. Thanks for noticing! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OCLC does have member libraries outside the US, but by far the majority are in the US, as I understand things. Not all libraries that use OCLC send catalog records back to add to OCLC. All of this is subject to future change. MMPBs are perhaps a bit less likely to get OCLC records, since libraries are less likely to acquire them. Anyway, there is never any telling in advance which pubs will have OCLC records, although most books with ISBNs do -- and many without ISBNs. Anyway, thanks for your many entries and notes of OCLC numbers when available. -DES Talk 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Foundation and Earth
I just discovered that you had the key to a puzzle you didn't even know existed! Your verified pub of this title contains the first known example of a gutter code with two letters in the database. Kevin asked me earlier about a code "CC36" in one of his SFBC editions which I pooh-poohed as a freakish occurrence. This led to research which prompted me into updating the Gutter Code page. Did you ever think twice about the code in your book, or was that so early in your involvement here on the ISFDB that it never occurred to you how strange that code is? It's something like this that keeps the blood pumping and keeps me working on the database! MHHutchins 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I are a pioneer?¿?¿ Thought it strange at the time, but one typeset error doesn't seem like a world-changer, even two won't get my blood pumping. Now, THREE, hoo-boy, watch out!!! ;-) Perhaps someone thought that since Doubleday was on their second go-round of the alphabet, maybe doubling the letter would be a good idea, which it would have been. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When you get a chance take a look at the conversations ping-ponging between Kevin's and my talk pages, as well as the updated Gutter Code page. It struck me as so simple that I'm embarrassed that it never crossed my mind. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Better Man
Please re-check - Looks like you pasted only the TAG and not the full link to the artwork. Approved submission for your correction. Cheers Kevin 04:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like your malformed URL has revealed a bug in my link display code. sooo... now you can't fix it. hmm - I'll be back later. Kevin 04:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the record... but it still need the new artwork link. Thanks Kevin 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kevin. After a couple of thousand the 'clicks' get to be so automatic I'm surprised more don't go "astray". Any progress on being able to SEE the edit before submitting?¿?¿? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Anderson's The Jedi Academy Trilogy
Can you check your verified copy of this title and see if the ISBN matches the record? The 1996 omnibus [The Rise of the Shadow Academy] has the same ISBN as this one. According to OCLC the first trilogy should be 1-56865-120-1. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct! Changed the record. Noticed it was Primary by Alvin, which is probably why I didn't check that closely. Still in recovery mode then, too..... hmmmm, what else can I think of..... it was Tuesday?¿? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Universe
I think perhaps that your pb copy of might be missing "Spin Off" from page 500. Kevin 02:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's right where it's supposed to be, page 500, right after 499 and way before 501. The record, on the other hand......... fixed! That must have been a Tuesday. ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always had problems with Tuesdays that follow Mondays myself. Kevin 03:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially this week as Tuesday was most painful after a less than spectacular but thoroughly splendid run-in with a step-ladder. The ladder won and my #6 & 7 ribs lost. Good thing there's drugs 'cause I hurt something awful. But I'll get to catch up on some editing......... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Errand of Fury
I notice that on you left "Errand of Fury" as part of the publication title, but that on your submission for  you omit the series title, while on book three, you are adding it. My preference is to omit such series titles, using the series mechanism to capture them insted, but in any case the books of a given series ought IMO to be handled consistently. There was a somewhat inconclusive discussion about this recently at Rules and standards discussions. -DES Talk 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the above submissions on hold, pending your response. -DES Talk 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In this case the series name was already there for the first book and I thought the second and yes I added it to the third. I prefer them gone, and yet in the Crucible threesome, the word Crucible is attached to the title of each with a semi-colon, and I added it to all three because of that. You can either reject the two Errands and I'll re-submit or approve and I'll delete the Errands appendage (easier for me as then the images and notes are intact). ~bill, --Bluesman 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll approve and let you delete the "Errand of Fury" prefixes. I'll approve the Crucible submisisons and let you adjsut them or not -- this is not a fully settled area for the ISFDB. -DES Talk 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -DES Talk 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been systematically deleting Star Trek, The Original series, etc. from all the pub titles as I go through. If we left it all in the titles would end up as long as the books..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. I Fully agree. -DES Talk 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Star to Every Wandering -- date format
You submitted an edit changing the date on  from "2007-03-00" to "2007-03". Date formats must be a full YYYY-MM-DD or the software doesn't understand them, and if it did fill out missing sections with zeros this would make no change anyway. i have rejected this submission. -DES Talk 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not know that! You were working on something else? The link took me to Lovecraft...? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Series creation
I rejected the title update for A Burning House because the series varied slightly from the current series name (it was missing the colon after "Star Trek"). Picky, yes, but it would have created a new series. And yes, we could have corrected the title record to the correct series, but the non-colon series would remain in the database forever (or until we become able to delete series, or someone who knows how to find empty series could rename it to create a new series...) MHHutchins 14:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch! I know about the present immortality of series, and am trying to be extra careful. Will re-submit without the colon. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already placed it into the series, so there's no need for another submission. Sorry I forgot to mention that. MHHutchins 21:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Found that, cleaned my glasses, looked again and it was still there, so....thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Mc(C)Auley
Hi Bill. I changed the author of the introduction to Zima Blue and Other Stories from Paul McCauley to Paul McAuley. You probably cloned this from one of the Nightshade editions, that had the wrong name. To be certain, please check your pub. If it's really Paul McCauley we have a new pseudonym. Thanks Willem H. 14:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember if I cloned that one but I think I did import the contents to avoid merges. Good catch! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Zebrowski's Macrolife or Macro-Life?
Can you check the title page of this pub and verify the spelling of the title? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The hyphen is there on spine, cover and title page. This is a fix-up novel that has a section "Macrolife:3000" without the hyphen. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I do a little photoshopping...
...on some of your cover image uploads? I know when I've finished they probably won't look like the actual book today, but closer to what they looked like new. Here are examples of one of your latest uploads: before and after. It's just a more creative outlet for me than researching and data-entry, which can become mind-numbing. MHHutchins 16:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with all of those grease spots in the upper right-hand corner?  Someone dropped a bucket of KFC on a pile of books? :-) MHHutchins 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The seller at the flea market used stickers that were difficult to remove. I use a de-greaser to soften them and that little spot fades after about an hour. Should have done them all yesterday, then uploaded the images today. If you can clean the images up I'm all for it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghost Ship
I approved the update to but the change of the date from 1988-00-00 to 1990-00-00 makes me nervous as usually the ISFDB data tends to be correct. I added a publication note Could you please edit the pub-record to fill in the "xyzzy"? Also, the cover image is broken. Amazon has an image but that seems to be broken too. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2009-07-19 This publication record used to be dated 1988-00-00. The source for this date is unknown as the publication states "xyzzy". Amazon.com reports the date as October 15, 1990.
 * Can't fill in what isn't there. All the Pocket Books printings give only the first printing date and a number line. This 'stub' record has a different ISBN than the first printing and also different from the 5th printing that I have. Ran that through OCLC and got a 1990 date, which fits with the $4.50 price. Can't 'fix' the image as I don't have this printing (probably a third). In this case the ISFDB data isn't correct, I just narrowed it down more. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I updated the notes so it's hopefully clearer. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of Ford's How Much For Just the Planet?
Can you check to see if the slugline "Book Club Edition" is printed at the bottom of the front inside flap of your copy of this title? I'm trying to narrow down when this practice was dropped. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. How 'narrow' have you got so far? If memory serves it didn't disappear until after the advent of the five-digit codes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked a few and Dickson's "Chantry Guild" from '89 still has it, but Heinlein's uncut "Stranger in a Strange Land" '91 does not. Let me know if I can help further, as I have a lot from that era. Think MartyD might, too. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I thought I had it narrowed down to April-May 1988 until you threw into the works that monkey wrench about the Dickson. I'll have to rethink and do more research.  Perhaps it depended upon which printing plant was being used?  Around this time Doubleday (under its new owner, Bertelsmann) may have started jobbing out titles to different plants. Thanks alot.  There goes my morning! MHHutchins 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does The Coelura from later in 1988 contain the line? MHHutchins 18:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn, damn, and triple damn. MHHutchins 18:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How about quadruple....?¿? Jeter's Farewell Horizontal, Sept.'89 still has it too. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Quintuple.  by Greg Bear November 1988 has it still too. Kevin 23:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Jeter's "Farewell Horizontal" has the designation; Bear's "Tangents" doesn't. That just leaves Clayton's book in between. Can't help you on that one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple submissions
I have no idea how this happened but within three seconds there were 14 identical submissions for this pub, adding an author's note. After approving the first two, I rejected the rest. They were followed by another submission which added the cover image plus the author's note. I've since cleaned up the pub to remove the duplicate records for the author's note. Again, there's no explanation from my point of view about how this happened. Please check to see if the pub is correct. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my mouse was resting on the enter button... thought there was only one spurious submission. Oooooooops. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Brunner's Players at the Game of Men
Can you tell me if the catalog number is on the inside back flap or the back side of the dustjacket of this pub? I'm trying to narrow down when the catalog numbers on SFBC editions were moved. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Game of People has the number on the inside. Unfortunately the next one I have that isn't a later printing is Zelazny's "Defender of Camelot". April '81 and it's on the outside. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Simak's The Werewolf Principle
Does your copy of this title have a catalog number? I'm trying to determine when the SFBC catalog number started being used. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This time you're in luck, sort of.... I have first printings for DF Jones' "Implosion" right through to Boyd's "Last Starship" and Clarke's "2001" [fittingly] is THE first [drumroll] SFBC edition with a number.... 1499!!! What are you going to do with the rest of your day?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: Insurrection
Please recheck your locus lookup on the. I tired the Amazon link and it worked right away, so Amazon.com does list this. Thanks Kevin
 * Isn't that what the note says?¿?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Exploring the Horizons
Can you check your verified copy of this title and see if the constituent anthology The Furthest Horizon (starting on page 457) has the same title as the anthology The Furthest Horizon: SF Adventures to the Far Future. I'm holding a submission that wants to make one a variant title of the other, but I suspect they're actually the same. If yours doesn't show the subtitle, I'll accept the submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On both the title page of the Omni and the title page of the 'section' of the Omni there is only "The Furthest Horizon". I'm not sure if the "and" should exist in the main title either as it's not there on the title page. Not sure how it would be deleted and retain the separation between the two constituent sub-titles, though. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You could remove the subtitle in the title of the pub record, and in the title of the title record, and it wouldn't change the title of the two content records that you've entered for the constituent anthologies. Since there is no subtitle in the title on page 457 (only The Furthest Horizon), I'm going to accept the submission and make it a variant title.  Thanks. MHHutchins 02:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Falling Toward Forever
I physically verified Gordon Eklund's Falling Toward Forever the other day, which had previously been verified against Currey. There is nothing to indicate the month of publication in the book, but our record says 1975-11-00, so I assumed that you had taken it from Currey. However, now that I am thinking about it, the source of this information was wasn't explicitly stated, so perhaps the month comes from some other bibliography. Could you please double check Currey when you get a chance? TIA! Ahasuerus 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No month mentioned in Currey. I always quote exactly what he states, if the month was there it would have been included in the quote. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, adjusted! Ahasuerus 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Destiny: Book Two
I just approved your edit to. I'm glad to get away from an amazon LZZZZZZZZ image but it seems the image you uploaded is darker and less celar than the amazon image was. I often find that by playign with brightness and contrast in a very basic image editor, I can make scanned images significantly closer to what the book cover really looks like in good light. Just a tip. -DES Talk 15:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case the book cover is darker than the Amazon image. I use the contrast on every image. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. It looks like the amazon image had different color lettering, so it must have been a different image in any case, although based on the same art. I often find that increasing the brightness improves results, but that may be my particular scanner settings. Thanks for all the images you upload. -DES Talk 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At times Amazon's images are pre-release ones that do not match the actual cover. Found a few that were completely different, to the point where the cover artist is different than the credit inside the book. With an unsigned cover I wonder how many slip through as by someone else?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Foundation's Friends
Can you tell me if the two afterwords (by Janet & Isaac Asimov) in your verified paperback edition of this title has the word "Afterword" in the title. In my hardcover edition, the pieces have that prefix only in the TOC, but not on the title page itself. I changed them before I realized it may be different in the paperback edition. Thanks for looking. MHHutchins 17:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit is quite correct. PB has "Afterword" only in the TOC. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

eBay - Early Star Trek - Heads up
Saw this while prowling for books tonight. 10 Early ST Novels on eBay and under $10 shipped, and no bids. Thought you might be interested. Cheers Kevin 04:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to EBAY, but haven't for quite awhile and won't ever again. Their PAYPAL only policy is ridiculous, and I'm not about to give a company with several thousand current law-suits for mis-use of customers/sellers bank accounts access to mine. Appreciate the heads-up, though! Still a few early BCEs I'd like to find, but of the 600-800 books, another couple hundred magazines and reference materials, I have just about everything TREK ever legitimately published (in North America), and 95% of that is 1st/1st in VG+ condition. Makes the hunt so much harder than it used to be. Though not half as hard as inputing it all on here!!! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I buy and sell on eBay regularly. If you ever see anything you must have, I'll take your check, pay with Paypal for you, and cross ship it to you. Just let me know. Cheers Kevin


 * Maybe our paths have crossed before?? Do you operate a store, or just list? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I make my eBay money on corporate / government surplus (tech hardware), not books. I have listed a few books recently, but not in the past. Kevin 21:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most interesting! Any used Crays?? ;-) I shall keep your proposal in mind. My e-mail address is available through my talk page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope sorry - Ha! - this was the last big toy I shipped. Listing closed Friday AM with no bidders, but I sold it Friday afternoon off ebay, shipped it, then had someone email me this morning wanting to know if I still had it. Usually I deal in Laptop parts, and the occasional electronics testing doo-dad.  I do have a an ADM-3A Terminal sitting on a shelf unlisted at the moment. You may have seen a terminal like this in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', or in your local university Termie Lab connected to a Cray...This thing was the bomb... Upper AND Lower case letters available on the screen!. hehe - (Yes, I am a geek). Kevin 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In a different age I might have been, too. My first experience with a computer was one that filled a room and needed punch-cards... not the most inspiring initiation. Didn't own one until 2000. Had a MAC now for over a year and will never go back. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have an ASR-33 - well, it's in the loft at my parent's house, threatening their lives if the ceiling gives way. The first full computer I ever actually owned was a ZX81, and the first one I got paid to program was a ZX Spectrum. (Serial number 000985, not bad for a home computer that sold a million.) I then went into computer science and discovered Crays, IBM mainframes, punched cards and paper tape: and when I went to work, I discovered they weren't dead yet.... BLongley 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (Feels a Heinlein / Lazarus Long parable coming up) I've have found Operating Systems to be rather like Religions. Most people stay with the first one they know, some small percentage make a leap of faith once perhaps twice in their life, but when someone is comfortable in several at one time, they get funny looks if they talk about it. Kevin 23:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Vogt's Destination: Universe!
Don Erikson found the cover artist for your verified edition of this title. MHHutchins 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent!! Wondered what that really unique signature was. "S" is a lightning bolt followed by a period, then an emdash endash (Morse code?) followed by another period. When I ever get to the "Vs" I shall enter it in the artists signature section. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not Hickman's later signature, i think. -DES Talk 23:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/0/08/Stephen_Hickman.jpg

You judge! This is free to be added to the signature file as I don't as yet know how. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You put something in the "Signature library" by adding Sig Image Data to the image page (or Sig Image Data-Int if it comes from interior art instead of a cover), and filling in the parameters as described in the template documentation. That's all there is to it. -DES Talk 00:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Signature Image Library" itself is simply Category:Artist Signature Images. -DES Talk 00:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Went to the image page, tried to add what seemed to be the correct data and nothing.... what does a completed one look like? With me and html nothing is "simple" ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected this one. This template needs the parameter names specified, like "Artist=Stephan Hickman|Publisher=Jove". Take a look at the corections I just made, and at the documentation on Template:Sig Image Data It gives an example:


 * I hope that helps. -DES Talk 00:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All that just for a signature???? Holy crap, Batman! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It takes maybe 15-30 seconds to copy and fill in, with a little practice. We need the artist and publisher specified to create the categories that make it possible to find the image when it is wanted. The pub tag is needed if there is to be a link to the publication record. It really doesn't seem excessive to me. -DES Talk 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A "little practice", eh? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Right up there with "simply"...... ;-) Learning is! 'Tanx! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Have Space Suit - Will Document - Library Binding
I held the submission to remove "If your copy in hand does not have the library binding, but does have "J—1.67" as the printing, please create a new publication record to document the multiple states." from. Any particular reason you want this request removed? The reason I ask is that sometime soon I planned on putting together a whole wiki page documenting the differences in these two states and I'm looking for evidence that a printing was bound into the different bindings. Unless that is, someone can tell me that it never happened? Which means I can start differentiating by state the different Heinlein Juvenile Printings.- Thanks Kevin 05:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were directing the statement at me. Read it after you left notice for me that you had done the additions. Thinking inside the box instead of outside... reject the change! ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! - Got it. Rejected. Thanks! Kevin 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pub deletions
When deleting a duplicate pub, it is helpful if you include in the reason the tag or record number of the pub that it duplicates -- this makes checking much easier. Thanks. -DES Talk 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! Since I can't see the screen you get it's hard to know what it does show. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we added a link to the title being deleted (e.g. "Record to Delete: #48136"), I've never found it a problem to spot the duplicate. We can probably do something to add a note to mods if it's deleted from the "Publication Diff" screen though, if moderating such is still a problem for you? Such won't help if it's deleted some other way though. (And I must admit I never delete from the diffs screen, I don't trust it to give me enough information to decide.) BLongley 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit I forgot about that link. The pub number or tag would still help, IMO, but it isn't as important as it was, now. Still when I'm deleting dups, I pretty much always have the other record displayed, either on a diff screen or in another tab (more often the latter) so copying a pub tag or record number is pretty easy, and i generally do it for the record, even though i am self-moderating. -DES Talk 19:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sundered: 2298
In your edit to you added a cover image url for Image:SRPNTSMNGT2003.jpg, which seems to be for a different book in the same sub-series. Given that, before I approve the edit, would you please check if any of the other changes came from the wrong pub? They are:


 * Title: from "The Sundered (Star Trek: The Lost Era, 2298)" to "The Sundered: 2298"
 * Date: from 2003-00-00 to 2003-08-00
 * Publisher: from "Pocket" to "Pocket Books"
 * Pages: from 304 to 387
 * ISBN: from 0743464028 to 074346401X
 * Artists: from 	"-" to "John Vairo, Jr."
 * Note from empty to "First Pocket books printing August 2003"; Full number line 10—1; Cover design John Vairo, Jr.; $10.50 in Canada; OCLC 52709542

I have the submisison on hold, pending your response. -DES Talk 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most strange! When I caught that I had the wrong image, which is the first thing I do when editing a pub, I backed out of the page and reloaded it, then (thought) I put in the correct image and did the data. Everything in the text data portion is for the correct pub. It's probably more time-efficient to let it go through and I'll fix the image or you can as it has been uploaded. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK will do. I just wanted to check if anything else was incorrect. -DES Talk 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've approved the edit, but can't find the uploaded image. The upload log shows:
 * 09:49, 27 July 2009 Bluesman (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "Image:THRTFTHMPS2003.jpg" ‎
 * 09:42, 27 July 2009 Bluesman (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded a new version of "Image:SRPNTSMNGT2003.jpg" ‎
 * 09:25, 27 July 2009 Bluesman (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "Image:SRPNTSMNGT2003.jpg" ‎
 * 22:26, 26 July 2009 Bluesman (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "Image:STRTRKVNGR2007.jpg" ‎
 * It looks to me as if you uploaded the cover for Serpents Among the Ruins twice, and didn't up load the cover for The Sundered. If you did, it isn't named with the pub tag, as you usually do.
 * So I will leave re-uploading and fixing the cover image to you. -DES Talk 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed the image. Threw me this morning that the books are not listed in order of publication or the 'dates' on them. Thanks for catching it! Guess sometimes it pays to number a series even if there isn't a numbering scheme. I see that a lot, and though it may not be 'correct' it does help to distinguish an order of some sorts. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a judgment call. I usually only number series if the internal chronology or intended order is pretty clear, but I don't insist on "Book #nn" on the cover or title page. -DES Talk 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear you. This is the first, and probably the biggest, series I've tackled in any way, so still feeling my way around. Most 'normal' series don't publish six books in as many months and then stop. TREK does it all the time. Once "SERIES" in general become easier to fix/cross over/delete the "Universe" needs a facelift. Until then I don't want to mess with previous schemes too much, though it's tempting!! Think I shall have to succumb to Moderator status before then so I can do an over-all fix in real time. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Lost Era
Have you got an overall plan for this? I like putting the dates back into the pub titles, but it might be good to put them into the title titles too. And my "Terok Nor" subseries might need amalgamating, if we don't run into "can't number a sub-series within a series" problems. BLongley 20:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't have time this morning to do the title data as I had an appointment with the Mayor. I had planned on putting the dates in the title data. I have already done a numbered sub-series in Star Trek and it shows as it should (see "Homecoming [2]") under VOYAGER, though I didn't add the "3" to Spirit Walk). You're right about the Terok Nor belonging in the "Lost Era". There could be others too. There is a single book not even in the DB called "Excelsior: Forged in Fire", a Sulu/Dax/Kang/Kor/Koloth tale that would fit nicely as well. These crossovers are a pain!! Also thinking about creating a series "Klingon Empire" to collect the IKS Gorkon/Left Hand of Destiny/Kahless/Klingon/etc books under one roof. Can't wait until pubs can appear in more than one series and be able to delete series and give the Star Trek Universe a facelift. Any input/suggestions are most welcome!!! We seem to be the only two with a lot of TREK books, and I'm sure we could make the Universe a much prettier/sane/logical place if we just mind-melded!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, good luck! BLongley 20:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cover Image data
I see you upload a LOT of cover iamges, which is IMO a very good thing. I also see that you pretty much always use C, which does help because it provides a link to the pub, as well as puttign the fair use rationale on the image page. This is now more important than it was, because the pub pages now link directly to the image pages on the wiki.

However, I want to suggest that you at least consider the occasional use of the full Cover Image Data. This takes a little more time to enter, but it records fuller information in the wiki. In particular, it enables the artist and publisher categories. You can see what we get in the way of artist categories at Category:Artist Images. This makes it much easier to find other images by an artist when we want to compare styles on a debated image (or for any other reason), but it only works on images tagged with the full Cover Image Data template. This is, of course, in no sense required, but I do think it adds some value. Having said that, it is up to you which tag you use when you upload. -DES Talk 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have considered it, but for the nonce will continue to upload as I have been doing. The reason is simple: TIME. I don't just upload a LOT of images, I upload a *#€`⁄»-pile of images. Best guess would be 3000+ SO FAR with almost that many to go and that's just to get through my collection ONCE! Even at 30-45 seconds/per that's another 45-50 hours of typing! I'm a two-fingered typist! That does not mean I won't do the extra data but it will be a project-based thing, something I will come back to once this rather daunting first go-round is finished. For the time being that is the best I can promise. I'll be on here for years and really can't wait until I can tackle projects just like this. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm at best a four-finger myself, so i do understand. When you get around to it Category:Covers without Author category has over 4800 entries already. If you are doing an image that you think is particularly "important" for some reason, you can always choose the longer form that once. -DES Talk 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bet I've added about 3000+ to that list!! Nothing like making work for myself! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Oh Just FYI:
 * Cover images (5,837 members)
 * Cover images without publication links (200 members)
 * Covers without Author category (4,994 members)
 * Covers without Publisher category (4,994 members)
 * So if you've done 3,000 you've done well over half of all our cover images. Thanks a LOT. -DES Talk 01:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The upload log shows you've done over 4,000 uploads, but that includes any cases where you re-uplaoded a better version of an image. Wow! -DES Talk 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of those have been from other sources, which before recent permissions I downloaded to my computer first and then uploaded to the DB. LOVE cover art. I figure by the time I'm through (what a pipedream THAT is!!!) I may push the 10,000 images range. And I like that! There is no other genre that creates such incredible artwork as SciFi. The wrap-around covers are my favourites. And YOU, young Paduwan, have far too much time on your hands to be accumulating statistics like this! I like that too! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Reality Dysfunction: Part 1: Emergence
I updated the title of your verified pub The Reality Dysfunction: Part 1: Emergence to the correct subtitle mark. Your title had been "The Reality Dysfunction, Part 1: Emergence" and I changed the "," to a ":". Assumed to be a data entry typo that didn't get caught at verification. Thanks Kevin 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange New Worlds IV
Your edit of would (among many other things) change author "T. G. Theodore" to "TG Theodore". Except in very unusual cases, we always normalize author initals to have periods and be separated by spaces, whatever is in the publication (one of the few ways we deviate from what is on the pub).

Is this for some reason an unusual case?

I have the submisison on hold, pending your response. There is nothing else in it that I would hesitate to approve. -DES Talk 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the same applies to several other SNW pubs i have on hold. -DES Talk 23:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This particular author has only three stories, one in each of three consecutive "Strange New Worlds" anthologies. In each instance there are no periods after the 'initials' and no space between them, neither in the TOC, the story title page nor the text page header. Every other author in these books that has an initial or two has been given periods and spaces. Figured if they made a point of it....... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I have asked for wider response at Rules and standards discussions as I am about to go offline for a while. -DES Talk 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've approved all these edits, after seeing the advice from others on the R&S page. -DES Talk 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Read the page, but really had nothing to add to the discussion. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange New Worlds 9
Your edit to appears to italicize parts of two titles, by embedding HTML. One you put in as  and another as.

I think that having html in a title will cause problems for users searching for these titles, and for later merges should the titles be reprinted.

Help:Screen:EditPub says: "Typesetting style is not important; for example, Fantastic Universe typically printed story titles in lower case, but these titles are regularized for the ISFDB." This is in the section about "case" -- there is no section specifically about font. But we have many titles containing foreign words that were italicized on publication, and I don't think we have used HTML to italicize them here.

I am holding this pending your response and possible further general discussion. -DES Talk 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See Rules and standards discussions -DES Talk 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just put them in the way they are in the TOC and story Title pages. Even the text page headers have the italicized portions. I can change them back, which is easier than re-submitting as all these anthologies had additions to them and changes to the data fields. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you put them in as they were printed. But given what including html will do to searching and sorting, i think this is a case where we should differ from the pub, just as we usually normalize case. I can approve these and ask you to change these particular titles back, or i can let the edits sit while we wait for others to express opinions. I agree that there is too much other good stuf in these edits to reject them and ask you to re-enter.
 * What is your preference? -DES Talk 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let it through and I'll just delete the html brackets. The stories don't exist anywhere else so no real cascade effect. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK will do. You can, if you like, join the discussion about the more general policy issue linked above. or not, as you choose. -DES Talk 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Approved. -DES Talk 01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: Myriad Universes: Infinity's Prism
You changed this from an anthology to an omnibus. Would the page count indicate these are novels and not short stories. To fix the Title Reference link I changed the pub to an omnibus. Thanks!Kraang 02:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just saw the next edit! All these Star Trek pubs and their series names can be a bit confusing!Kraang 02:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nearly every one and even I go in circles at times..... of course TREK may have nothing to do with that! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And all the lengths definitely make the contents novels. ~BIll, --Bluesman 13:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What Lay Beyond
This pub needs a little more massaging (I'd love to massage away all of those author and artist credits!) It should be changed from NOVEL to ANTHOLOGY, and the contents should be added. Or you can import the contents from the hardcover edition to avoid having to merge the title records of any newly entered content records. BTW, did it actually take six artists to create that cover? MHHutchins 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The cover of the seventh book is an amalgamation of the previous six covers, none of which were signed or credited. Think I will keep my eyes open for the HC just to straighten that mess out, though I can's see any way of getting rid of the "string" of artists. I just added the contents, but honestly missed the "novel" designation. The over-all title has Anthology ( just looked again and the PB does have novel - will fix) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Call to Arms . . . / . . . Sacrifice of Angels
We've determined that ellipses should be standardized, regardless of how they may appear in print, to the following: This is in the help somewhere but don't make me try to look for it! Thanks. MHHutchins 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) After a title: TITLE(space)(period)(space)(period)(space)(period)
 * 2) Before a title: (period)(space)(period)(space)(period)(space)TITLE
 * What I entered is a true ellipsis (option+; on the MAC) not just three periods, but I can change them if necessary. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do change to periods and spaces. Otherwise searches will fail unless the searcher enters a "true ellipsis", and i don't think that is quite standardized. Help:Screen:EditPub says (under "Symbols and punctuation") "An ellipsis should be entered as the sequence "space", "period", "space", "period", "space", "period". If the ellipsis is in the middle of the title, it should be entered with a space after it as well, prior to the start of the following word."
 * It would be nice if the search translated a "true ellipsis", but it doesn't, at least not yet. -DES Talk 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit of Dhalgren
You edited to change the note 'Stated 1st printing' to '"A Bantam Book / January 1975 on copyright page." - Currey (over) No statement of printing, no number line. (over) OCLC 222259742 '.

Are you quite sure that there wasn't another state that had a stated first printing notice? Perhaps this should be a clone rather than a modify?

And is "A Bantam Book / January 1975" quite consistent with "No statement of printing"? That looks like a statement of printing to me. But perhaps i am confused.

I have the submission on hold. -DES Talk 23:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All Bantam PBs of that era, at least the first printings, never stated "First Printing". Just "A Bantam Book / [month, year]". That's what I mean when I put in "No statement of printing". That quote is from Currey, by the way and if a pub says "First Printing" he notes it exactly as it appears. So, no, it should not be a clone. And no, I don't want to put in the dreaded "assumed first printing". To me, the statement is a statement of publication, not printing and the two are not always the same. It was quite common in pbs of the sixties and into the seventies to have a publication date and a different printing date, thankfully not any more. Some of the early fifties pbs could have a couple of printings even before the book was published! Makes the field fun to fill out. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well, i yield to your superior knowledge. I will approve this.
 * However i fear this may be confusing to some users -- it would have been to me. You might want to consider rewording, but I'll leave that up to you. -DES Talk 23:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any ideas? I'm always open to better ways to say things...... without getting too wordy, simpler is better... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "No printing date, only publication date" perhaps? I understand the difference between the copyright date and the publication date, and between the date of an edition (basically the publication date of the first printing) and the publication date of a later printing. But I'm not quite clear on what you mean by a "printing date" -- surely no one except the SFBC (via gutter codes) lists dates of actual manufacture, as opposed to dates of publication of specific printings. So I'm not sure that I perfectly understand the distinction you are making. -DES Talk 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at [this] Quite common with Pocket Books in the 60s. I have dozens. For modern pubs it's probably splitting hairs, but I've done so many edits of older PBs the habit crosses over. Even so, the modern tendency has moved to "This XYZ edition [month/year]" as one statement and then only the number line tells what printing it is though thankfully without adding another date. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bantam was strange in that they'd print rows and rows of the dates of previous printings, but wouldn't date the one you're holding in your hand (especially before they started printing hardcover editions). But it is assumed that when there is the statement "A Bantam Book / MONTH, YEAR" without any further statement of printing, that this is the first printing.  DES's suggestion of "No printing date, only publication date" would confuse more people than it would help, IMHO.  In cases like this I record the statement and leave it alone, such as here and here. MHHutchins 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bluesman was correct to remove the "Stated 1st Printing", when the book actually doesn't state "First Printing". Some people have the strangest definition of the word "stated". MHHutchins 02:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember that discussion vividly!! The number line makes it so much easier. I think the "No statement of printing" statement is a backlash from that. Still bugs me when I see it and know there is no such statement. Sooner or later I'll hit and change them all. I've yet to figure out why any editor chooses to paraphrase instead of just quote direct = no equivocation = no guesses (assumptions). And it would stop a lot of duplicate entries too. My 2¢, CDN of course! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Over the past several months, when I have time, I've been going back over the pubs I verified, mainly to record the statement of printing and/or edition (which wasn't a common practice when I first arrived here.) I don't understand why it's so difficult to just place what's printed into quotes, and let the statement speak for itself. Then it would be obvious to another editor whether or not their copy matches yours, and decide whether another record should be created. Some people try so hard to make it harder than it really is! As for your dislike of "No statement of printing", I've used it ONLY when there is NO STATEMENT of printing.  I don't place it into quotes, of course, as there is no such thing as a statement that there is no statement of printing. If a pub doesn't state its edition or printing, what do you suggest the editor should record?  MHHutchins 03:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only time that "No statement" gets into quotes is when it comes from Currey. The early Ballantines were awful for having nothing but the copyright date, so that would be all I would note and then add "No other statement of publication or printing", which I have done  maybe a hundred times or so. The Lancer editions were mostly the same. Tower, of course, and then ACE!!! Oh, well. SImple is best, no assumptions. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

del Rey's ''The Infinite World[s] of Maybe"
I corrected the title of this pub from ...World... to ...Worlds... based on Tuck, and added the price for both bindings. Did Currey show the title as Infinite World...? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, my miss on that one. I'm surprised the Library binding would have a price? Thanks for the keen eyes. Obviously you had your coffee this morning! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason I checked was because I'd never even heard of the title (shocker, yes, but a few titles slip through every now and then.) That's the only reason I pulled out my Tuck, thinking it may have been a nonfiction work.  Imagine my surprise to learn it was a juvenile novel.  And I wouldn't have imagined that a title from a major author would be missing from the db! I probably would have died (of humiliation) if it had been an Asimov or Heinlein. MHHutchins 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From the title I at first thought it might be non-specfic, but Currey always lists those at the end. The plodding through Currey has brought some nuggets to light, for sure. And I still have about 2/3rds to go! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Erik Van Lhin or Van Lihn
When approving your submission updating this pub I noticed that the author is credited as "Erik van Lihn" on the cover. Every source I have shows the penname to be "Erik Van Lhin". Does Currey note this oddity about the cover credit? MHHutchins 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC) BTW, neither of the links you added to the record (LCCN and OCLC) mention anyone other than Lester del Rey. How odd is that? MHHutchins 20:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he has the pseudo as "Lhin", and without access to the title page.... The image came from his listing on AbeBooks (wondered when he would come into the 21st century?!?!) so maybe we could just ask him? Think I will drop him a line. Maybe convince him to post images for all those incredibly rare editions he has. And I didn't add those links, DES did. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dropped Lloyd a line, so we shall see. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The spelling on the cover is a typo" - from the man himself!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a little odd, particularly when OCLC: 16420563 (for the 1978 NEL edition) says "Originally published: under the name Erik van Lhin. New York : Avalon Books, 1956." But OCLC is distributed, and there is no attempt to enforce consistency between logically related records. -DES Talk 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Preferred Risk cover art credit
You've updated this pub noting that the cover is credited to "R. M. Powers" on the back cover but you change the cover art field to "Richard Powers". Is the latter credited somewhere else in the book? MHHutchins 20:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just the R.M. credit. I firmly believe the canonical should go in the field and the derivations/signatures in the notes. This has sparked a few debates already, with no real consensus, so far. While the pseudonym situation for authors is fairly well delineated, not so much for artists. Too much at the whim of some art director, and almost impossible in the DB as some signatures can only be described/estimated and can't be accurately represented in a text format. You know Powers has about six different signatures and probably as many different "credited" names. Just trying to be consistent with using the canonical. Thoughts? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I came to a different conclusion based upon the same debates. I think we concluded that we shouldn't create a pseudonym based solely on a signature.  But if a work is credited in print (regardless of the spelling ability of the art director et al), we have to credit the record as such.  Sometimes it wasn't the whim of the publisher or editor about how an author wanted to be credited.  For instance, Emsh and Freas, who were credited so in hundreds of works.  In those cases we create variants that lead back to the established canonical name.  I think we also concluded that if a work is uncredited, but identification can be firmly established by signature then the canonical name is used and a variant is not created.  Should we open the discussion back up so that a more solid policy can be codified on the help pages?  MHHutchins 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not necessary. Guess I jut read it differently. I'm fine with that. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mike's statement here -- if there is a credit in print we credit it that way, with or without a variant, depending on the situation. -DES Talk 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Year After Tomorrow
I rejected your deletion for the 1951 copy of The Year After Tomorrow. That record was more complete (Had an introduction, and a price, and cover art uploaded here to ISFDB). I moved your noted from the 54 record, changed the 51 record to 1954, and then deleted the record you had done the secondary verifications on. Thanks for spotting the date discrepancy. There series didn't start until 1952 so I know the 51 date was in error. Kevin 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

PKD's A Handful of Darkness
I see you uploaded a slightly better-cropped scan of this title, but there's a much better one at Fantastic Fiction. MHHutchins 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I took the existing image and played with it, then re-loaded. I've tried not to use too many from fantasticfiction because of their limited bandwidth and so many of their images are very grainy. This one's not bad, though. Wish they would identify the edition or even publisher. ~BIll, --Bluesman 14:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's been one of my worries with links to Fantasticfiction. They keep only one image per title, but what if they change that image to one of a more recent publication, and KEEP THE SAME URL.  I've never noticed this, but it could happen. In the case, we could download their image of A Handful of Darkness and upload it to the ISFDB's server.  MHHutchins 16:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They do it all the time! And not consistently... I'm constantly amazed that they will have a first hardcover edition image of a book that's been printed many times and the next one will be the 2008 cover of a 1953 PB but with the 1953© under it. When I find a good one there, I try and find some corroboration that it is the one I want. I've left many a good image untouched because there's no way to tell which edition it really belongs to. Still a good source, even found some pseudonym works that hadn't been connected in our DB as yet (Bulmer comes to mind). And I loaded their image onto the pub record, but not into the DB. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Date problem
I see a problem with the date of your verified Berkley Medallion 3rd printing of Van Vogt's THE WORLD OF NULL-A. I have a printing with this date and same ISBN (& cover etc.)but no indication of printing. I believe Berkley Medallion just would add a printing notice to a copyright page while leaving the the date of (usually) 1st printing. But because there was an earlier printing (Feb'70) that my copy is a 2nd printing. The ad on the last page of each is not much help as both has it's latest book printed in 1974. So I believe the date you verified may be incorrect.Don Erikson 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think since there is a new introduction AND revisions, that yours would be the first printing of THIS edition, mine the third and the 1977 is verified as the 4th, with the same cover. I'll clone the pub, zero the date and move the verification. Did this one a long time ago before knowing all the ins and outs of the copyright page details (not that I know them now, of course!!). Good catch! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I see an undated one at the top of the list is the 2nd printing. Covers all the bases! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)