User talk:Bluesman/Archive8

Selected Bibliographies in Hell's Cartographers
Hello, Bill! For consistency's sake, could you check in your verified pub if the commentary by Alfred Bester is in his bibliography? He did so in the hardcover edition of 1975, which led me to credit his selected bibliography to him. Stonecreek 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's there, but I think said commentary negates his authorship of the bibliography. Bester is quite clear he doesn't remember what/when he wrote, so someone else must have listed what's there and without even getting the number of books Bester mentions right. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, do you think it'd be better to credit two authors for this item, one being Bester, one uncredited? Because Bester wrote an introduction to his bibliography. Stonecreek 20:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother, as neither the short bit Bester wrote or the extremely scant bibliography say much. But then I tend to ignore these kinds of 'essays' along with "About the Author' ones unless they're substantial. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's maybe not substantial but noteworthy, in that Bester states here himself that he doesn't know the basics of his bibliography. It might happen that you don't remember every story you have written, but to miss out on whole novels? So, if you don't mind I will change the bibliographical appendix in the same way as in the 1975 edition. Would that be okay? Stonecreek 10:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fusion
Greetings, I have submitted minor edits to the book Fusion. The statement of printing in the notes was missing the year, and I updated the note about credited artist to be John Vairo Jr. to reflect the copyright page. Thank You WeAreGray 19:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cover art credit for Omni, September 1990
Can you confirm that the cover for this issue is credited to "Rafael" and not Rafal? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rafal", my eyes 'auto-fill' not quite working! Shall fix. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine must have the same problem. I had to correct records for two of his works that I'd credited to "Rafael"! Mhhutchins 17:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Judith Merrill's "Human?"
I'm doing a secondary verification of this book. My copy looks like it's missing a page. The first Merril essay is on p. 7, but there are only 4 pages before it. Normally, I would assume (at this book age) that somewhere a page had fallen out of the book. But if so, the total page count for the book would come in at 190 pages, and my impression is that these usually come in multiples of 4. So I wonder if there really are missing unnumbered pages. Could you check your copy? My unnumbered pages are: 1-2: Frederic Brown essay; 3: Title page; 4: Copyright page. (No ToC in my copy.) Thanks, Chavey 05:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a TOC, you're missing a page. --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks much, for both responses (i.e. this topic and the next one). Chavey 17:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

/* Judith Merril's 6th Annual Best SF */
I'm doing a secondary verification of this book, and I have a question. The book's ToC lists a section of "Blues and Ballads" on pp. 359-364. This section consists of 3 songs, i.e. poems set to music. I would list them as poems. But here they are listed as: So I can't understand why the first two aren't listed as poems. Was this an error, or am I missing something? Chavey 06:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 359 • Radiation Blues • (1960) • essay by Theodore R. Cogswell
 * 2) 361 • Blowup Blues • (1960) • essay by Theodore R. Cogswell
 * 3) 363 • Ballad of the Shoshonu • (1961) • poem by Gordon R. Dickson


 * No idea why, changed both. Good catch! --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek: Voyager - Distant Shores
Greetings, can you please check your copy of Distant Shores? I have a copy that says it is the first printing, but the pricing on my copy disagrees with the verified copy on the site. My Copy lists $24.99 U.S / $28.99 Can. Can you confirm this? WeAreGray 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I would think you have a hardcover [though supposedly there isn't one...?], my verification is for a trade paperback. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Margaret St. Clair's "Rations of Tantalus"
You verified which contains Rations of Tantalus. Other versions of this story have been verified as The Rations of Tantalus. Would you mind double checking that the missing "The" is correct before I make a variant record? also lists it without a "The", but that is an Italian publication where the title contains an "Il" ("The"). --JLaTondre 17:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No "The", TOC or story title page. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Variant submitted. Thank you. --JLaTondre 20:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cybernetic Brain by Jones
Someone added a comment to this pub. When you get a chance can you check the cover art credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My copy definitely has no signature, but then the cropping of the cover seems to have shifted the whole cover down about 3/8-1/2", sufficient to clip a signature. The style is definitely not Powers', not sure who put the comment in about Jane Frank. Using the biographic comment page to add that seems an odd way to question an artist credit. Have no idea who might have posted that. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The page was created last night by a new editor (Baseman). Noticing the new page on the "recent changes" page, I went to it to add a PubHeader to link it back to the pub record.  After reading what he'd written, I thought it best to ask the primary verifiers. It's possible that Don Erikson may have written the note about the Jane Frank source.  I also believe that Dragoondelight used to verify Power art credits using Frank's book. Mhhutchins 14:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bradbury's I Sing the Body Electric!
This third printing was published in August 1971 according to the publishing history printed in the 8th printing of the Bantam pb. Mhhutchins 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Record amended. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Best of Omni No. 5
I saw you added the contents, including art credits for this pub. I was merging the art credits with the original records for those stories which were reprinted from the magazine, (I did this for those anthologies of the series in my collection) and had a couple of questions. In the anthology, the art of "Body Ball" is credited to "Gerard Di-Maccio" while the magazine credits only "Di-Maccio". Also, the art credit for "Lesson One" is credited to Greg Hildebrandt, while the magazine version credits The Brothers Hildebrandt. Should we create variants for these two art records? Also, the art credit for "In the Hereafter Hilton", the magazine credit adds "(sculpture)" to the title while the anthology credit doesn't. Should these be merged because they're credited to the same artist/studio? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I put in the credits exactly as the anthology gives them. Adding "(sculpture)" to the one is probably a good idea, as the credit does note that. Omni has used various forms of Di-Maccio's name. This is the first time I've seen them use his first name and the last has been spelled various ways [no hyphen, Di Machio as well]. Hildebrandt credit just to Greg. The four "Pictorials" had appended titles, possibly from the original magazine appearances, but here they are just numbered. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I merged the two "In the Hereafter Hilton" records, keeping the appendage. And created variants of the others, in the process making pseudonyms of Di-Maccio's name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing I noticed but forgot to mention: in the anthology "Malthus's Day" has art by Evelyn Taylor, but in the magazine Wolfgang Hutter is credited. Are these two different works?  I suppose it's possible Omni may have commissioned new artwork for the anthology. Mhhutchins 18:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. the two pieces are completely different, and I don't recall seeing the Taylor piece before [at least not in Omni]. I'll take some time later this week to check each individual piece, just to make sure they are the same as the one previously with the story. Just did a quick check and the Hildebrandt one is the same. The Pictorial assemblages use different pieces by the artists, as far as I can tell not just reprinting a previous layout. Those I'll check as well. All the issues are boxed now, but all the artwork is from the first few years, so should be near the top of one box. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cherryh's "Voyager in Night"
You verified a Canadian edition of this book, but you listed the US price for it. My impression is that to distinguish the US & Canadian editions printed the same month, we usually list the Canadian edition with its Canadian price. Chavey 05:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True of those editions not dual priced. The notes explain the difference between the US and Cdn editions. DAW, from Feb. '81 to about '87 would publish simultaneously in the US and Canada but 'deign' the Cdn edition to be the second printing. An argument could be made to use the $C price, but I tend to stick with the country of origin [which the Help requests for multiply priced editions] even if just for the cover. I'm not totally committed either way [though perhaps should be... ;-)]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. But what I like about the alternative is that I can look at the title record and recognize which entry is the US or Canadian edition immediately. As it is, the title record makes it look as if someone has erred and entered a duplicate entry for the book. Then you have to open both publication records to realize there's a difference. Chavey 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's going to happen quite a number of times. The fields that the title record displays may be identical, but other variables can only be entered into the notes field which isn't didplayed on the title record's list of publications. Another thing, many bestsellers have several printings within the first month of publication. That can only be recorded in the note field. Mhhutchins 20:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

McCaffrey's The Coelura
Can you confirm that the publisher of this SFBC reprint is Underwood/Miller? It was published shortly after Tor released it's trade edition which included interior art by Decameron which (according to our records) didn't appear in the Underwood/Miller edition. So is it possible your SFBC edition reprints the 1987 Tor edition (albeit with a new cover)? Or could it be a hybrid reprint of the Underwood/Miller edition with Decameron's new cover art and his interior art from the Tor edition? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 16:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Underwood Miller at base of spine, UM on title page. No mention of Tor anywhere. The illustrations by Dameron ©1987. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. It is a strange publication, as most SFBC reprints of trade editions are almost identical, except for size, paper quality, etc.  This one has new cover art, adds interior art and is published five years after the trade edition. That's an uncommon book club edition you got there. It might even be worth something to McCaffrey collectors. Mhhutchins 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath
The authors of this pub and its title record don't match. The title record is credited to DeCandido, while the pub is credited to the authors. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tsk, tsk... can't have that! Fixed. :-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

E-Ticket to 'Namland
In your, there is both E-Ticket to 'Namland and E-Ticket to Namland. The first one has a page number of "del". I guessing that stands for "delete" and it should be removed? And then a variant established between the two? --JLaTondre 19:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted the one title, thanks for catching that. The story has been reprinted with the leading apostrophe, so a variant would be required. Looks like the OMNI mag was the first appearance. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Omni, November 1989
Thanks for answering the above. Your reward is another question... ;) In, I have questions on the various "Life Is But a Dream" entries: Each title appears twice with the same page number. Is that correct or have these been double entered? And are those last two Anderson entries (the [3] ones) shortfiction or interior artwork? --JLaTondre 20:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 42 • Life Is But a Dream • interior artwork by Clayton Anderson
 * 42 • Life Is But a Dream • interior artwork by Clayton Anderson
 * 43 • Life Is But a Dream • essay by Keith Harary and Pamela Weintraub
 * 43 • Life Is But a Dream [2] • interior artwork by Clayton Anderson
 * 43 • Life Is But a Dream • essay by Keith Harary and Pamela Weintraub
 * 43 • Life Is But a Dream [2] • interior artwork by Clayton Anderson
 * 44 • Life Is But a Dream [3] • shortfiction by Clayton Anderson
 * 44 • Life Is But a Dream [3] • shortfiction by Clayton Anderson
 * Follow-up: I just noticed that it looks like most of the titles in this pub have duplicate records. Also, like Anderson, Holland is an artist so is "Man's Best Friends" and "Man's Best Friends [2]" both shortfiction? --JLaTondre 20:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All fixed. I was definitely getting a little cross-eyed after about a week of nothing but OMNIs. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Forward! by Dickson
I've removed Sandra Miesel as the co-author of this pub based on the ISFDB standard of not crediting the editor in single-author works. Mhhutchins 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Gladiator-at-Law' by Pohl & Kornbluth
I've submitted an update for your verified pub to change the author from "Cyril M. Kornbluth" to "C. M. Kornbluth". It's on hold at the moment, but I'll accept it if the change is correct. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem! C. M. only throughout. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Omni, December 1983
It looks like the record for Charles Bell on page 131 of this issue should be interiorart and not shortfiction. Mhhutchins 19:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed it should and now is! :-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Bennett Hough
This title and its pubs popped up on the Stray Authors list because the author didn't match the title record's author (it was under Rex Gordon). So in correcting them I discovered that the books were actually published as by "S. B. Hough" instead of "Stanley Bennett Hough". You had done Currey verifications on the first edition. I also noticed that the four other Hough titles on 's summary page were published as "S. B." and not "Stanley Bennett", at least according to OCLC and the cover graphics. Does Currey give the full author name for those titles? I'm also wondering if they're all spec-fic. Reginald1 lists three of the titles (Beyond the Eleventh Hour, Extinction Bomber, and Mission in Guemo) and gives "S. B. Hough" as the author of all three. Tuck lists only two of them: Byond the Eleventh Hour and Extinction Bomber, and gives only the latter as by "S. B. Hough". Mhhutchins 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While Currey does note when a pseudonym [Rex Gordon or Bennett Stanley] is used, all other editions simply fall under the Stanley Bennett Hough listings. He probably doesn't recognize the use of initials as being a pseudonym in the same way we do. He also makes no note as to non-genre/genre. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Stray records from your work on Omni
Do you recall removing a lot of content records from issues of Omni without deleting them? There's a boatload of them on the Stray Essays list. Look for "Communications (Omni XXXX)", "Competition (Omni XXXX)", "Games (Omni XXXX)", "Omnibus (Omni XXXX)", and "Star Tech: Assessing the Future (Omni XXXX)". There's almost hundred records that need to be deleted. I'm going to be working on those that I know that I personally forgot to delete. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * {...imagine a little smoking gun...} and they are all toast!! Is this a gold [at least silver] star or a whack upside the head and "stop doing that!" deal?¿?¿? ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've learned your lesson now, haven't you? And you won't fall foul of my data clean-up scripts again? Otherwise we'll have to figure out what the equivalent of "Hail Mary" and "Our Father" penances are in ISFDB terms - maybe "moderate X the Y Fairy submissions", or deal with the latest spambot submissions. (I must have been really bad in a past life, I get to do those almost daily.) BLongley 01:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll submit to [almost] anything, but NOT the Fairies!!!!! Meanwhile I'll punish myself with a "Bloody Mary".... close enough??¿¿?? :-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Haired Girl
I just entered most of the additional contents to this pub and will enter the missing letters too, in short time (just couldn't decide on the titling of the letters at the moment of entering). Stonecreek 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Missing Man
Hi, I am afraid that the cover presently supplied with this publication is not the 1988 Bart edition, as I am having that one myself and it has a signature in the vein of FRobic or so, showing two policemen and a futuristic patrol car without wheels. Fantastic Fiction claims now the present cover is from a December 1975 Borgo Press edition. The back cover of Bart's 1988 Missing Man says "Incorporating the Nebula Award Winning Story", pointing to the fact this is a fix-up (wish were all publications this clear).--Dirk P Broer 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the current image is incorrect, change it. Checked the link to Fantastic Fiction and it has 8 editions listed, from a Putnam hardcover, Avon hardcover, Berkley paperback, Bart paperback.... but no "claim" to a Borgo Press edition. They just put up images and if the publisher isn't identified on the cover there's no knowing which edition the image is from without another source. And an expansion of a single story is not a "fix-up", that term is usually applied to a "novel" incorporating at least two or more stories; assuming that's the only story used in this novel. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the December 1975 paperback. There are three stories in Missing Man ("The Missing Man" (1971); "Rescue Squad for Ahmed" (1970) and "Fear Hound" (1968)), so a valid "Fix-up" in my opinion.--Dirk P Broer 23:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Space Merchants
Can you confirm author credit for this pub? (C. M. or Cyril M.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * C.M. throughout. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Imprint / Publisher
Hi, there! I've changed publisher to Gollancz / Orion to respect imprint / publisher convention for two verified pubs: this and this! Thanks! P-Brane 11:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC).


 * What was there before? The only convention we have is that if both imprint and publisher are in the field, then imprint comes first. There is no requirement to have both. --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I accepted the submission. The original publisher field had "Orion / Gollancz" which the submission reversed. (By the times of these publications Gollancz had become an imprint of Orion.) Mhhutchins 14:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good enough! Thanks, Michael! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Signet pb edition of The Demolished Man: cover art credit discovered
The cover for this pub is reprinted in a gallery of covers by Stanley Meltzoff in Locus #551 (December 2006), part of a tribute to his work upon his recent death. Mhhutchins 17:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Locus obituary led me to his website which lists his book covers (but no images of his sf work, as if they were trying to distance themselves from this low-art). Well, it lists this printing of Revolt in 2100 among the covers, with catalog numbers and such that clearly credits him as the artist. Mhhutchins 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also The Currents of Space. Mhhutchins 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The cover for the World of Null-A side of this Ace Double is also listed. I'm not sure where Schultz fits in here. What is ISCHI? Mhhutchins 18:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [ICSHI] is the 'official' Van Vogt site, source of many covers/data run by Isaac Wilcott. I was going to link to the site but he's wanting to update and probably move it, though isn't sure when. The Null-A cover does look like Schulz's work, though I don't know where Isaac got the credit from. Nearly all the data I've been able to cross-check has been accurate. What's the Meltzoff site URL? I'll bring this to his attention. Thanks for the updates! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * www.stanleymeltzoff.com. Go to the "Catalogue Raisonne" tab and then click on the book covers menu. The list is alphabetical (with "The"s included). It gives the date as 1948, probably because the book's only date was the copyright year. Mhhutchins 21:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Ace Image Library also credits Meltzoff. Mhhutchins 21:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Changed the credit. Also e-mailed Isaac with the site and noted the credit conflict. I really have to send Michael Smith some more Doubles images. Sent maybe 2-300 singles over the last six months but haven't dug out the doubles. He wants to split the images to make searching better. Another project.... --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There may be some good data on the Ace Image Library website, but I wouldn't know. The layout and graphic design distracts me to no end. I absolutely hate text placed over a graphic, and my eyes can only take it long enough to do a quick search.  Then I'm outta there. Mhhutchins 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Total agreement! You ought to check out the pages with the westerns.... blinding!! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The 34th Rule
Is David R. George, III credited on the title page of this pub? That's how he's credited on the cover. OCLC gives the credit to "David George, III". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated the pub, but just to David George, no initial or III on title page. Everywhere else.... --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Ship From Atlantis / The Stolen Sun
I added Emil Petaja's essay "About The Stolen Sun" to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And the Moon Be Still *As* Bright
Hi, you verified The Silver locusts, containing a story "And the Moon Be Still And Bright", and if that is true it would be a variant title of "And the Moon Be Still As Bright", would you be so kind as to check your copy?--Dirk P Broer 09:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch! Corrected the title and did the variant. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I can now safely clone it to the 1985 Grafton The Martian Chronicles (with the same coverart btw).--Dirk P Broer 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a question about this title as well: is the initial "and" after the dash capitalized? There are verified records where it's not. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The TOC/Story title page and headers are all-caps, so no way to differentiate. The only certainty is the emdash lead-in. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a space between the emdash and the first letter? There is another variant (here) where there is no space. If there is a space, I personally wouldn't consider it a variant, just a typesetter's choice, and would merge the two titles. I'll leave that decision to you. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 20:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No space. I think all the variants are a result of the typesetters. Still, that's the way people would type it in from their own copy, so ..... --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Replacing images
I've been going through the File List to make sure that all of the images have license tags and adding the CID (image data and fair-use license) to those that are missing. In the process I noticed that several images that you replaced don't have the updated CID. For example this recent one for. Even though you added the new CID to the new image, it doesn't replace the old CID. That has to be done in a separate step by editing the page and replacing the comments with the new CID. In this case, just copy the new CID (under the Comment section of the File History), then click on "Edit This Page". You'll see the old CID still there. Just paste the new CID over it, and save. Most people don't know this. It's at the very bottom of the instructions under "Re-uploading". If you've ever wondered why your updated images don't have the complete CID, now you know! Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never noticed, and I have re-uploaded almost 1000 images in the last month or so. There was a weird 'erasure' when I emptied my trash about a year ago and every hardcover image I had went "poof".... most annoying. Re-scanned all and am finally replacing old ones with new. Of course, quite a lot had complete CIDs before.... --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So you keep the scanned images? I delete them within moments of uploading them to the ISFDB server as I have no personal reason to have a local copy.  As for the CIDs, as long each image has one, even the older versions should be sufficient for legal reasons.  BTW, I've noticed that you're uploading back covers without CIDs.  I've added them to the ones I've come across (I've only gone back to the first of the year.)  For example, this one that you uploaded tonight.  Notice that I added "(back cover)" to the Edition parameter.  By copying the same CID as the front cover, you see that it still links to the pub record and gives the artist credit. Mhhutchins 03:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep them and burn the lot to a CD for insurance purposes. Nearly every image I upload here is 'massaged' in some way but the scans are of the books as-is, high-res too. I never think of adding CIDs to back cover images as so few are identifiable without the front cover. Should there be two CIDs for wrap-arounds??¿¿?? ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. (But you knew that...because of that sly wink.)  But if you split them in half, each half should have a license. The example I gave does identify the book title, along with the artist credit. The only exception I found was a back that someone had uploaded (for some unknown reason) and it was text only. (Your insurance agent would accept an image as proof of ownership?)  Mhhutchins 04:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Proof of condition, otherwise they could get away with replacing with junk if I lost them. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlinked image without CID
Is the back cover of this pub? If so, I'll add a license tag linking the image to the pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ISBN is a match. No memory of uploading it........ --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't notice this before. Someone has linked it to the pub record as the back cover. I'll create a CID for it. Mhhutchins 20:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Light of Lilith / The Sun Saboteurs
I added a CID to these two images that you uploaded: and. Mhhutchins 20:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There will be quite a few ACE Doubles with separate images in the notes. All were intended as temps until I could figure out how to 'stitch' images. You don't have to inform me of these. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going backward and those were in Dec 2010. I'm surprised how few images don't have the licenses when you consider how open this wiki is to all users. Don't know if I'll go back any further, as it appears that 99% of users use the db method of uploading which automatically adds the CID tags.  They were such a hassle to handle before the semi-automated method came along.  That's the main reason I stopped uploading images to Wikipedia.  If you think we're picky here...God, those a-holes at Wikipedia wouldn't let you turn around if you didn't have a fair-use license attached to your butt. Mhhutchins 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just had a bar-code tattooed on mine, saves a lot of hassles, and scanning can be fun......!! (-;  --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian printing of Cherryh's Visible Light
Could you take a look at this discussion (Duplicate publication records) when you get the opportunity? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Broken cover image link, DAW 30th Anniversary
You may want to comment at User talk:Marc Kupper. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Project Jove by Glasby
Can you confirm the author credit for the Glasby half of this Ace double? The cover and the OCLC record give the author's name without the initial. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No "S." anywhere. Did the correction/variant. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction Omnibus (Bleiler & Dikty, 1952)
Hi Bill, Would you like two scans from the TOC, as found on pp. 7-8? A picture says more than a thousand words, let alone two pictures.--Dirk P Broer 23:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess so... not sure what I'd do with them?? Or are these the original cover s for the books of the omnibus? --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish I had the original cover, but it was not included in the price of this xth-hand copy. Actually the two original books in one band and a new preface. All pages 29-314 appear two times, one time in the 1949 part and one time for 1950.--Dirk P Broer 09:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Guess I'm not clear what the scans are of.... the two TOCs? I don't even have this edition so not sure what I would do with scans? Feel like I'm missing something. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dragonheart by Todd J.[?] McCaffrey
I could find no source that gave the author's credit with a middle initial. You have done second verifications of all books under this title record. Do you know where the "J." came from? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Same situation with Dragon Harper. You give Locus1 as your source, so I'm assuming you have an updated Locus CD-ROM for 2008 (even though Locus1 is ordinarily intended to mean the online database, not the CD-ROM.) You also did an OCLC verification, but their record gives the author credit without a middle initial. Mhhutchins 15:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For the first book the "J." was already there. For the second, I'm not sure where it came from. Have fixed them all, removing the variant relationships as well. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
For all the moderating of my French language changes. They are mostly no-brainers, and I'm not competent to chase down original publications for French Shortfiction. There seem to be enough titles to justify a mass-update script or two, but until I try it out manually I'm never sure if the hassle of developing and testing such code is more work than doing it manually. If you think I could have done it better, please tell me how. I was just working through one set of Awards - and I know we have a huge backlog of changes for those already - but the fears of having thousands of updates for non-English titles doesn't seem to have materialised and it might be safe to go back to coding even more improvements. BLongley 21:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thought maybe you'd nipped out for a pint and forgotten them. As you say, no-brainers but about 150 of them! Just wanted to shorten the queue. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 150?! Wow, worse than I thought - I must do something code-wise. And thanks for reminding me about the chance of a pint - I think I will go reward myself with one or two, the pub is still open for another hour.... BLongley 21:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have a Guinness for me!! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Jurgan or Jurgen?
Could you please check (if you have the time available) if it is really Fred-Jurgan Rogner instead of Fred-Jurgen Rogner in your verified Omni? In the first case I would add a new pseudonym. Thanks. Stonecreek 19:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OMNI does indeed spell it with an 'a'. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Omni, January 1979
Hi, this looks like a typo (ex[c]erpt). Cheers, P-Brane 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC).


 * Nah, just shorthand!! ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Who cares about bloody Latin anyway? :). Cheers, P-Brane 02:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

The Wizard of Zao
I added the author's note to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talking with the Dead
Hello, Bill. I had this discussion going on about the 'interview' with C. M. Kornbluth. I just saw now that you also had the book in question verified. Now I'd like to change this 'interview' into an essay, as Michael proposed. Would this be okay for you? Stonecreek 14:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As-is or essay is fine by me. --~ Bill, Bluesman 12:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll submit the necessary changes towards an essay. What do you think of adding the interview with Mary Kornbluth, perhaps in this format: 'Untitled (Interview with Mary Kornbluth)'? Or shall we let it sleep as an essay (you would have to add the beginning page of the interview, which would be somewhere after the half of the piece titled 'C. M. Kornbluth' in Dream Makers, since I own only the German translation of the book). Stonecreek 19:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Michael that an essay is as far as it should go. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. There is no indication or break inside the piece, so I'll leave it to the notes to mention her. Stonecreek 10:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Final Circle of Paradise
Hi, this looks like a long-hand:) Translation-introduction chap acquired an extra N in this verified pub, I believe (Ren N en). Cheers, P-Brane 04:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Corrected. Good catch! --~ Bill, Bluesman 12:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Escape from Earth, by Dann and Dozois
I'm updating the existing "Firebird" published books to "Firebird / Penguin" to follow the ISFDB standard of "imprint / publisher". This changes the publisher of your verified publication. According to the "Look Inside" feature of Amazon, this agrees with the imprint statement in this book, but please let me know if this doesn't match your copy of the book. Chavey 01:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no ISFDB standard that requires "Imprint/Publisher", just that if both are recorded, then that's the order it should be done. In this particular case, on the title page there is "Firebird" in large letters and "An imprint of Penguin Group" in very fine print. I ignore the publisher 'half' of the credit as next month someone bigger may have bought them out. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Witch-Cult in Western Europe
Hi, there! In this verified (Tuck) pub publisher is given as "Oxford" which looks strange for Canadian edition. Could you please double-check Tuck verification. Thanks, P-Brane 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Tuck lists the publisher as Oxford, Toronto. I was unable to find any other source. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. I have also failed to find any other source for such edition. There is of course, 1962 Oxford, Clarendon Press edition which is Oxford paperback #53 with the same page count. Does Tuck mention that one? Thanks, P-Brane 01:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Nope, only the two '42 editions. Very likely Oxford was only mentioned on the title page and Publisher proper would have been Holt, but there's just nothing to base that leap on. Where does the title "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe" come into play? The pub linked to is "Land of Unreason". --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Other Side of the Sky / Martian Time-Slip
Did you notice that such variants are why I added features like this? BLongley 06:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware that some editors variant covers, though the logic of doing so escapes me. Have never felt that story/book titles are equivalent to cover art works in that the titles of covers are arbitrary [matched to the contents for convenience]. Using such duplication to identify artists is about as far as I'll take it. If someone else wants to variant them, that's fine. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wandering Stars
I'm currently verifying this pub, and I would like to add Jack Dann's story introductions to the contents, like they are here. Do you have any problems with this? Thanks, --Willem H. 19:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only that the introductory comments are not titled as such, at least not in the pub we have [don't know about the other one, maybe Steve can clarify that?]. I wonder if it might be more accurate to put (introduction) after the title, like we do for (map) or (excerpt)? I've always left such untitled prefatory material to the notes as it seems presumptuous to title something that even the author of the material didn't bother to title. Your call on adding these to the contents. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this for a few days. It's of no great importance to me, so I'll just leave the pub as it is. The presence or absence of a title is no criterium for me, that depends on the whim of publisher (or worse, printer). If an introduction adds something relevant to a story, or if it's by a major author, I always add it to the contents. I wouldn't place (introduction) after the title to keep things consistent (my opinion of course). --Willem H. 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wondermakers 2
In this verified pub I changed the credit for "The Falcon and the Falconeer" from K.M. O'Donnell to Barry N. Malzberg. The pseudonym is not mentioned in the pub. --Willem H. 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll blame that one on drugs.... five weeks after my heart surgery! Good catch!  --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Space Lawyer
You had an old pending question regarding Space Lawyer. I've removed the Currey verification. I've got both editions of Currey (the hard copy and the CD ROM) and I've yet to find much of a difference between the two. I think there may only be error corrections and no real new data. In any case, if you were still dying to know the answer the question you posed over two years ago, I've finally answered it! Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Two years?? Better late than never! ;-)  --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Judith Merril's 6th Annual Edition: the Year's Best S-F
In this verified pub I changed the author of "Double, Double, Toil and Trouble" from 'Holly Cantine' to 'Holley Cantine', and added a note about Fredric Brown. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Lost Worlds of 2001
Are you planning to talk to Waldstein about your hold on his submission? BLongley 19:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I need to read some of it first so I know what to say. Will have some time tonight to do so. The record is quite incorrect as Non-Fiction as the majority of it seems to be an unpublished novel with a short story and interspersed essays explaining connections to the film. Waldstein's submission to make all the chapters into short stories seems incorrect as well. I had hoped to do this a few days ago but things have been scattered in the evenings. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Daffyd ab Huggh / Dafydd ab Hugh
Hi, I noticed that you have a Daffyd ab Hugh as author for "The Final Fury (extract)" in. Are you quite certain? There is an active author Dafydd ab Hugh who has -amongst other things- written "The Final Fury (extract)" in. That can't be a coincidence! (more a typo of either Pocket book or you yourself) -- Dirk P Broer 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Me, myself; corrected me, myself! ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And you have joined the ranks of those in charge of Pocket books: this site confirms the typo's made when giving credit to Daffyd ab Hugh for the "Rebels trilogy" published by Pocket books. --Dirk P Broer 20:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * An auspicious lot, no doubt! [Or at least it is now.... :-)) ]--~ Bill, Bluesman 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As you own the "Rebels trilogy" (, and ), you might want to add into the notes for those publications that the name given on the cover (Daffyd ab Hugh) is wrong. --Dirk P Broer 22:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Worlds of Poul Anderson
Hi Bill, I just verified for OCLC and Contento1, and discovered that you have done the same in the past for. Based upon the pagination given by both Contento and OCLC,(105+108+125), I am inclined to say that I am right and you may have been mistaken. Then again, both OCLC and Contento1 also give the 1974 to the 105+108+125 combination... --Dirk P Broer 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, only the book[s] are right, editors simply record or make typos.... ;-)  --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bryant Davis = Bryan Davis
There are three novels in a series (Echoes from the Edge) by that are duplicated on the page for. According to OCLC and the cover image, the correct name is the former. All of the "Bryant" records were verified by you from secondary sources, so I'll leave it to you to transfer your verifications and delete the miscredited records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Complete, and I'll let Bill Contento know about the misspelled first name. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Enemies of the System
Could you please check your copy of whether the complete title on the title page is "Enemies of the System: A Tale of Homo Uniformis" as given in Clute/Nicholls and Reginald3? --Dirk P Broer 15:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No sub-title, anywhere. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems the sub-title kept getting smaller with each edition, gone with yours...∰ --Dirk P Broer 01:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

SFBC "Many-Colored Land & The Golden Torc"
I added another gutter code to this omnibus. Your gutter implied it was a reprinting, and my does as well, so we still don't know the original code. But I added mine to the list of known gutter codes. Chavey 03:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hospital Station
Hi, I see you scanned and/or delivered the cover for the. But could it perhaps be the 2nd printing of the 4th edition? I ask it because my copy has a radically different cover (but also credited to H.R. Van Dongen). According to the book's copyright page it is the 5th edition, January 1985 at $2.50, ISBN 0-345-32068-9. Alternatively I may have a 2nd printing of the 5th edition off course, but I already bought my copy November the 14th of 1985. --Dirk P Broer 09:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Even though credited to H.R. Van Dongen, I am tempted to say it is actually a Rick Sternbach or in that vein. --Dirk P Broer 13:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I really can't help much with this without being able to see inside the book shown. Usually one tries to match the price and ISBN/catalog # when uploading images from secondary sources. All of White's Sector General books have so many editions/printings.... If the information from your book-in-hand matches the record, then change the image. Someday the existing one will match some other record. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Salmon of Doubt
Hi! I'm looking at the paperback (not trade) edition of The Salmon of Doubt, under the Pan imprint, which I believe ought to have the same contents as this pub, but there are a couple of discrepancies. The pagination is everywhere the same except that the prologue begins on page xvii, not xviii ... xviii would be a left-hand page, so it might be a typo in the existing entry. Also, the foreword by Stephen Fry is dated January 2002, not 2003. Could I trouble you to check these in your copy? Cheers. Jcameron 00:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct, and corrected! Probably an auto-complete error, an extra 'i' is hard to see! And the date something is written [as with the Foreword] is not really relevant, it's the date of the publication it first appears in that counts. Thanks. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Huon of the Horn
The first edition of Huon of the Horn is currently listed as by even though the dust jacket scan shows "Andre Norton". I suspect that the misattribution comes from a misreading of OCLC 1216996, which lists "Alice Mary Norton" as the "real" author, but the "Responsibility" field reads "Adapted by Andre Norton [pseud.]". I suspect that we will want to change it to, but I wanted to run it by you since you have done secondary verification. Could you please take a look? Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed! All fixed. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ahasuerus 16:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Challenge of the Spaceship
Hello. Since you have verified the of the book, I was wondering if you would help me to solve a little puzzle with revisions and introductions. I have the which I am trying to edit before verification. What puzzles me is that there is one 'Completely revised and updated by the author' on the front cover but it is not clear at all when this revision and update were carried out, and the copyright page and the essays themselves don't refer to anything after the late 1950s.

Anyway, since there is a Revised Preface in your edition, I was wondering if we could compare it with the Introduction in my edition (in which there is no Revised Preface)? If they are the same, I would propose to exclude one of them from the Pocket Books edition and then link both pieces as alternative titles. If not, I still think that Revised preface should be removed from the Pocket edition, but then both piece will stay separate.

In the Pocket Books edition the Introduction is a little over half page long and consists of three short paragraphs which start thus:

The main theme of this book is the impact of the comming Space Age upon our hithherto Earth-bound species...

Though the various examinations of the Man-Space relationship that follow look at the subject from different angles...

Interleaved among these philosophical and cultural speculations are examples of straight science reporting,...


 * There are two additional paragraphs.

The Introduction is neither signed nor dated. Judging by the years on the copyright page, it was not written later than 1959, later than the First edition that is.


 * Ends with "Colombo, May 1961"

I would also appreciate if you could tell me if there are any signs in your Ballantine copy that the book was revised between 1959 and 1961. There are many footnotes in my edition, and some of the pieces have end notes and postscripts, but they all appear to have been written for the First edition which apparently collected for the first time in book form all these previously published only in magazines pieces.


 * Footnotes abound. Without another copy to compare, not possible to date them.

I am rather baffled by the bold statement on the front cover of the Pocket Books edition since, as it seems, the pieces were 'completely revised and updated by the author' more than 20 years before this edition.


 * Marketing ploy.

Regards, Waldstein 14:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The pieces stay separate then. I won't edit my current notes on the pub as they seem to be correct: Pocket Books apparently reprinted the first edition. No need to bother you with comparisons of footnotes. Regards, Waldstein 17:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy, Dec. 1966
In verifying Judith Merril's SF 12, I noticed that the story we have listed as Primary Education of the Camiroi is actually listed in that book as THE Primary Education of the Camiroi. The copyright page of that book implies that this was the title used in the story's first appearance in the Dec. 1966 Galaxy, for which you are a verifier. But other versions of the story are certainly published without "The". Could you check that issue of Galaxy to verify how the title is listed there? Thanks, Chavey 06:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As in the pub record, no "The". Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll change it in SF12, and create a VT. Chavey 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield's The Clock Strikes Twelve
You made a primary verification of and the Curry/OCLC verification on. The question I have is on this title record (835645) and this title record (1280674). The first one has a note regarding all the editions including the 1940 one and then has a variant title record (970487) that contains no publications. The second title record lists it as the original 1940 publication. If I'm interpreting this correctly, I believe the 835645 & 1280674 records should be merged and the 970487 record deleted. However, I wanted a second opinion. Thanks. --JLaTondre 12:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds correct. It is difficult at times to know when to keep similarly titled collections apart, as often the contents are quite dissimilar. The one Title note does a nice job of describing the 'evolution' of the collection, so having them together would seem to be correct. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I submitted the changes. Thank you. --JLaTondre 22:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Reed's A History of Terraforming
Please see this discussion. Thanks. --JLaTondre 13:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Lost Worlds of 2001: 'Son of Dr. Strangelove'
Hello. Apparently something's wrong with the unmerge system and that's why I am trying to separate 'Son of Dr. Strangelove' from the identically titled essay in other books of Clarke. I will remove and add it again from the pub verified by me, and then, with your permission, I would like to do the same with the pub verified by you. I will also merge the new pieces and add a note that it should not be merged with with the other 'Son of Dr. Strangelove'. Regards, Waldstein 14:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I have at least one edition of all three titles and the essays seem to be the same. Which one[s] do you think is different? --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the piece in The Lost Worlds of 2001 is very different than the one in Report on Planet Three and Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds!. Waldstein 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite correct [looked at the latter pair and was just going by memory for the first one]. Went ahead and fixed it, leaving a minimal note if you want to expand it? --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks nice now. Thanks. No need to expand the note; I will only add a similar one to the other piece. Waldstein 21:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing C from Canadian Price?
I noticed that on my recent edits that you approved, that you removed the C from the Canadian Price, e.g. my edit of "Canadian price C$6.99" became "Canadian price $6.99". Is this a new policy I'm not aware off? I thought we used C$ to indicate Canadian dollars, vs. $ for U.S. Dollars? AndonSage 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * When disambiguating country of origin's prices in the price field, it is quite necessary to put the leading 'C' or 'A' or 'NZ' etc., but in the notes it's kind of redundant to give the country and then the leading letter as well [what other type of currency would one use? ;-) ]. It's also a tad mis-leading as such leading letters never appear in/on the pub itself, not even when there are multiple prices as with British publications. Some editors do their notes a little differently regarding extra prices and just put "C3.50" without adding the country, thus no redundancy. Eh?  :-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, that explains it. Thanks :) AndonSage 03:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How the World was One
Would you mind my importing the contents of this pub from Locus1? I will take care of the few duplicate titles later. Regards, Waldstein 20:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Go for it! I assume then that this is one you don't have. Please note that Locus1 was the source. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Last Word
Hi, Bill! In this verified pub there are listed two different (or the same) essays by Sheckly on page 126. Could you please check. Cheers, P-Brane 08:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC).


 * No anymore! Thanks. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Slesar
Hi, Bill. Could you please check in this verified pub author's last name on page 251: Slesar vs Slezar. Cheers, P-Brane 12:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC).


 * With an 's' on title page and story title page but with a 'z' in the table of contents! --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Botched Merge
Hi Bluesman: I did the merge on this title wrong. It's pulled it out of the series Vathek. Can you undo the merge so I can try to get it right? Sorry for the hassle. Nimravus 22:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed this soon after it happened and made the necessary corrections. It took a buttload of submissions, but it's in good shape now. Mhhutchins 16:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Currey data verified
Darrah Chavey has created a page for editors to record their progress in integrating the data from our various references. I'm pretty sure you finished verifying the data from Currey so I updated the page. Please make the necessary changes if that's not true. Also, about the above message ("Botched Merge"), it had been posted on your user page, so I moved it to your talk page, and wrote a response. Hope I didn't step in your toes in doing this. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries, think I did accept a couple of submissions re: Vathek, but not for any special reason. As for Curry there was one author I didn't touch, William Hope Hodgson and some of the reference/non-fiction for a few others. You did Lovecraft and that was all the fiction. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me to post it as complete. If you feel up to it, you can send me the Hodgson pages as we did the Lovecraft ones. Mhhutchins 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What a memory!! Mine.... /-: Just checked and I must have gone back and done Hodgson. However [thank god for Post-Its®] I did find two authors I definitely did not cover: Montague Rhodes James and Frederick Thomas Jane. Must be something about authors who died before I was born...?¿? Only a total of 3-4 pages. I'll just do them and then it's done. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reginald3
I finally got around to getting a copy of Reginald3 and thought I'd take a stab at checking it against ISFDB records. I noticed that you'd done some verifying recently up through Alexander. Did you plan on continuing this as a personal project? If so, I can jump into a later section and start from there. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You surmise correctly. I've got Reginald 1 & 3 open plus Tuck and Clute/Nicholls. Slowly working through when no new books to enter. Indeed Alexander, Thea is where I'm at; you've done some Reginald1 though I'm not sure how far. I went through Tuck, just adding in the foreign language editions when I could find a match on OCLC [some not really enough data] and got through AC Clarke. And for pubs that have printings past 1992 I've done a little Locus cross-checking as well. Tedious, but the tangents have been interesting! You know how it goes. Also about a thousand new images so far. Dirk de Broer has been doing some Reginald3 as well, but spottily, an author here and there [though he did Aldiss, a big one]. I like the idea of a checklist, less effort wasted going over ground already covered [though I haven't seen too many other editors adding much for images (to pubs they don't have, at least)]. Reading quite a bit of Clute/Nicholls, some fascinating biographical data though the bibliographic is scant and it's not set up to find easily. Let me know where you jump in [Silverberg would be a juicy one, about 7-8 full pages between Reg 1&3!!]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd verified Lynne Alexander through Felipe Alfau before I thought to ask you about your plans. Please feel free to continue forward in the "A"s and I'll jump to the "B"s.  I'm sure to find occasional authors that have already been verified.  I do the same when I'm verifying from Tuck and Reginald1, i.e. when I go there just to check on one title, I usually wind up doing the author's complete bibliography. I'll post my progress on the new project page. Mhhutchins 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I get even more bogged down. I do a title completely for all editions from all sources [with the exception of foreign language editions from OCLC - just too many!]. It's been about a month to get through 15 pages! The image search gets me side-tracked the most. I wonder how sellers expect to get people to buy from an image so dreadful I could draw one better, six thumbs and all! :-)) I'll let you know when I'm finished with the 'A's. Would that be a good way to account for progress on the page Chavey started [I updated for Currey and Tuck]?  --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And I have done Tuck through TEB Clarke, end of page 103. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

David Searles and David Searls
There are two closely named authors with works in two different issues of Omni, whose similarity prompts me to ask whether they could be the same person. There's "PSI Burn" in Omni, December 1978 by David Searles and "Vagabond" in Omni, August 1979 by David Searls. I'd appreciate your confirming the spelling of each when you get a chance. I may have copies of each issue, but they're buried so deep it would take me days to find them. Let me know if you don't have easy access and I'll try to dig out my copies. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Names spelled exactly as in the records. Both are humor pieces so likely the same author. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll create a pseudonym and variant...once I've figured out which one is correct! Mhhutchins 02:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New Writings in SF 15
Several of our records for books in this series may have incorrect titles, including one that you have verified. Please see this discussion for full details (sparked by your original discussion of the three Bantam editions with the different contents). The following book is the one where I suspect the title is incorrect. I'd appreciate it if you could double check the form of the title in your copy.
 * Corgi edition as "New Writings in S.F.-15", should it be "New Writings in S.F.—15"? (hyphen vs em-dash)

Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely an emdash, corrected title and pub records. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Bradbury's One More for the Road
Can you confirm that the publisher of this book is stated as "William Morrow / An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers"? Most of these books are entered as William Morrow / HarperCollins since Morrow's purchase by HarperCollins in 1999. I'm in the middle of an effort to clean up the post-1999 titles from the William Morrow listings as a publisher before it became an imprint. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is, on page before title page and on the inside back flap. Only HarperCollins is noted on the copyright page. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, one more down. I've changed the publisher to "William Morrow / HarperCollins". Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Gordon R. Dickson - Beginnings
In your verified pub I corrected the title of the short story "Danger—Human!" to use an em-dash, instead of the space minus space that was there, to match my copy in hand. (I actually drop-added a new variant, but that's just mechanics). I imagine that most instances are actually em-dashes and this is a typo that has been propagating for many years. Thanks Kevin 16:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jon Wallace edits
Thanks for you help Bill. I'll try not to break it again. Flax 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Huxley's Brave New World
I added a new record for the 1946 Harper & Brothers edition based on the cited OCLC record. I believe the record you created and OCLC verified is a later printing by Harper & Row, a publisher formed in 1962. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So should the record have no date? or 1962? I'm not sure what's intended here. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to remove the date, at least, until we can determine when Harper & Row actually printed this edition. Looking at many records on OCLC, I could only find the Perennial softcover editions, but not a hardcover H&R edition. It's got to be out there somewhere (do you recall where did the scan come from?)  I found this listing on Abebooks.com, but the page count doesn't match and the date is obviously wrong (must have come from the copyright, like the OCLC record that you'd linked to.) I also found this one which is a book cub edition (note the second image showing the copyright page: zip codes weren't commonly used until the mid-60s.) Here's a listing with matching page count, so I'm going to email the dealer to ask for further details. Fingers-crossed, because I've been very unlucky lately in getting responses from Abebooks.com dealers. Mhhutchins 23:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The scan was from the SFBC edition, which purports to be a reprint of the 1946 Harper & Row edition. I think the reprint part is right but Doubleday may have updated the publisher to the then current designation of Harper?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There may not have even been a trade hardcover edition from Harper & Row. It could have been Doubleday's hardcover printing of Harper's Perennial Library softcover edition for their book clubs.  Hopefully the Abebooks.com dealer will get back with me. Mhhutchins 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The dealer returned my email, saying that their copy turns out to be a book club edition, just as I suspected. Wonder if they're going to reduce the $225 asking price???  This is pretty good indication that the edition with 222 pages is a BCE.  Here's even better evidence: my very own verified record of a BCE also published by Doubleday for the International Collectors Library book club, with the exact same page count. I believe record should at the least have it's date removed.  I'll leave it up to you as to whether we should add " / BCE" in the publisher field. (As far as all of my sources are concerned, it never was a selection of the SFBC.) Mhhutchins 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. Oddly, the copy I have was purchased through the SFBC. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Making of the Lesbian Horse", by Christopher Priest
I'm converting the "Novacon" title series to a publication series, since several of these stories have appearances outside of their "Novacon" chapterbooks. This affects your verified copy of this publication. Chavey 21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Secondary verifications only, no copy in hand. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Heinlein's Citizen of the Galaxy
I see you Locus1-verified this record, but saw that there is also another record that's very similar: same page count, ISBN and year. The major difference is the publisher, and the ISBN range belongs to Scribner, not Atheneum. So I checked the Locus1 listing and see it's shows Scribner also. Perhaps the Locus listing was corrected after you'd made a verification of the first record. I suggest that we delete the first record and that we Locus1-verify the second one. What do you think? Mhhutchins 19:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So, Mr. Contento does fix stuff now and then??¿ I agree with the plan. Price is different but there is an LOC record for the re-issue that has the $13.95 price. I've caught a number of typos in the Locus listings, that's all this might be? --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the pitfalls of a one-man operation: not having all those extra set of eyes looking over your work, something I wish we had more of here on the ISFDB. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess it used to be a two-man operation until Charles N. Brown died. :-( Bill Contento does respond to corrections though, in my experience. (Plus one for "Billiography".) BLongley 01:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be awhile before he does many more, though. He indicated in a recent email that he'll be retiring in about a year and a half and only then would he turn his attention to the Locus1 Index. I've sent him perhaps 150-200 corrections in the last year, some spurred by those 'extra eyes' here. In time I'm sure all the Bills will set the world [at least the 'Billiography' part], to rights!! It is hard to pay attention to new Mods, though, when it's such a relief not to have to check their edits. Perhaps the ModFather should growl once in a while... keep the youngsters in line??¿¿?? ;-))   --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As to more pairs of eyes - I'm glad to see we have more than a few moderators nowadays, but I do wonder at times who is watching the watchmen? I know Michael checks on me occasionally, and I do look at recent edits occasionally myself, but the more we improve the language support the less able I am to check on other people. BLongley 01:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Scribner
Please look at this topic when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gates = William H. Gates III. ?
Hello, Bill! I already connected another Bill Gates to the author of a collaborative essay in your verified pub and then it occurred to me that it's possible that your Bill Gates might be another one as the Bill Gates. Could you possibly verify or unverify this? Stonecreek 10:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's Billy-Bob alright! Makes you wonder why the article was collectively credited to the great minds of the century.... ;-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking that one up! Well, prominence sells, I think - and because of this his essay was included in the pub. I verified. Stonecreek 19:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Best SF Stories of C. M. Kornbluth"
The cover image we have associate with this book calls it "Best Science Fiction Stories ...". Contento1 uses that title as well. Reginald1 uses "Best SF Stories ...". You have verified this with Currey as well, but I wonder if it says "SF" or "Science Fiction". In either case, we probably won't know for sure what it says on the title page until/unless we get a verification for it. But I was hoping you could look at Currey again and then contemplate which title we should actually list it as until such verification is found. Thanks, Chavey 20:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Currey uses Best SF .... and he always went by title page. BLIC also has it that way. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll add a note to that effect. Chavey 22:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Publication delete request
I'd like to delete this pub. According to the two German bibliographies I have at hand, there was no such pub. in 1962, there was, though, this one in 1963 (and it'd be quite unlikely for Goldmann to publish the same edition twice in such short time - without a different no. of printing). I'd say Worlcat errs in this regard. Stonecreek 15:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Clarke's books had the tendency to go through printings fairly quickly, even the non-fiction. However, checking Tuck he notes only a 1963 Goldmann edition [and the '53 Weiss hc]. Perhaps the first OCLC record referred to a new copyright date? If the first record gets deleted then the second one should lose the 2nd printing note as well. Be my guest!! :-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking it up in Tuck, I'll delete the record from 1962. Stonecreek 17:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Web of the Witch World, 12th printing
You verified this edition of this book against WorldCat, and presumably are the source of the note (also in WorldCat) saying: "Twelfth printing / February 1984". And yet the publication date on that publication was listed as Dec. 1984. Looks like a typo, so I corrected that to Feb. Chavey 01:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, what's a couple of months??¿¿?? And you beat me to holding Don's submission! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of his "Web of the Witch World" submissions were helpful. Most of the printings of that book don't specify which printing they are, until the 11th printing. But of the first 13 printings, we had records for 11 of them; and he found one of the missing ones. Of course with Ace printings of that time, anything is possible, but it appears that we now have all but one of them. Chavey 01:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Omni September 1986
Hi, I'm new at isfdb, I hope I'm following the right procedures. I'm writing to you regarding House Arrest and Tech Trek. The article on page 43 of the Omni issue gives some background information on these texts. They are apparently excerpts from Arthur C. Clarke's July 20, 2019: Life in the 21st Century, so I'm wondering whether they should be marked as excerpts? More importantly though, it says that Tech Trek was written by T.A. Heppenheimer and House Arrest was written by Erik Larson, so it seems Clarke was not the author here. Also, I would classify Tech Trek rather as an essay, and not as short fiction. What do you think about these issues? Darkday 22:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first piece, House Arrest is a short story. It stands on its own. Since the book 2019 is not a novel it can't be considered an excerpt of that. If it was a chapter of a book, then yes [ and it is credited to Clarke in the OMNI mag record, not Larsen]. The second piece was written by T.A Oppenheimer and very slightly expanded [maybe four or five paragraphs] in the book and Clarke credits him on the acknowledgements. If the contents of 2019 were entered each chapter could be called an essay or shortfiction. Each deals with a different 'topic' or idea. At best, the original Tech Trek article from Omni would be the Canonical title and the title from 2019 "On the Road: Transportation in 2019" would be a Variant [the difference in text is minor]. In general, excerpts refer to works of fiction for this database. I don't think there is a single piece of non-fiction so deemed [I could be wrong there, I just haven't seen any]. I'm not sure we even have any 'rules' for this [and doubt we need any]. Finally, it's not clear how much of 2019 Clarke even wrote. He could be just the editor, though I'm sure he added something to most of the articles. The contents would be very difficult to categorize, and credit for each a treat as well. That's why I didn't enter them. We do have [Rules & Standards] or the [Community Portal] if you feel this could be taken up a notch. It is an interesting book and might help classify others like it in the future. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd like to put the excerpt topic aside for now (sounds too complicated). You said Tech Trek was written by Oppenheimer (is it Oppenheimer or Heppenheimer?) and he is credited by Clarke. So the author information in Omni and in the book match. So should the record for this text be updated with this information? For House Arrest maybe both authors could be mentioned. The text by Dick Teresi clearly says it was written by Erik Larsen. Maybe Clarke collaborated with him on it, or supervised it. Darkday 23:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Heppenheimer, indeed! Without further evidence [I had missed the crediting of Larsen by Teresi with the House Arrest story and have changed the record for that] that Clarke actually wrote any of the story it would be an assumption to give him co-authorship credit. Have to admit it wouldn't be a very big assumption ... a text comparison between the two appearances gives a number of small additions of a sentence here and there, likely Clarke's, but he only credits the other authors. And I wouldn't, if I entered the contents of the book, be inclined to expand any of the credits past those given by Clarke without some evidence the differences were his and even if they were the two examples here show such additions/changes to be very small, as in an editorial fashion which usually doesn't rate co-authorship. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with that. But I don't quite understand why you changed the author of House Arrest, but not of Tech Trek. Darkday 22:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither do I.... done now. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Darkday 17:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Arts: Books (Omni, October 1985)
Is this text really short fiction? Thanks. Darkday 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well since it talks about nothing but the "Laws of Robotics" and their fictional existence, it can hardly be called 'short fact'. However, I believe we have this odd little category ... 'Essay' ... which might fit better. ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Curse of the Obelisk - slip of the keyboard?
I changed one of the notes for this verified pub from "First Avon Printing: October 1987" to "First Avon Printing: November 1987". Also linked the LCCN. --Willem H. 10:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Slip of something, that's for sure! :-)) ((-: Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Earthclan
I corrected the page number for Uplift in your verified pub from 423 to 425 to match my copy in hand. (423 matches the TOC). Thanks - Kevin 04:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Right you are! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Linking to BLIC records
I've noticed a problem with ISFDB records linking to BLIC records. Most of those that I checked had OCLC verification by you with links to both OCLC and BLIC. Have you been linking to the BLIC lately? I'd brought it up on the community page, before I noticed your connection to many of the records. If it wasn't you, please pardon the inference. In any case, I'd like your input on what may be causing the problem. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've done hundreds of links to BLIC. Each was done with the URL in the browser, and I never log on to the site. They don't give an option [as OCLC does] for a "Permalink". If there's a way to get a proper URL I'd most definitely welcome it. They have really good records. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The World of Ā (cover art)
Hello, could you check in your verified pub, if the cover art is really by Lee Manso or if it is a typo for Leo Manso. Thanks.ChanurBe 02:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As the note says, artist credit is from [ICSHI], I don't have the book. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Realized the site is being re-constructed, so checked the PDF version of the old site I have stored and the credit was LEO, so changed the record. Good catch! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Now &/and Beyond - The Case for Earth
Hi Bill, you seem to own both Now and Beyond and Now & Beyond, but they look identical to me. Anyway, they have the story "The Case for Earth" by Eric Frank Russell. My copy of Darker Tides claims this is a re-titling of Down Rover Down. If that's correct, the story should begin with "He'd gone two-thirds of the way when it happened." and end with "a planetary heaven that was also a penal colony". Can you check this? Thanks, --Willem H. 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed they are both the same, odd. Shall take care of that! The story begins and ends as noted. There is no acknowledgements page to give any further data. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added the variant. --Willem H. 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Voyage of the Luna I
I added the license tag to your. I linked it to the pub record which you suspected may (or may not) be the correct edition for this image. This can always be changed if we learn the image is from another edition. Mhhutchins 20:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Added license to this image also. Mhhutchins 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I do tend to forget to 'tag' such images. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Hero
I have a copy of The Hero by John Ringo, that you have verified through Locus and Worldcat. See [] Mine is a mass market paperback, while this one is marked as a trade paperback. I looked at the Worldcat entry, and it doesn't seem to distinguish between them. I don't have access to Locus. If you're sure it's a trade printing, I will clone it and enter a MMP printing. If it should be a MMP, then let me know and I will verify the entry. The cover matches the record. --Sjmathis 03:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely should have been a PB [OCLC has 18cm, Locus has PB]. Good catch! --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Der Rote Wahnsinn (and others?)
Hello, Bill! This is just to inform you that in this pub the publisher should be denominated 'Pabel' (not 'Rastatt Pabel'), since Rastatt is only the city where the publisher is located. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I entered two that had this publisher, both from OCLC [though both titles from Tuck]. I didn't recognize the city name, sometimes it's easy. I'll change the two editions concerned. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. You seem to change the publisher name from "Rastatt Pabel" to "Pabel". But now we have two publishers with the name Pabel. Is it possible to merge the double publishers? Rudam 21:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Saw this note, so I went ahead and merged the two publishers. Mhhutchins 23:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bullard of the Space Patrol
Do you know if the date and price were part of this record before you did an OCLC verification? The cited OCLC record doesn't give a publication date. And there is another record for what purports to be the second printing. None, alas, are primary verified. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 05:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From two years ago??¿¿?? I don't remember what I had for breakfast! ;-) Best guess is they were already there but taken from Contento or I added them from Contento. Nowadays, of course, such niceties would have the source noted..........! As for the other second printing, the record # indicates it was added after the one I verified [though I don't know if it was added after I verified or not]. Best I can do. --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One better! Tuck notes the second edition, same data and notes Finlay as the cover artist. Ergo, the other second edition is likely bogus. Then again, maybe there was a second printing of the first edition and a first printing of the second edition ................... ? Best I can do! :-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 06:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that last bit may actually be the resolution of the problem. Second edition probably means the World Junior Library edition which omitted a story.  The non-dated record is probably the second printing of the first edition. And the code "HC 252" just possibly means it was printed in February 1952. Case closed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Tepper's Raising the Stones
Can you look over this record when you get a chance? The ISBN is for the trade paperback that was never published (see the note I placed in the hardcover edition). The date of the record is the same as the mass market pb from Bantam Spectra, but it has a cheaper price, and a Doubleday ISBN. I couldn't find any mention of it on Locus1, even though you'd verified it. Also, the OCLC link is for the Bantam Spectra mmpb with a different ISBN. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 18:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for the ISBN, all the data matches the Locus listing. Changed the ISBN in the record and deleted another record for a 1991 edition with a much higher price [$5.99 in '91 is too high, '96-'97 more likely]. Don't really remember this one, any speculations would be just that. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It was the mismatched ISBN that caused the red flag to begin with. Thanks for fixing it.  And BTW, there were 14 books published by Bantam Spectra in 1991 with a list price of $5.99. Admittedly, most of their releases in that year were priced at $4.99. Mhhutchins 05:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Swords and Deviltry", by Fritz Leiber
I added a month of publication to your verified edition of this publication, from Locus1. Chavey 23:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Airmont Classics
I was verifying my Airmont Classic edition of Frankenstein, which looks to me like it's published by "Airmont Books" (listed that way on the cover and the main title page; listed as "Airmont Publishing" on the copyright page), and that "Airmont Classics" is a publication series of this publisher. You have verified 5 such books, listing them as being published by "Airmont Classics", specifically: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, A Journey to the Center of the Earth, The First Men in the Moon, Around the World in Eighty Days, and The Food of the Gods. Three of these covers also say "Airmont Books" on the cover, with the other two just saying "Airmont". Could you look at them again and see if you agree with me that this should be a publication series, instead of a publisher? Thanks, Chavey 14:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Dug through the boxes and had a look. A Publisher's Series is fine, easy to note as they all have CL with a number. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've since realized that Airmont also had a "Airmont SF" series to complement the Airmont Classics, so I'll be putting most (all?) of our Airmont books into one of those series. Chavey 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Airmont Science Fiction series
I am organizing the Airmont Science Fiction series, and have added your verified pubs: Day of the Giants, The Duplicated Man, and The Memory Bank to this series. Chavey 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A contributor's question on Laumer
Hello, Bill! Could you please take a look intothis question? Maybe you're able to help him. Regrettably, I am no Laumer expert. Stonecreek 13:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jungle Tales of Tarzan
You verified at least one edition of this title so I'll dump this problem in your lap. ISFDB identifies this as a novel. Wikipedia claims it is a collection of loosely connected short stories. At least one of the stories appears in another anthology. I suggest changing the book's status to "collection". Zxcvbnm 21:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I shall stand up = no lap!!! ;-) Collection is just fine.  --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Keller's collection Life Everlasting...
I think both Contento and Tuck may be wrong in dating this collection as 1949. You have a record that's Contento verified, but Ron has done a primary verification for the record dated 1947. This is also the same date given in Reginald1 and Currey (according to your verification) and the OCLC record. Is it possible that Tuck was in error and Contento used him as the source for his dating? Or perhaps the book may have a stated 1947 date but didn't appear until 1949? (You never know with these small press specialty publishers about when a book actually appears.) I'll ask Ron to add his input to the discussion. Mhhutchins 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine has 1947 on the title page. Both Clutes and Bleiler78 have the 1947 date.  However, they, like Currey and Reginald, only list the first printings (mostly).  Chalker/Owings also list this title as 1947 and list no reprints until the Hyperion Press edition (which they give a 1978 date, and which is most likely wrong). I think the 1949 date in Contento and Tuck is likely a mistake mostly because they don't list the earlier printing, which Tuck certainly would have done since he tries to list all printings.  Hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a problem with most of our secondary sources. Currey, Reginald, Clute/Grant/Nicholls all claim to be noting the "First" edition [usually of the English text], but Tuck doesn't, nor does Contento or Locus. The latter two generally note a 'previous' edition, but that doesn't mean it was the first. We often note discrepancies between the various Verification sources, but without knowing exactly what the 'take' on the data was by each source, how can we really compare them? In this particular case, my input would be: are there copies of a '47 and '49 edition for sale? If yes then both verified dates would be legitimate, if not then the '49 date may not be. One thing about the Internet, if it's out there, someone has it for sale. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case, we have a primary source as well. My take: Tuck made a typo, Contento repeated it.  Every copy available on Abebooks gives the date as 1947. I think we should delete the 1949 record and note in the 1947 record that Tuck and Contento give the date as 1949.  By deleting the 1949 record, we're not a party to perpetuating what may be an error, and by noting the discrepancy of the two secondary sources in the 1949 record, we acknowledge the dates they give. Mhhutchins 03:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure! And if a verifiable '49 turns up we can always add it back into the db. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton's The Horror on the Asteroid
Can you re-check the publisher given in Currey for this publication? According to OCLC, Reginald and Tuck, it should be Philip Allan (note the "a" in the last name). Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Checked and fixed. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Computer Connection
I saw your update to the SFBC listings and had to point out that gutter code "F46" in this pub would indicate a printing in November 1975. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're just too quick! Edited the record then went to the Gutter Code page [still open] and my stomach told me I had not eaten in too many hours. Took care of that, come back and ... here we are!! Shall re-edit. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't tell you how many times my stomach has stopped talking to me, knowing I'm only going to ignore it, and then makes my brain take over, knowing that I have to listen to it! Mhhutchins 03:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not me. Stomach rules! I never listen to my brain, what does it know?? Thought about hanging up an "Out to Lunch" sign ............ :-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
Hello Bill Bluesman, I want to delete this pub "Start ins Unendliche" Pub series number 13 because this number was a misprint and was never published. The publication appeared only as number 18 "Start ins Unendliche". Is it ok? Rudolf Rudam 17:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, but why not keep it and record the date as 8888-00-00 (unpublished)? That way there's a record to indicate the missing series number, and it prevents a future editor from entering the record again based on the same secondary data.  Mhhutchins 18:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I wonder what Tuck looked at? If you're sure then I think Michael's idea best, otherwise this could happen again. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this advice! I will not delete this pub and record it as unpublishd. Rudam 19:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe Tuck was looking at a publisher's catalog or an erroneous listing in another book in the series. It never occurred to me just how Tuck was able to get so much information, living in Tasmania. Surely he didn't travel the world looking through book stores and libraries. Or did he? Mhhutchins 03:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Guess we'll never know! Still quite the accomplishment in a non-electronic age. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

SFBC edition of Burroughs' Return to Mars
I just purchased a copy of this from the SFBC and there's a couple of differences from your record, so I'm assuming it's a newer printing. My copy has the ISBN-13 "978-0-7394-4884-7" on both the copyright page and above the barcode on the back of the dustjacket. It still retains the statement "First SFBC Science Fiction Printing: November 2004" on the copyright page and the same ID "1172959" on the back cover. My question: do you feel the differences warrants the creation of a new record? Or should I just note the new printing in your verified record, as we've done in the past when there's no difference in the ID number? I could go either way, but lean toward the latter choice. Your input would be appreciated. Mhhutchins 03:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Did a quick check just to make sure my note was correct and indeed only an ISBN-10 is present. For consistency's sake treating this the same as other SFBC records would be best. Wouldn't want to set a precedent for new [or old] editors we might rue later. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've verified the record and added a note about this later printing with the ISBN-13. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Inheritors / The Gateway to Never
I assume The Inheritors / Gateway to Never (1978) is a variant to The Inheritors / The Gateway to Never (1972) since Gateway to Never is a variant to The Gateway to Never. Since you verified pubs containing both ( and ), would you mind checking? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be correct or accomplish anything. The Variant is for the one title only and all the pubs it shows up in are displayed on the title's bibliographic [page]. While an omnibus may have one or more book titles as its' title each of them should be treated quite separately. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are both omnibuses of the same content, correct? If so, then I don't see how it's different from other variants - the titles vary, but the content is the same. While it may be clear from the 741 title record, IMO it's confusing from the . However, if that's the convention, I won't argue it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see your point. Both Omnibus editions should be under the Grimes series. An d I don't even know if there is a convention for this instance. I Can't recall another instance like this. Maybe check on Rules & standards?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jack Dann (Ed) - Dreaming Again (Aust'n Ed)
Hi, I would like to make some changes to your verified publication here:

(1) Change cover artist to Darren Holt (not Derek) & change Notes accordingly (info from copyright page); (2) Add price A$39.99 (& Note/link to publisher's website here); (3) Change month of publication to July (2008-07-01) - again ref to publisher's website & change Note re Locus 1 accordingly.

What do you think? (2) & (3) aren't a big deal & I don't have any other evidence for the price & month. Regards ... --clarkmci / j_clark 06:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Artist and price for sure [good catch on the artist]. Date: I'm always a little hesitant about publisher sites, especially small presses [not the case here]. If books get delayed the publication date rarely gets changed, and I wonder how much attention the big publishers pay to small details. But as long as the notes reflect the differences, I'm okay with the changes. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)