User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2011Sep-Dec

For the Lady of a Physicist
I seem to have interested and then put-off (by mentioning our current print bias) a member of the Speculative Fiction poetry community, so I thought I'd try and fix a few Rhysling Awards as an example of what kind of help we need. I stumbled almost immediately: Michael Bishop has an award here but the nearest title we have is For the Lady of a Physicist 2. Any idea where the first appeared? BLongley 22:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, found it now. BLongley 22:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Did the first poem not show up on a search? Mhhutchins 05:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I guess I had an extra space at the end the first time I tried. (Which affects basic search if not advanced - still not sure why things behave that way.) BLongley 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Typo?
Should the name of the the reviewer of Starshadows in your verified pub, be Ssuan or Susan?--Rkihara 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a typo. I've corrected it. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 18:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary Education of the Cameroi
In your verified SF12 (by Judith Merril), the contents list one story as Primary Education of the Camiroi, which I think is how it was first published. But Merril's book lists it as THE Primary Education of the Camiroi. I assume that means we should create a VT for this story? Chavey 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct. Before I remove the record and add a variant, how is the story credited in Merril's Best of.. anthology? I'll want to do all the merging in one submission. Mhhutchins 16:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. "Best of Sci-Fi 12" lists it as "The Primary...", both in the ToC and the story title page. Bluesman verifies that it is "Primary Education ..." in the original publication. Chavey 15:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. I'll change the title in all three Merril editions and make it into a variant of the original. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card 'West'
I was working on a collection that included West, and I was trying to figure out if there was a good reason for it to be in the database as WEST instead of West. I noticed that you primary verified the collectors edition of and wondered if you could check that volume. My SFBC copy of Folk, and my copy of the first appearance in both have it as 'West'. I do note that in Lancers, the title page has it as 'WEST', but it has all three titles in all caps on each title page through the anthology. I suspect this was the initial mistake and it's been propagated around since then. Thanks Kevin 16:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's simply "West" in Folk of the Fringe. I think you're correct about how it came to be this way. Feel free to normalize the capitalization. I can't remember checking back when I entered it as "West".  Could the software have automatically matched it so that the capitalization of the record already in the system is maintained?  I know it does this with names. For example, if I enter "orson scott card" as the author, the system automatically normalizes the capitalization. Mhhutchins 16:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no automatic normalisation of titles. We could try and introduce some, but people seem to prefer to stick with the current rules and occasionally argue a border-case: remember "With" versus "with"? BLongley 17:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We could also try and improve merging so that the more-official capitalisation is the default selection when there are slight differences, but that's a bit tricky. BLongley 17:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just did a test to see whether on a merge you're given a choice when the only difference in the title is capitalization. And you do get a choice.  So the only way I can see that the title record in my verified record became capitalized was that someone must have merged it and kept the all-cap title. BTW, Kevin, in the process of this merge test, the title was normalized, so there's no need to make that submission. Bill, if given a choice, I'd rather that there not be automatic capitalization, and as for your second point, I think the editor should just be careful when choosing which title to retain.  In other words, I prefer the status quo. Mhhutchins 17:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wanted to check to see if this rang any bells or previously came up in discussion during my many long absences. Kevin 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of us are totally clear on what's changed, where, when, or why, any more. :-( And we're not really clear on what the next changes should be either. :-( Until Ahasuerus gets a chance to catch up, I'm not going to submit any more changes, although I might experiment with a few ideas that strike me as useful - e.g. "Link Award to Title", "Convert Review to Essay in one step", "Move Personal Awards to Canonical Author" etc. BLongley 03:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hamlet's Father
I don't know if you've come across the controversy on the Blogosphere about, and I suggest we don't get involved. But the official response from Subterranean mentions that it's been printed twice before - "first in the 2008 Science Fiction Book Club anthology The Ghost Quartet, edited by Marvin Kaye". We don't have that edition, only Tor Reprints. As one of our SFBC experts, do you know anything about this first edition? BLongley 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think they're confusing the title with two other anthologies of novellas that Kaye edited for the SFBC around the same period: Forbidden Planets and A Book of Wizards. Tor was the original publisher of The Ghost Quartet and AFAIK, there was no SFBC reprint. Mhhutchins 00:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems James Nicoll has already picked up on the topic here, using our data. BLongley 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, what's the controversy? Mhhutchins 00:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell - homophobia. Apparently in Card's novella, Hamlet's Dad was not only gay but a child molester. Maybe there is some suggestion that being the first leads to the second, I don't intend to read it. There's about 440 LiveJournal Posts about it so far, not sure how widespread it is on other social networking sites. But we may need to create a policy on recording which numbered editions have been publicly burned. :-/ And if it gets worse, recording when Orson Scott Card was publicly burned. :-( BLongley 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One summary: Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people. The old king was actually murdered by Horatio in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay. Too bad Subterranean didn't realize how much bad press they were going to generate on this one; many of the folks who are going to get angry are folks who have been supporting Subterranean for some time. (700 posts on LJ now.) Chavey 09:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking though. And I really recommend you stay away from joining the discussions and go enjoy your vacation. BLongley 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

MISSING TITLES (please report to moderators)
I think I may have solved, or partially solved, the problem. Someone enters a publication with contents, it's approved. Then they submit some merges of the contents with existing titles, and clone the publication they've just entered. A Moderator approves the merges first and then the clone. However, if the merges don't keep the title-id that was in the first pub then it no longer exists when the clone is approved, so we end up with a clone with some invalid titles in, which leads to the error you discovered. BLongley 18:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this covers all the scenarios, but I'm pretty sure it's one of them. What do you think? BLongley 18:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's possible, but then wouldn't the cloned record be missing records that should actually be there? Mhhutchins 18:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. Thanks to Hauck I managed to recreate a scenario where he entered a Novel with an additional Shortfiction, merged the shortfiction with an existing title, and cloned the pub. The new pub didn't have the shortfiction in it, but did have a non-existent title which I presume is the title lost in the merge. BLongley 19:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In the cases I found, the "missing" records weren't really missing, because they shouldn't have been there to start with. Now you may have found some records that are truly missing records, but I don't think the Italian magazines which uncovered the bug have missing titles. Or do they? How did you correct the error for those? Or are they still there? Mhhutchins 18:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * They're still there. The only manual workaround I've found is to clone and delete, and I haven't dared do that for anything verified as it will lose the verifications - and may just remove a duff title without adding the one we should have. I've flagged up the problem and this partial explanation to Ahasuerus for review - now I've managed to recreate one scenario, I can explore whether Import/Export has a similar problem. Do you recall whether Ernesto did Imports to populate his magazines? As I don't recall him working around the ban on cloning magazines. BLongley 19:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Reed's A History of Terraforming
There are two title records for "A History of Terraforming": The first is for the original publication in Asimov's and is listed as a novella. The second is for re-prints in "Best" collections and is listed as a novelette. I would assume these are the same story ("The Year's Best..." usually doesn't abridge). As both records have verified pubs, I'm bringing it to the attention of the verifiers to sort out (confirm if same story, agree on length). I'll point Bluesman & Hauck to this discussion. Thanks. --JLaTondre 13:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Geoffrey A. Landis's "The Sultan of the Clouds" is the exact same case (novella & novelette) with same set of verifiers. If you three could look into that one as well, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --JLaTondre 13:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Both of those stories should be novellas. A quick look at all of the novellas in the anthology shows page lengths of 37, 42, 36, 50 and 54.  The two stories currently labeled as novelettes are 38 and 36 pages, and both were labelled as novellas in their magazine appearances.  The latter one was nominated for both a Hugo and Nebula award in the novella category.  I believe the title records should be merged, retaining the novella length. Mhhutchins 14:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, took the liberty to merge the stories.Hauck 17:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarke's duplicate titles: 'The Challenge of the Spaceship'
Hello. My quest for Clarke's duplicate titles is nearly complete - it will be completely complete as soon as I get a copy of "Voices from the Sky" - but with one piece I have run into trouble I am not sure how to deal with. I thought I might ask for advice. It appears that 'The Challenge of the Spaceship' is a kind of bibliographical challenge as well. The situation's a little complicated, but briefly it is something like that.

There are currently two versions of the piece: from 1946 and from 1947. The former is supposed to be reprinted in "Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds!" and the latter in the eponymous collection of essays. But the books themselves tell another story. The "Sources" of "Greetings..." give the piece as first published in December 1949 in the "Journal of the British Interplanetary Society", but in the end of his own and extensive prefatory note Clarke mentions that this is the 1959 revised version, apparently the same one as in the book "The Challenge of the Spaceship" (1959), which indeed contains a footnote about the extensive revision the piece had undergone since December 1946.

Unfortunately, I have neither the relevant issue of the "Journal of the British Interplanetary Society" nor the book "British Thought" where the revised 1947 version is supposed to have been published. So I cannot tell whether this 1947 revision is the same as the 1959 one - though I very much doubt it; the Space Age having begun by the 1959, the piece must have been revised much more thoroughly than before, even for so grand a title as "British Thought".

To complicate the matter further, I have compared the versions of the piece in Greetings... and The Challenge..., and they are not quite the same, although they are both supposed to be the 1959 version. I guess in this case, however, it is a matter of opinion whether one considers both pieces as one. Apart from trifles (spelling, punctuation, few split paragraphs), there are few sentences (including one quote from another author) which are omitted in the "Greetings..." version. But otherwise - excluding prefatory or footnotes - the pieces are identical, and I think they should be treated as such.

What am I to do now? Creating a new 1959 version (with a long note explaining the situation) for both books and excluding the two old versions from them seems to be the most accurate alternative. Any other ideas how to solve the issue would be highly appreciated. Thank you. Regards, Waldstein 14:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be sufficient reason to have two records for the essay, and we don't create variants based on textual differences. I suggest merging the two records and then note in the merged title record's note field that there are differences in the versions published in various books. Also give the differently quoted sources.  In other words, give the information that you provided here so that there's enough data for the database user to determine how the printings in later editions differ from each other (to the extent that you can without having all the later printings.)


 * I guess these two records are indeed superfluous unless there are pubs for the issue of the Journal of British Interplanetary Society in question as well as about British Thought, which is of course rather unlikely. All right. In that case, I would suggest a merge, a change of the year to 1959 and most of the above as a note of explanation to the new pub. If another, significantly different, version comes to light later, which is even more unlikely, we'll see what to do about it. Thanks. Waldstein 18:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Snow White and Rose Red
I've added a content item to your verified edition of this book. The "Afterword" has an interesting discussion about the author's process of constructing the story, and the difficulties therein, so it seemed worth adding it as a separate essay. Chavey 21:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding this. A record for the afterword already existed in the database (from a reprinting of the title), so I merged the record you created with that one. Mhhutchins 17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ralph E. Vaughn
Hi, in this verified pub could you please check whether the review author's last name on page 13 is Vaughn or VaughAn. Cheers, P-Brane 09:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC).


 * It's correctly credited in the pub record. I'll make it into a variant of a record giving the correct spelling of the author's name. And then make "Ralph E. Vaughn" into a pseudonym. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 17:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Vathek - 1816 Edition
Hi, this edition of Vathek by William Beckford was published in 1816 and is the third edition of that work, edited by the author. It has (according to the modern editor of the volume in his introduction) extensive revisions and corrections, so I don't think it should be merged with the original 1786 edition, and you advised me that it should not be added as a variant title. Does that mean that it just stays as a separate work under that author's name? How do I flag that it is a different version of the novel and should not (I think) be merged? Nimravus 21:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You should merge the title record that you created when you entered your verified pub with this record which was already in the database. We do not create variants based on text, only in a change in title or author credit. If it is a different novel entirely but has the same title and author credit, you have to disambiguate the title records. Mhhutchins 21:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was initially going to merge into that record, but the textual differences dissuaded me. However, as that's how ISFDB rolls, I will merge them now :-) Nimravus 21:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Interzone, #218
Just a note that 's reviews in your verified Interzone, #218 October 2008 and Interzone, #222 June 2009 have been VT'd to. Ahasuerus 01:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Inconstant Moon edits
There's a lingering submission whose pub is now gone. Looks like you were dealing with some other submissions from Don involving the same title and pub(s) and probably deleted the one this submission is trying to edit. I'm not smart enough to tell whether I should just reject it or if I should try to move his information elsewhere, too. does not note the 12-vs-7 discrepancy that the others do. Thanks. --MartyD 10:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember what happened. He created this record for the 1976 Sphere printing which was monthly dated.  We already had a 1976 printing that was identical, except that it had no month. According to a note in the verified 1977 edition there was only one 1976 printing, so I deleted the non-month dated record.  This must have been the one that he was trying to update by changing the date to 0000-00-00.  The submission should be rejected.  You may have to do a hard reject. Mhhutchins 23:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow Magic Holiday Special
Thanks for adding this as a sub-series. I hadn't seen it listed as such elsewhere, but once I looked for it, I found it. (And it certainly seemed thematically like such a series should exist.) This also helps to clean up the list. The site where I found the series doesn't include "Selena the Sleepover Fairy" as part of this series, and its product description doesn't make it sound like it belongs there. Are you sure it should be in there? Chavey 17:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I took the twenty titles from the list on the Orchard Books website. Go to this list and click the Show Series button above the Holiday Specials banner. "Selena" is one of the newer titles so the list you found may not have been updated.
 * I couldn't find an Orchard Books printing of Cara the Camp Fairy so I left it under the subseries that you created. That leaves only Hannah the Happy Ever After Fairy as the only title not to be in a subseries (not counting the combined editions). Mhhutchins 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's pretty conclusive. I had also searched for an Orchard Books edition of Cara the Camp Fairy, with no success. Bookfinder.com knows of 108 copies of the Scholastic and Turtleback editions, but no copies of an Orchard edition, so it probably just doesn't exist. Given that the author is American, it probably was written in the US, and may later be released in the UK. Initially I wondered if it was an American variant of some British title (as has happened with other titles), but after identifying all of the ghost-writers, I concluded that that's not possible.
 * Hannah is a "Rainbow Magic Treasure Hunt" (according to the cover), and we could put it as a single release in a series by the name. Since it's the only one remaining outside of a series, and this sub-series name is supported by the cover, I'll do that with Hannah. The £1 price indicates it was released as a promotional booklet, and is no longer available, so it really is "different" than the other books, and almost certainly doesn't "belong" in any of the other series. Chavey 18:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unmerges
What's the best way to get Ahasuerus to prioritise the fix for this? :-/ BLongley 00:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've never really approached him about it so I guess the best way is to just ask. It should be pretty simple: remove the "Unmerge Titles" link from all shortfiction and coverart title records. Once that's done, I don't care how long it would take to "fix" it.  In the first case "Remove Titles from This Pub" works for shortfiction, and there are work-arounds for the coverart bugs. Taking away the option to unmerge from those two types of records solves 99% of the problem. Mhhutchins 01:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, folks, I haven't had much time to work on the software changes lately and what little I had was spent on making Fixer useable after October when Amazon's latest round of changes kicks in. Earlier today I finally finished the stuff that has been keeping me away from ISFDB, so I will start working on the software again, probably as early as Saturday evening. I also finally figured out a way to keep Fixer up and running come October, but that's fodder for another post. Ahasuerus 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul van Herck / Caroline and Cirkels
I noticed your work on Paul van Herck. You shouldn't have made "Caroline Oh! Caroline" into a variant of "De Cirkels". I discussed this with Hauck last year (see here. "Caroline Oh! Caroline" was never published in Dutch, and "De Cirkels" is a collection of short stories by van Herck. Someday I'll start on my Dutch collection, maybe sooner than I wanted. --Willem H. 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I've just now left a message on Hauck's page asking him about the discrepancy.  It appears that OCLC was wrong to say that Caroline is a translation of De Cirkels.  I'll correct the record. Mhhutchins 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I do have a couple of questions though. The OCLC record states that the book is "traduit du néerlandais par Michel Védéwé". So was it translated from the unpublished Dutch manuscript?  Also, do you have any idea how an OCLC editor could have attributed it to "De Cirkels" unless it's stated in the book itself? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I dug out my copy of "Caroline Oh! Caroline" to check this. There is no mention of "De Cirkels" in this book. I have no idea where OCLC got it from. The (Dutch) Wikipedia page is very clear about this, even if they have "De Cirkels" listed as a novel. The translator is mentioned in the pub, but that makes sense, van Herck was born (and lived) in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium, and wrote all his novels, stories and radio plays for the Dutch market. I still wonder why "Caroline O Caroline" was never published in Dutch. I'll enter/verify "De Cirkels" and add a note to Caroline, so this mistake won't be made again. Aside, "De Cirkels" is one of the hardest to get SF titles ever published in Dutch. It took me thirty years to find a copy, and I'm still searching for one with a dustjacket. --Willem H. 19:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Simon Raven - Remember Your Grammar
Thanks for accepting my submission. I know I hadn't finished it when I hit the submit button. The office computer gave me the one minute warning before shutting off and I didn't want to lose what work I'd done. I do need to revert the stories' dates to unknown, though. This is a collection of stories published elsewhere, often years before. Zxcvbnm 19:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's ISFDB policy to record the dates of titles as well as we can to the actual date of first publication. The next best thing is to record a date, even if all we have is its first book publication (for serialized works we consider the book publication as the date of publication). The last option is to date it 0000-00-00, when all research has failed to find ANY other publication. I encourage you to try to locate the first appearance of these stories and update the individual title records with the date and publisher.  At least having the date of the book publication gives a starting point from which to look for earlier publications. Mhhutchins 20:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm currently doing that though I note you've already accepted my submissions. Thanks. I see you've posted a note about this entry on my talk page. Zxcvbnm 20:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My latest attempt at the Nobel Peace Prize
I'd appreciate your comments on this: ISFDB:Community_Portal. BLongley 19:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And on ISFDB:Community_Portal. No hurry, I'm out tonight and Ahasuerus won't get close to putting any such changes live for ages anyway. BLongley 18:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the latest comments. I'll give another stab at the software improvements tomorrow. No point trying tonight, although I'm a bit hyper at present - I just get the feeling that our cat-herding isn't working at present and there's a Laissez-faire attitude developing. (Of course, now we're opening up to the non-English experts they'll probably tell me why "Laissez-faire" is capitalised or punctuated incorrectly.) BLongley 01:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Latest (final?) examples are now at ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard. I've taken one example (Add Pub) through from beginning to end, so it's possible to roll this out (Ahasuerus willing) if there are no major problems spotted in advance, and learn a bit from use of such before it goes further. But it's already requested for New Pub and Clone Pub and I can see it being useful for Edit Pub too. And I'm sure we can do something similar for almost every type of edit, but I'll wait and see how this looks first rather than code unwanted options. BLongley 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas E. Sanders (Nippawanock)
Dirk has submitted a pseudonym link to make a Pseudo of. It's an odd case, because this guy actually has appended Nippawanock to his name in places. I didn't know if you had added the parenthetical as disambiguation or if it appeared in the publication in some way. Dirk has found some evidence that the sole publication where appears is also by. If you could visit the discussion over at Dirks talk page, we would welcome your input. Thanks Kevin 15:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Visited and responded. Thanks for the heads-up. Mhhutchins 04:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Shepard's Kalimantan
I added the complete interior art to this Legend Novella.


 * It's somewhat overkill, if you ask me. And there's also an error.  The record that you made into the single illustration in this printing on page 12 is the same record to indicate all the illustrations in the other printings.  That should be fixed. Mhhutchins 04:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, one reason I bought this book was the interior art (and the novella itself had some say in this, too), so, I find it quite naturally (at least for me) to catalogue it. My intention (in the long run) is to fix it by submitting the interior art for other pub.s too. That's easier said than done, especially if the one or other verifier seems no longer to be active and can't be asked. Stonecreek 16:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We can assume that all of the Legend editions have the same interior art, but you'll have to get with Bluesman about the Tor edition. According to his notes, this edition also contains six pieces. You and he will have to do a direct comparison between the individual pieces in order to determine if the interior art is in the same order. After that it's just a matter of updating each pub record and merging the interiorart title records. Mhhutchins 16:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Woman Space / F&SF review
I just approved a change of the editors for this title from "uncredited" to "The New Victoria Collective". Approval bases on 'evidence' here. Should this also affect the review by Michael Bishop in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, January 1982? Thanks, --Willem H. 19:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the record's editor credit should have been changed based on a review. No secondary source that I'm aware of actually credits "The New Victoria Collective" as the editor, except for the wiki-generated webpage that you link to. Locus1 states it was anonymously edited by Claudia Lamperti, the OCLC record gives the responsibility as "by women", the Library of Congress record gives it as "by women". I would rely on these latter two because these sources usually take credit from the book's title page.  The review in F&SF gives the subtitle (but no editor credit) as "Stories and Art by Women", which I have to believe is the only credit given on the title page, thus the OCLC and LCCN credit. Until the book is primary verified, why change it based on a single review?  Google "New Victoria Collective" and the results are the wiki page you linked to, the ISFDB, a list of names on a feminist website, a null Library Thing page, a bibliography of an American Indian research paper, a Lesbian fantasy art page (that Google warns me: "This site might harm your computer") and, surprise, a link to the Foundation review. The change in editor does not affect the F&SF review. It's linked by title record number, not by name.  It will remain linked to the title unless someone breaks it by changing the record number.  Mhhutchins 05:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I knew there was a reason to ask you. Easy to change back of course and I'll notify the submitter. Thanks! --Willem H. 15:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not jumping in earlier; my copy of the book was at my office. The book is published by "New Victoria Publishers", and they write "WomanSpace (sic) is a publication of New Victoria Publishers, Inc. a non-profit, literary and educational corporation in Lebanon, New Hampshire". The phrase "New Victoria Collective" does not appear on the title page, copyright page, etc., but it does appear as the credit for the introduction (I'll correct the contents listing for this). This introduction does make it fairly clear that they are writing the introduction as the editors of the book. If I understand our policy, that means the book should be listed "as by uncredited", but we should make that a VT of a record by "New Victoria Collective". Is that correct? Chavey 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The author of an introduction is not necessarily the editor of the book, and given the fact that it (the introduction) is credited to a group-name (which I personally abhor), I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that the book should be credited to the group. But it's not my book and I'm not going to moderate any changes to the pub record.  Just don't change the credits of the F&SF review. Please take any further conversations about this title to another talk page, as it has very little to do with my verified pub. I apologize if I appear to be pissy, but I'm growing weary of such trivialities when matters of much greater importance to the whole picture are being dismissed or ignored. Mhhutchins 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I did submit a change to your verified review, changing it from "Review of: Woman Space" to "Review of: WomanSpace". Is that a problem? Chavey 21:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The review gave the title as Woman Space, but it's OK to regularize book titles in reviews as long as you record how it appears in the publication. You couldn't have done that unless you actually have a copy of the publication.  That's why it would have been a good idea to ask the verifier how it actually appears in the publication before changing the record. I'll make the necessary changes. Mhhutchins 22:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Michael is being pretty tolerant there. IMO: regularising Reviewees is desirable to avoid stray authors, keeping the title exactly as stated is fine - it gives people a second chance at finding it (if they are searching all titles rather than just fiction ones). I really wouldn't go out of my way to correct a review title although I do make an effort to find something to link it to. (That's one of the main purposes of recording reviews - it's more an indication of what we may have missed than it is for the author to find out where they were criticised.) BLongley 01:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Unicorn Trade
An odd note in [this] record. Not sure if it's yours or Darrah's. Seems unusual to give a content a '0000-00-00' date. Of course, this was your, ahem, gee, [tap-dancing like crazy] rookie year ...... :-))) --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously not my notes, because I don't use bullets for individual notes (I use unordered lines in HTML.) About the poem, I think Darrah changed it to undated, notified me, and it wasn't an issue that I felt worthy of argument. I can't find his original notification, but then I can't find anything in these goddamn wiki pages unless I wrote it yesterday. Mhhutchins 01:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that I put in that "0000-00-00", with that explanation in the notes. And I no longer agree with myself :-) Since it was my edit, I'll fix it. Chavey 06:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I put the 'bullets' in, there were no html codings at all. Must be a full moon........ ;-) I'm feeling rambunctious, but that's no doubt the Canadian response to impending winter! And I'm relieved I'm not the only one who can't find anything in the *%^# wiki pages. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think most of us can't find anything in help, which is why we're not missing DES too much. Starting help from scratch might be a good move... BLongley 02:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And on that note: any seconds on just wiping the whole DB and starting afresh??¿¿?? :/\)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite. I'd be very tempted to wipe all but the 23.72% Verified Publications, but I know also how much effort I put into making sure that our front-page titles are reasonably accurate even before they're published. :-/ BLongley 02:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling as pissy as you it seems, as I'm very tempted to stop everything and work on "who did what, when, how" recording for the database. Maybe even "why" as well, by making Moderator Notes mandatory even for moderators. :-/ BLongley 01:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That may be a little extreme, but there are times I'd like to know who the F did that, and why. But then Moderator Notes aren't permanent. And half the editors who use them don't have the slightest clue of the difference between the note field and the moderator notes. I'm always having to explain the difference so I came up with what I thought was the perfect explanation: Use the moderator notes for further information about the submission, and the note field for extended information about the publication.  That still only works part of the time. Mhhutchins 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it seems I can only get a response if I suggest something extreme. :-( Proper searching for "what, when, how" is a bit tricky but I do ask the same "WTF?" questions at times. By the way, Moderator Notes are permanent, if you can find the submission that included them - but they're not available to those of us developing and testing offline. Hence "a bit tricky", if not almost impossible for those of us that aren't Al or Ahasuerus. BLongley 03:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Was it Michael, on the ISFDB, with the new language tools?
Carrying on the Cluedo theme from above - was it you that reworked with all those foreign language variant titles? (This isn't negative criticism, just an enquiry - I want to know how it's working for people and so far people have only confessed to experiments}. BLongley 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether it was you or not, I'm interested in how it currently displays to you - Hebrew works surprisingly well for me, Japanese doesn't. And if you're aware of different translations into the same language by different people, those would be good test cases too. BLongley 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It was me doing a little experimenting a couple of weeks ago. In my case, the Japanese works well, and the Hebrew title displays OK, but the year comes before the title, just the opposite of the usual display. Guess it has something to do with how Hebrew is read backwards? Currently there is only one Bishop novel that has had multiple translations into the same language (Spanish). But they have different titles so there was no conflict between the two.  Eventually we're going to run into other authors whose novels have multiple translations with the same title and the software will have to be designed to handle that.  Just today, or it may have been yesterday, I separated the Polish language title record of Solaris from the English language title record which works OK until you see how it's displayed on the author's summary page (you have to go all the way down to the NOVELS category). That's got to be corrected before full implementation of support for foreign languages. Mhhutchins 02:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I don't think we're going to get full language support before we let people loose on it - if it solves more problems than it causes then I tend to support such an improvement in the meantime. I wouldn't want to hold such up until we get a Hebrew or Japanese expert. (I'd mention Cyrillic but that's one of the few foreign alphabets where we, as a community, DO have some expertise!) BLongley 02:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Will Shetterley"
Could you please check whether is reviewed as "Will Shetterley" in your verified Locus, #333 October 1988 and Fantasy Review, July-August 1986? Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Locus has it spelled correctly, so that was my typo. Fantasy Review misspells it.  I'll correct both and note the misspelling in Fantasy Review.  Hope that will remove the stray author. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicely Handled
I was wondering / waiting to see how the submission for Kaleidotrope was going to be addressed. I didn't feel comfortable rejecting it, nor accepting it, and was taking a wait and see attitude. I think you found just the right tone and if I ever see that similar problem again.... I'm probably going to steal your message and just change the name. Thanks. Kevin 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Kevin. I feel I'm walking a tightrope sometimes when it comes to working with new editors. I want to be straight-forward with them, but don't want the appearance of being condescending or rude. That's happened enough times that I've become overly self-conscious when handling submissions by new editors.  Most of the time it works, but I've had a couple of failures in the past few months that have made me a little gun-shy.  Your words are reassuring and I appreciate them. Mhhutchins 16:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Same here, I've noticed the 'global' sub but hadn't any idea on how to deal with it. Hauck 17:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you got the right tone, but I guess we won't know until the editor responds. As the website seemed quite good at listing contents I took the liberty of adding stubs for them all. (No, this isn't a standard moderator task! I just promised Ahasuerus I wouldn't submit any code changes today, so needed another small project.) BLongley 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Final Shadows
In this verified pub I changed the author of "Island of the Seals" from Samantha Seal to Samantha Lee. Also added some notes. --Willem H. 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Must have gone cross-eyed for a moment there. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Alien Contact, Nummer 36
Hi, Michael! I also added a cover image to this magazine, but in addition I changed the credit for the editorial from 'Das Alien Contact-Team' to uncredited, becaus in the other two issues from 1999 it was 'Ihre AC-Redaktion'. I wanted to break free from a possible whole bunch of different credits and I have put a note in the respective titles. Stonecreek 18:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks for the image and notes. 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Anasazi", by Dean Ing
Contento1 claims that the date of publication of Anasazi is Dec. 1981. You verified this edition, which we list with a publication date of Dec. 1980. I'm guessing that this is another Contento error, but I thought I should ask you to check, just in case. Chavey 03:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It may have been published in 1981, but the stated date of publication is December 1980. And please continue to ask if you find discrepancies between secondary sources and a verified record. I've been known to make a mistake or two (or a hundred). Mhhutchins 04:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Blackjack time again?
I think JLaTondre is getting there. Lots of good edits, intelligent questions, etc. He or she has even given good responses to Help Desk questions before we did. Possibly the only thing against him/her is that we don't really know anything about them personally (what languages can they cope with, etc), and so we're reluctant to nominate them. I would like to semi-retire and let some new moderators take over Fixer submissions etc, and get back to my own projects or coding. I see some of our latest Mods are humble enough to claim "Junior Mod" and await further guidance on some issues, and this might be one. What do you think? BLongley 00:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like that he's very communicative and initiates dialog, unlike the editors who make submissions first, with the mod having to question them and then having to wait for a response. His expertise seems to be in the "fixing" department: cleaning up authors, merging and varianting titles (especially for shortfiction records), etc.  But in my work on his submissions I've not seen much adding or updating of pubs (perhaps he's completely entered his personal library).  Regardless, I'd rather have an editor who has the basic knowledge of varianting, merging and other title functions than an editor who's only working with pubs in hand (we have our share of those.) I believe that he'll, as a mod, self-moderate at first, but will bring any questionable issues before the other mods.  Why don't you ask him to see if he'd be interested in the position? Mhhutchins 01:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked. I did some checks on his/her stats (why are you sure that it's a "he" when I've never really noticed a gender?) and think that after 3 years here and over 4000 edits there is an accurate, if not prolific, moderator to be had here. BLongley 00:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If no obvious signs of gender are detected, I start with "he" until told otherwise (and admit it, I'd rarely be wrong using this method). I hate the use of "he/she", because I don't go out of my way to be politically correct. Hopefully, the editor who is known as JLaTondre, will accept your invitation, regardless of their gender, or should I say "his/her" gender? :) Mhhutchins 00:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I admit it, you'd rarely be wrong. But we do have some female editors (Merlene/Trisha for a recent instance) and I wouldn't want to upset them unnecessarily if I can avoid it. (What is the half-life of an ISFDB editor these days? Somewhere between Bismuth 210 and Cobalt 56?) BLongley 01:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Creation of duplicates
Thanks for the welcome! I noticed that my addition of resulted in two duplicates (for "Discovering Life" and "Otherling"). Is it the normal procedure that one has to check for duplicates after adding an anthology or collection? I had thought the system would automatically use the existing records (if author, title and year are identical). Darkday 17:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not automatic. The task of merging newly created records with existing records is manually performed by the editor, although we don't expect new editors to know that immediately. The moderators usually do it ourselves at the start and then have the new editors take over the task.  I'm impressed that you picked up on this so soon.  Here's a link to the help page for merging records.  If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask either me or at the Help Desk. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We could improve the software to do some more auto-merging, Title Merging is one of the banes of our life here. I've only entered/adjusted 5 books today and had to do over 50 merges. :-( BLongley 00:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The balance could be hard to find, but I think that when author, title, length and and date are identical it should be a no-brainer... perhaps let the mods see the notes that might say "DO NOT MERGE, because..." and allow them an over-ride. I think we need to have the UN-merge bug-fix in place first though. BLongley 00:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifying variant titles
I believe The Reversed Man is a variant title of Technical Error. It says so e.g. on Wikipedia. Is this sufficient to make the change, or must this claim be verified/proven? Darkday 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We try to find a more reliable source than Wikipedia. In this case, I went to Miller/Contento, who confirm that it's the same story.  You can proceed to create a variant and I'll accept the submission. Good find. Mhhutchins 02:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

John W. Campbell Letters
I updated the title of In the Beginning was—Campbell in your verified pub, to change "--" (2 dashes) to "—" (m-dash) - Thanks - Kevin 04:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I try to correct those double dashes when I come upon them too. Mhhutchins 04:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing a short story to an essay
In my opinion, Reverie is an essay, not a short story. Should I just go ahead and change it or should I discuss it first? In the latter case, should I contact the person who presumably created this record, Thomas conneely? In case I just change it without discussions, should I then notify all three people who have verified the corresponding collection? Thanks, Darkday 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually, you should bring it to the attention of the editors who have verified the record. In this case, because several editors are involved (some of whom are inactive), it would be easier to start a discussion on the community portal. This presents it before the entire group, and there may be others who have the piece and can confirm its type. 18:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's ammunition for your case: according to Locus1 it's an article, not fiction. Mhhutchins 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The only active editor who has verified the record is Hauck. You should leave a message on his page first.  This may keep you from having to go through the step I suggested above. Mhhutchins 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The chances of us verifying the original publication are pretty low. :-/ BLongley 19:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wonder why we don't have a record for that fanzine? It's pretty important as far as fanzines go. Mhhutchins 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll see if I can find some sources. BLongley 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Stubs entered. FictionMags had two, fiawol.org.uk has all(?) four. Of course, we still need all the previous "Novae Terrae" issues as well. If anyone knows a possible British editor that still has all those 80(!)-year-old zines I'd be very grateful. BLongley 00:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Luckily, all "Novae Terrae" issues are available online. Ahasuerus


 * No problem with this change, you can proceed. In fact, like for _Herbert George Morley Roberts Wells, Esq._ it seems that the book's title is misleading. Hauck 19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone! BTW, is there an easy way to see if an editor is inactive? Darkday 21:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the ways is to go to the editor's talk page and see when the last time they responded to an inquiry. Or you can click on their "User Contributions" link (on their talk page) to see when they last edited the wiki.  It's possible that the editor is active on the database side, but just doesn't do much on the wiki side. Does any mod know how to see when an editor made their last submission? Mhhutchins 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The data's there, but I don't think we provide easy way at it. I'll stick that on my list of things to look into doing.  But if the editor isn't active in the Wiki, it's somewhat moot, since an active editor who doesn't respond to inquiries is of little help.  --MartyD 23:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I know we don't provide an easy way - but it may be that an Editor responds to Emails instead (this Wiki communication is unpopular with many people). The downloads don't help much as we need to look at the Submissions table which is empty in the downloads (for privacy reasons or size reasons, I don't know which). But I agree that it's becoming more important to know when a communication attempt is pointless. BLongley 00:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Roc the publisher, Roc the imprint
Care to offer any insights born of experience to this discussion? Thanks, --MartyD 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hidden World
Most [Airmont] later printings have a date code stamped on the bottom of either the last page of text or the last page in the book. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not home now, so I don't have access to my books...but I recall this coming up before. I think I checked then and there was no date code, but I'll check again when I get home (probably Sunday, or Monday, the 31st.) This time I'll be sure to note the presence or absence of a date code. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Found this discussion in my archives, but I'll still check when I get home. Mhhutchins 18:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a much later discussion that I couldn't find, I just couldn't remember if you had chimed in on it. [So many editors, and usually of short duration, where does a search begin ... ] --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Review of The World of Oz in Fantasy Review #87
The review of Allen Eyles The World of Oz in Fantasy Review #87 has the author's name misspelled as "Allan Eyles". I've got the reviewed book in front of me as well as the issue of FR. I'm going to make the changes on the record for the review and remove the title of the book under the bad name. I'll also put a note on the magazine issue. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should also place a note in review record that the author is incorrectly credited. Otherwise, some editor might come along and "correct" it. Mhhutchins 21:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have the same book in my movie book collection. It never occurred to me to go through that collection to verify books which are spec-fic related. Mhhutchins 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ben Bova - Welcome to Moonbase
I just entered and verified my copy of by Ben Bova, which I got from the SFBC back in late 1987, maybe early 1988. It does not appear in the SFBC list, nor does it appear in the Locus Index. I seem to recall that you had a collection of older SFBC Catalogs from that era. If so, could you please check and see if you can determine a price for this if it appears in one of those catalogs? Thanks Kevin 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'd quit the club in the early 80s, so I don't have the catalog for the period you're looking for. I've added the title to the SFBC list and linked it to your record.  Thanks for the heads up. The source for that time period was Locus1, so that's why it was missing.  (I'll look through my hard copy issues of Locus and see if they have a listing there, which is unlikely, because they are the source for Contento's Locus1 website listings.) The title does appear in the listings SFBC editor Andrew Wheeler supplied to the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup, but alas, no price is given in those lists.
 * I do need to point out that based on the ISFDB standards for book club entry, the trade edition's ISBN is not recorded in the ISBN/Catalog # field for the SFBC reprint. Starting in the late 1980s, the SFBC printing sometimes reprints the copyright page of the trade edition and includes the ISBN. For ISFDB purposes, we record that number in the record's note field, and put the SFBC ID number in the ISBN/Catalog # field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and that factoid had creeped back into my forebrain this evening. I went back and fixed a couple of other records as well. Kevin 05:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Heavenly Host
I see you already did some merges that needed to be done after my updates. One of those was The Heavenly Host. This story was first published in Boys' Life, and then extended by Asimov for the publication as chapterbook. The original version has 3,400 words, the extended version 7,900. Does this justify two separate titles? Darkday 00:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Variants can only be created based on changes in author credit or title. There is currently no way to variant records based on text.  Just update the title record, noting that the later version was expanded. Mhhutchins 01:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean creating a variant title, I meant creating two separate, unrelated titles, like Belief and Belief (First Version) or The End of Eternity and The End of Eternity (novella). Darkday 18:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In these examples, the early versions were published and promoted as such. (They may have even been titled to indicate the differences.) In the case of "The Heavenly Host", the book version may have been expanded from the original publication, but I don't know if that is indicated in the story's title. There are thousands of stories in the sf field that have been revised to some extent, but we don't create separate records for each time they are. And I think the reason is because no one is going to sit down and compare the text each time a story is reprinted to determine to what extent it's been revised.  (All 25 of the stories reprinted in the Michael Bishop collection that I've edited were revised, some to a greater degree than others, but I'm not going to create new records for each story.)  Now if the revision is retitled, that's another matter.  I've always wanted the ISFDB to better handle the relationships between textual variants (e.g. "fixed-up", "based on", "revised", "expanded", "adapted from"), but that's been on the back burner for quite awhile. Maybe one day... Mhhutchins 20:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that it's impossible to track all revisions. I was considering it in this case since the story was significantly revised (the length was more than doubled). But it's okay, I'll just add a note to the title record.
 * To have different relation types sounds like a very good idea. A type "excerpted from" might also be worth considering. Darkday 21:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be nice to ask the lengthists how we should or could deal with variants based on shortfiction length. The example you quote is expanded from "short story" length to "novelette" length by the official rules (sorry, "novella" is right out unless there's a version with another 10,000 words), and they might have an opinion. It's not a discussion I want to start though. BLongley 23:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Key Word and Other Mysteries
The Key Word and Other Mysteries has the type nongenre. There's nothing wrong with that, since these mysteries are not speculative fiction. However the other collection of Larry mysteries, The Disappearing Man and Other Mysteries, has the type collection. The same applies to the six Black Widower collections, e.g. Tales of the Black Widowers. None of these are speculative fiction. So I guess either The Key Word and Other Mysteries should get the type collection, or the other mystery collections should get the type nongenre. What do you think? Darkday 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a failing of the NONGENRE type that we can't specify that it's a mpn-genre novel, or a non-genre collection, or a non-genre chapbook, etc. The collection's title record should be typed as NONGENRE, while its pub record can be typed as COLLECTION.  There will be a mismatch error reported on the title record, but that can't be helped.  Mhhutchins 01:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * NONGENRE is a strange beast, and I agree that while we allow such works in for authors "over a certain threshold" we could do with some improvements for non-genre shortfiction etc. Those are big changes though, and it might be simpler to address unnecessary "mismatch error" reports for these sort of workarounds. I think there's already a request for the warnings to be suppressed for users that aren't editing, and there should be requests for suppressing warnings about things like "audiobooks without page counts". BLongley 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review, August 1975
This verified pub of yours contains an untitled short fiction piece by Isaac Asimov. Could you please tell me more about it? Is it a short story? It must be very short, since there are 5 other items on the same page. I'm not asking you because I think there's something wrong with this record, I'm asking you since I'm very interested in this story. I have collected and read all of Asimov's ~400 short stories, but I have never heard of this one, so I'm quite curious. Thanks. Darkday 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You've piqued my interest too. If it is Shortfiction then it could well be even shorter than his Drabble. Still, he was a co-editor of 100 Great Science Fiction Short Short Stories so might have written something really really short. BLongley 13:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a 180 word shaggy-dog story, that ends with a bad pun, like those Feghoot pieces by Randall Garrett. There is no title to the story (unlike the Le Guin piece on the same page), only credited at the end to Isaac Asimov. It's about a professor who discovers that a black hole is approaching Earth, and with his warning, all of the people of the world prepare for the Earth's destruction. When it turns out to be only "an ordinary asteroid someone has painted black", the professor laughs and says he will "write a great and moving play about the whole episode" which he shall call Much Adieu About Nothing. At this point he is killed by the infuriated mob. Does it sound familiar and may it have been published somewhere else with a title? Mhhutchins 20:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This suggests it was About Nothing. BLongley 21:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is indeed About Nothing. I read it in The Winds of Change and Other Stories. Thanks a lot for looking it up! Darkday 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made it into a variant record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Richard Geis notes in his editorial ("Alien Thoughts", SFR #14), that the two stories are "actually exact reproductions (with permission!) of postcards, which (two of a set of eight or nine) are the brainchildren of George Hay and Miss Sandy Boyle in England. One side of the cards is the story and the other side is for the personal message..." There is a note in our record for About Nothing that the story was originally published as a postcard in 1975. So I guess the Geis editorial corroborates that. Question is now, how do we enter the postcard in the ISFDB?  Is it a chapterbook??? (The publisher's name is Post Card Partnership.) Mhhutchins 21:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would be stretching even "chapterbook" too far, and would leave it as a title note. BLongley 01:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Del Rey Oz Books
I'm reaching back to this old discussion and have updated this record for The Wizard of Oz. To recap, we've both got editions that are marked as first on the copyright page, yours doesn't have a price, mine does. Let me know if the note meets with your approval. I'm making a second pass through my library (now combined and de-duped with my partner's), and the Oz books get special shelving that I'm now going through. I recall that there are a couple more of the Del Rey printings with the same missing/present price issue. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's still a puzzle why the Oz books in my collection (the first seven, published by Del Rey, November 1979) don't have a printed price. Maybe I ordered them directly from Del Rey, although I don't recall ever ordering anything directly from a paperback publisher (although that was 30 years ago.) All of them are in mint condition, so I bought them new. Now, looking at Number 8 (Tik-Tok of Oz), I see it has slight wear, indicating I bought it used, and it does have a printed price.  The notes are fine, but I still lack a good explanation why these are not priced... Mhhutchins 19:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Kabumpo in Oz
I've got another Oz book question. Your verified copy of Thompson's Kabumpo in Oz has a note that the size is 21cm x 14cm per the OCLC record. My copy is actually 20cm x 11cm and has the $5.95 price on the cover, which the amazon picture doesn't reflect. I suspect that I know what is going on with this one. Del Rey is currently offering their Thompson Oz books for sale at $15 - $19 each and it is my understanding (from blog posts and those selling left over 1st printings) that these are print on demand editions. My copy of Speedy in Oz is one of these POD editions and it still has the first printing statement and the original ISBN (matches the Locus record). However there is no price on the front, rather the $19 price is on the back over the UPC symbol. Additionally, the POD copy measures 21.5cm x 14cm. I suspect that the POD copy of Kabumpo would have the same traits. That being said, I'm wondering which copy of Kabumpo you have. I would guess that yours is actually a first printing, as is mine. If so, I'll scan my cover and swap out the Amazon cover. If not, we may want to change the date of your copy to unknown and note the erroneous date. In that case I would clone to my copy and move my verification. BTW, I worry that I clobbered one of Harry's verifications when I verified. I seem to recall seeing them there and those certainly look like his notes. I can't imagine how I did that. Hopefully, I'm just remembering his notes on another record. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My estimate of the width of 14 cm was way off. I got out a ruler and have updated the record to reflect the actual measurement in both inches and centimeters.  My copy has the price printed vertically below the Del Rey logo on the cover (along with the Canadian price) and the catalog number 345-31585-5-595 printed on the spine.  I think we both have the true first printing, and my copy is in great condition for a 26 year old paperback, with white pages because it was printed on better quality paper than the usual paperback stock. Please go ahead and scan the cover and replace the priceless Amazon image. Mhhutchins 19:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, those are my notes, not Harry's. The first line is my typical form of entering edition and printing statements. Mhhutchins 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sansoucy Kathenor (Walker) / Sancoucy Kathenor
Hi, just checking the data for Sansoucy Kathenor Walker (she appears to have used her middle name as a pseudonym) and found that you have verified a Sancoucy Kathenor for. The same title is mentioned here for Sansoucy Kathenor. Could you please check whether there has been a typo in the publication, and have we a variant name on our hands? --Dirk P Broer 10:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My copies of that magazine are buried deep in storage, so give me a day or so to dig them out. It might be a typo.  If not, I'll create the pseudonym and variant. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 17:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not as deep as I thought. It was a typo, so I'll correct it. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 19:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Halloween"/"Halloween Street"
You've verified The Year's Best Fantasy & Horror: Thirteenth Annual Collection, which includes a Steve Rasnic Tem story titled "Halloween." In my copy of a different edition of the anthology, that story is titled "Halloween Street," which would make it identical with this story. Is it really titled "Halloween" in the version you have, or is that a typo? Best, BrendanMoody 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's titled "Halloween Street." I've merged it with the other title record. Thanks for bringing the typo to my attention. Mhhutchins 17:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Full Spectrum 5
Changed authorship of this story from Howard Hendrix to Howard V. Hendrix as per title page and TOC (change done also for the unverified tp), added scan for this pub. Hauck 08:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Edge of Running Water", by William Sloane
I'm doing some research on the existence of certain "printing date" codes used by World Publishing Company on their books, such as we've been discussing at the Community Portal. You did a verification of one such book, and I was hoping you could look at the copyright page and see if there is such a printing code on that page. Thanks, Chavey 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Only the code "HC" is printed on the copyright page above the copyright notice. My copy is jacketless so I don't know if any further information may be printed there. But because there's an actual stated date of publication, it's possible that in 1945 they'd not yet come up with the printing code you're describing. Mhhutchins 05:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Crusader's Torch", by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro
This verified publication of yours (from 2007) is listed with a page count of 459. There is an "Author's Note" essay about the Crusades on pp. vii-xiii. So I added that as a content item, and changed the page count to "xiii+459". I've left this submission in the queue in case you wish to validate it first. Chavey 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've approved the submission. Four + years ago, we weren't adding all the data that we do these days. And I just haven't had the time or the incentive to go back over my early verifications. Thanks for catching this. Mhhutchins 18:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I kinda figured that was the reason. Which is also why I try to be reasonably careful when I do Primary2 verifications. Chavey 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Chrysalis 3
You verified Chrysalis 3, which lists a story "Best Interests", by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro -- contents apparently from Locus1, which lists it that way. I'm verifying Signs &amp; Portents, by Yarbro, which includes the same story, but calls it "Best Interest" (singular). Can you please check whether this represents a VT, or whether Locus1 entered the original title incorrectly? Chavey 00:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The story is titled "Best Interests" on both the title page and the contents page. You should create a variant. Mhhutchins 01:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I changed the title in all editions of "Signs and Portents". The story is also listed in A Century of Horror, which is unverified (and no "Look Inside" on Amazon), but Locus1 lists it as "Best Interest" there, so I left it that way. Chavey 02:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this review, the story is titled "Best Interests" in A Century of Horror, which is how our record currently titles it. Mhhutchins 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Complete Venus Equilateral", by George O. Smith
You verified this publication. This seems to be a variant of Venus Equilateral. Specifically, it's the same as the 1967 and 1975 editions of that book, with three additional stories. It also has exactly the stories as in the combination of Venus Equilateral: Volume One + Venus Equilateral: Volume Two. So I suspect this is within the range of what should be listed as a VT (although I'll let you make that call). Chavey 00:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This goes back to your recent posting questioning the point at which a book becomes a variant. As I've noted before, a variant is based on a change in title (of the same text) and/or a change in author credit.  A variant record should not be created because of a change in text.  By making The Complete Venus Equilateral into a variant of Venus Equilateral, we would be saying these are basically the same text. I feel the additional three stories, along with a new name, makes this a markedly different title. If the collection had kept the same name, but still added three stories, I would have merged it with the 1947 title record, and noted that this is an expanded edition.  It would still not have been a variant of the 1947 title record.  There's noting in the rules (that I'm aware of) that strictly defines the percentage of difference that would be required to create a new record or a variant record.  Until the ISFDB has the ability to link records based on content, I can't see there ever being a black and white rule.  What it boils down to is the gut instinct of the editors verifying the record. BTW, I feel those two British editions should be variants of The Complete Venus Equilateral, not the 1947 title record.  But then, there's four editors who verified the records of both pubs who would disagree with me. Mhhutchins 01:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. I agree the British 2-volume edition is better linked to the 1976 Ballantine edition than the 1947 one with fewer stories. And when the contents are identical but split across volumes, variants aren't too bad a workaround for now. Even when we have titles like The Early Asimov available in one, two or three volumes. I suspect we'll have to address the standards problem when better language support is enabled. BLongley 02:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's part of the reason I documented the variations as I did. I don't know where to call the line between variant and new collection, but if we keep "The Complete Venus Equilateral" separate, it seems that we should move that two volume set over to it. (And add notes to both title records about the other.) Chavey 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reasonable compromise. One of the primary verifiers should do it, though. Mhhutchins 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add: the 1967 Pyramid edition reprints the 1947 Prime edition and includes only the first 10 stories. And the 1975 Garland edition is a photographic reprint of the Pyramid edition. So the 1976 Ballantine edition is the first one to include all 13 stories in one volume. Mhhutchins 02:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I must look into the possibility of using "Diff Publications" to compare one volume with split volumes. But don't hold your breath. BLongley 03:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Land of Miu
You've been helping me with the listing of a second edition publication and I have some more questions. Could you please drop by my talk page when you have a minute? Thanks. Isis 02:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Fangs" - instructions adding entries
This anthology has no contents. It is one of three paperback editions of this much larger omnibus anthology. I'll gladly add the individual titles, but don't want to add the year until after ISFDB accepts my submission. I find it easier to merge "0000" items with the correct pre-existing entry afterwards. The paperback edition is one of three "split" reprints of a much larger hc edition which ISFDB already has an entry. Therefore all stories in this paperback reprint edition are already in the ISFDB. I ask because you are actively moderating edits as I type this. I could also export the contents from the parent entry, not include page numbers, and then delete titles not included in the paperback. Zxcvbnm 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you use the "Import" function to add all of the contents of the larger anthology (enter record #314508, uncheck the include page number box). Then, use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function to remove all the stories that are not in the smaller book. This will save you from having to merge the dozens of title records that the method you describe would require.  Two submissions instead of several dozen, and you don't have to type in dozens of content records. Seems like a win-win for both of us. :) Mhhutchins 22:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I note that you and I posted at the same time therefore you may not have seen my final sentence mentioning import/export. Zxcvbnm 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many people use "Export" rather than "Import"? I've always used the latter, it seems safer to me as you can see the publication affected. But I'm somebody that wants to improve such so you can select the contents ported and reduce it to ONE edit... BLongley 04:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never used "Export" in all the years that it has been available. I don't even know what the screen looks like. Mhhutchins 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Kessel's Meeing in Infinity
I added some notes to John Kessel's Meeting in Infinity regarding the size of the print run and the OCLC number. The reason I'm posting here rather than on your lesser changes page is because I also added the subtitle to the publication record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I didn't notice the subtitle because of that particularly busy title page! Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"A Separate Star" verification problem
You verified this title. At your convenience will you please verify that the title of the Kipling poem is indeed "When the Earth's Last Picture is Painted"? All other sources claim it is "When Earth's Last Picture is Painted". This includes The Magazine of fantasy and science fiction: Volume 68, Issue 6. I've submitted a merge. Zxcvbnm 01:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the submission to merge was accepted by another moderator, I can only assume that he had a copy of the book and was able to verify that the correct title should be "When Earth's Last Picture Is Painted". Mhhutchins 03:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert Erwin Howard: A Memoriam
Could you check on Lovecraft's "Robert Erwin Howard: A Memoriam" in The Last Celt: A Bio-Bibliography of Robert Ervin Howard. I suspect that it should be "Ervin". Chalker/Owings have it that way in the Grant edition. I haven't corrected it as it will be easiest to just merge it with this title. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a typo. Thanks for catching it.  I've merged it with the other title record. Mhhutchins 04:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of: The Wolf Worlds
In your verified, The Wolf Worlds review recorded the author as 'Alan Cole' instead of. I fixed that, but thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to check if it was really that way in the publication and, if so, add a note. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Tanith Lee, "The Secret Boos of Paradys I & II"
In your 2008 verified publication, you entered content page numbers from the 1st story page instead of the title page. 3 years later you said you preferred using the page number of the title page. So I assume you won't mind my changing those page numbers? But a detail I'm unsure of is that in Book 1, you listed separately the 3 content items listed on the "sub-title" page on p. 2, while with Book 2, you did not list the equivalent 3 content items contents from the "sub-title" page on p. 244. Was this an accident or deliberate? Chavey 04:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * About the page numbers, re-reading what I said in that message, you'll find that I followed the same guidelines that I stated there. The titles do appear on the first page of the story, so I used that page number for the record.  And in agreement with Bill Longley who follows this up by saying if that page number agrees with the Table of Contents, which it does in this case, he leaves them as stated.
 * Oops, the page numbers don't agree with the ToC which is inconsistent. The pre-title page is given for the second, while the page for the first and third stories give the actual starting page. I think it's best that we remain consistent and give the title/starting page for the record.
 * About the content titles, The Book of the Damned is a collection, while The Book of the Beast is a novel. We don't include the individual chapter names of novels as content records. Mhhutchins 05:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand now. I had also noticed that the ToC didn't agree with itself on their choice of page numbers, which is what got me started wondering which page number to use. Chavey 14:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lovecraft ≠ Eddy
[Thanks!] --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I like trying to explain the db structure to those unfamiliar users, even if it gives me a headache trying to figure it out myself! Mhhutchins 02:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks from me too. I get multiple headaches trying to balance what is from what might be and "what help says". And I really ought to post more diagrams and pictures to illustrate how we should do things, but of course there's almost always multiple ways of doing things. :-/ Ah well, at least it means I never get bored here. BLongley 02:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A Couple of E. Hoffman Price questions
I've got two questions arising from this book. The first is about the essay "The Lovecraft Controversy—Why?", which you have the the original appearance under the title "The Lovecraft Controversy- Why?" in this pub. I usually chalk up em-dashes vs hyphens as trivial enough to merge over making a variant, whereas I usually do a variant for extra spaces. Could you double check the title in your copy? I'd like to make sure before I do a variant. The second question is about a book that I asked you about recently. Price has two memoirs of Robert E. Howard: "A Memory of R. E. Howard" which appears in your book The Last Celt: A Bio-Bibliography of Robert Ervin Howard, and "A Memory of Robert E. Howard". I've verified they are different based on my copies of both and put notes with the opening line of each in the title records. It's probably fine, but if you still have Lord book handy, it may be worth double checking that it is the same essay as in Skull Face. I only bring it up because the titles are so similar. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to merge the Lovecraft essays into one, retaining the emdash, without even looking at the book. 99.99% of the time, the differences come down to a typesetter's choice and should not be the basis for creating a variant.  As for the Howard essay, the one in The Last Celt starts: "Eighteen years ago, I picked up a copy of Weird Tales and read the third..." and ends with "...I leave it to you to draw your own inferences as to the appeal of this fiction character."  I hope that's enough for you to determine which of the essays it is. Mhhutchins 04:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rottensteiner's The Science Fiction Book
I just acquired a copy of Rottensteiner's The Science Fiction Book and I'd like to make several changes. I'll add the subtitle, a cover scan, the interior art (though I'll probably skip the photos), and expand the notes. Those aren't controversial. I'm also thinking about adding the chapters as individual essays. They seem to be fairly distinct. Would you have any problems if I added them as essays (or any of the other proposed changes)? Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Please proceed to add more information. I'd never be the one to say more detail is a bad thing. Mhhutchins 15:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cyberiad
Found and added an image to [this] record. Just purchased the first Avon printing with the same cover. The attribution of the cover art to Mróz is dubious. The [cover] for the Seabury edition is by Mróz but the style is quite different from the pb editions [virtually no sharp edges, Mróz' work is mostly curves]. There is a signature on the Avon covers at the bottom of the robot's left foot. It doesn't quite resolve even at high magnification but it definitely starts with 'Stan...' and the second name seems to start with 'F' [I'm leaning to Stanislaw Fernandes]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And then there's [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how the record's cover artist credit was given to Mroz, unless someone mistook the interior art credit which is stated on the back cover. Looking at the cover I'm 100% sure it's the work of Fernandes. I'm going to update the record, changing the cover credit, and give the same source as the 3rd printing record.  Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)