User talk:SFJuggler

Archive of older messages

Untitled poems in Transreal!
Hi. The way to handle untitled poems in is to use the first line (or meaningful first part of the first line), followed by an elipsis, in quotes. No need to add Untitled Poem on the front. And then just record in the pub notes that the poems are untitled. A good example of this type of treatment is. If a poem appears under an explicit heading, such as "Untitled Poem" or "Untitled", or appeared using a title reused on other poems (Poe, for example, had several that were "To __"), you would then capture that explicit title and use the same excerpt+elipsis parenthetically to disambiguate. --MartyD 12:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll do that when I finish the entry.  I accidentally hit ENTER when I meant to hit TAB and it submitted it.  I'll have to finish the entry in steps as the table of contents is four pages long and the poetry section is not included so it has to be gone through page-by-page.  I already lost it once.SFJuggler 18:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

All the Visions / Space Baltic
FYI, I converted All the Visions / Space Baltic from ANTHOLOGY to OMNIBUS. I know you were just cloning what was already there, but I wanted to make sure you noticed. --MartyD 12:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See it. Thanks.  Cover uploaded.SFJuggler 18:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Heart Readers
I accepted your submission of and added a note about the discrepancy with Locus1. --MartyD 12:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rechecked and PV done.SFJuggler 18:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Merging Rucker records
When you get a chance, please merge the newly created title records from the Rucker collection with those records that were already in the database. If you need help just ask, or look at the instructions here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I tried "The 57th Franz Kafka."  Let me know if I've got the idea.SFJuggler 04:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Submission accepted. Mhhutchins 05:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Spinrad's Russian Spring
I've accepted the submission to change the publisher of this book to "Bantam / Spectra". Based on ISFDB standards, this format indicates that Spectra is the publisher and Bantam is an imprint of that publisher. There are a few exceptions and in the case of Spectra, records are entered with the publisher field given as Bantam Spectra. But before you change the record again, please make sure that this title was published as a Bantam Spectra edition. Every source I could find gives the publisher as just Bantam Books. Can you confirm that the title page of the book credits the Spectra imprint? Thanks. for checking. Mhhutchins 05:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant to put Bantam/Spectra. And, yes, the Spectra logo appears on the title page over the Bantam logo.SFJuggler 05:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And you did. It should be "Bantam Spectra" without a slash. Mhhutchins 05:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted.SFJuggler 05:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you forgot, so I went ahead and made the correction in the publisher name. Mhhutchins 04:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Spinrad's SF in the Real World
Regarding this record: Please give the date of purchase when using a purchase receipt as the source of the price. You must also note that the book has no printed price. Mhhutchins 05:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed.SFJuggler 05:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bluejay ed. of Riding the Torch
Is there only one piece of interior art in this edition, and what is the page number of the afterword? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The page number was for the afterword, not the interior art.SFJuggler 04:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Gregg Press ed. of The Iron Dream
There were 22 titles released by Gregg Press in June 1977, and all but six were priced at a whole dollar (the others were half-dollar priced). Are you certain that the price you paid for this title was the publisher's price? And I've asked you several times before, if you use a receipt as your source for a publisher's price you must give the date of the receipt as well. Mhhutchins 04:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I worked in and ran a bookstore in the early through late '80s and shopped there for a number years before that. I purchased the Gregg Press titles as they came out and they were ordered directly from Gregg Press through their library program.  The discounts were terrible (for a bookstore, only 10%) but we carried them as a service to the hardcore collectors who wanted them.  Since we sold out almost immediately the short discount was not much of an issue and it was good PR.  I noted the retail prices paid in pencil on the back page of each book.  Since they were short printings (only a few hundred in some cases) they were received immediately after publication and there were never any re-orders to be had.  If you want to go with the catalog prices, that's cool but these are the real-world prices I paid at the time that I'm reporting.  As moderator, though, it is your call.SFJuggler 04:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the Gregg Press catalog in front of me that gives the price as $13.00. It includes titles that were released in April 1978, so maybe the price for this title was raised in the intervening ten months. So I pull out the July, 1977 issue of Locus (#202), and in the "Science Fiction Books for May & June" among the Gregg Press titles there is The Iron Dream giving the price as $13.00.
 * So put yourself in my position. You have the publisher's printed catalog and a contemporaneous listing in a magazine. And you have an editor who has penciled in the price that he paid for the book. Is it possible the bookdealer's discount was based on a price other than the retail price? It is ISFDB policy to record the publisher's stated retail price and in cases where the price isn't stated in the book, it can be taken from a reliable secondary source. I have no problem with you adding these prices in the note field with an explanation (and a date). And I don't hold myself above these standards. I have more than a hundred Easton Press editions which I bought contemporaneously with their publication, but I leave the price field blank and record the price I paid in the note field. I will accept the submission but revert the price, and noting your price paid as the primary verifier. Mhhutchins 05:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, it's not necessary to add new images for the "cover art" of these titles. If they're all identical, just link the same image to the records. Mhhutchins 05:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * will do. As for the price thing...as I said, it's your call, just my input.  They may have been giving us a break on the price for all I know as a way of giving us an additional "discount" (thinking we would sell at catalog prices, rather than what showed on the invoices).  Gregg sold mainly to libraries and they really did not have any procedures in place to sell retail.  We negotiated for almost two months before they would agree to sell to us and then, as I said, only at a 10% courtesy discount.  I'm content with catalog prices for ISFDB but forgive me if I don't always know what they are since I'm going by my purchase records.SFJuggler 05:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles Platt book
I changed the publisher of this record from "Morrow" to "William Morrow" and the binding from "hb" to "hc". Mhhutchins 04:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted.SFJuggler 04:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't ask questions in the Note to Moderator field...
...because there is no way for the moderator to respond. I've explained the purpose of this field several times, but I'm going to link you to the section of the help page on more time. Questions should be asked at the Help Desk. You increase the odds of getting a response tenfold. It just makes sense to ask questions before making a submission. Asking questions beforehand precludes the possibility that the submission would be rejected.

Now to answer your question: Does "bp" mean "blank page"? If it were a blank page, then there would be no need to record a content appearing on it. Right? It means "before pagination". This is explained on the single most important help page and perhaps the only page you'll ever need to bookmark if you're editing the ISFDB. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't really expect an answer to the bp question. It was more rumination/rambling and had no place there.  I'll hold it down in the future.SFJuggler 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How could a moderator know the difference between a serious question and one that is "more rumination/rambling"? Thanks for understanding the dilemma. Mhhutchins 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The keyboard equivalent of "thinking out loud." It's been a long day.SFJuggler 02:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Trial of Callista Blake
I'm not sure why this record for the first printing lists data for the second and third printings. If you have a copy of the first printing, please remove any data that is not specific to that printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the original poster put the information in to get the listing in ISFDB. I'll take it out.SFJuggler 05:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Submission to remove the data was accepted. Is there a first edition/printing statement? Mhhutchins 05:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Only the later ones had printing statements.  I can add that info if you want.SFJuggler 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you'll have to note the source of the date, and the fact that there is no edition statement. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, please do a primary verification. Mhhutchins 01:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.SFJuggler 04:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Matheson: Collected Stories
A couple of questions about [this] edition. Is the publisher Scream Press or Dream Press. Both Reginald and Locus have the former. I just picked up the limited edition and in all places the publisher is stated as Dream/Press [note the slash]. Locus also notes there is no ISBN. Does the book state one? Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dream/Press. They had a separate ISBN for the preview edition issued at World Fantasy Con.  It's on the book which is where I got it from.  I have not seen the "finished" book.SFJuggler 04:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Other than stiff boards and a slipcase the two seem identical, at least internally. Same page numbers for everything. Thanks for checking! --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Divergence cover[s]
Though I agree with showing both covers for this edition, at least to explain the error in artist attribution [my spelling mistake], I don't think the image belongs in the field. That should only have the image of the actual published edition. The side-by-side images should be linked to in the notes. The original image is still in the log so it's just a couple of steps to re-instate that one and move the double image into the notes. Or even just a link to the alternate image. What do you think? I can do the switch if you like. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. The image with both covers would be my choice to link to in the notes simply because it lays out what happened quickly.SFJuggler 03:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. [Result]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How to record unnumbered pages in the page count field
I've added brackets around the number which represents the unnumbered pages of this publication. The brackets are the standard designation that the pages are not numbered. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One more thing about that record: can you confirm the author's middle initial is correctly given? The OCLC record gives the author as "Gordon F. Sander". Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 04:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed typo in author's name and uploaded cover scan. Thanks for the fix.  I thought I had but brackets around them.  Guess not.SFJuggler 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Date of tp edition of Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence
I accepted your submission for, but what makes you think the 1975 year from Amazon and B&N would be wrong? I notice WorldCat also has it listed as 1975. I'm not so sure the tp would necessarily have been issued in the same year as the hc for a book like that. --MartyD 12:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Claus Effect prologue
When you have a content record whose type is wrong, you do not have to remove it and add another with the correct type. A simpler way is to edit the contained title to have the proper type. If it appears in multiple publications, you do need to go check the other appearances and confirm with any verifiers first, as you would with any other content change. Just FYI for future cases. --MartyD 12:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Noted!SFJuggler 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, if a title appears in multiple publications, you won't be able to edit it via Publication Editor because the title record will be greyed out to prevent accidental changes to multiple pubs. Sneaky, aren't we? :) Ahasuerus 04:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Dream, Benjamin’s Dream and Benjamin’s Bicentennial Blast
Just a note that I have changed the date of this interior art record from 1979-01-17 to 1976-01-17 based on the publication date. Ahasuerus 03:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mad Scientists
I agree that it seems unlikely that a publisher would push a run of the mill book "into the distribution chain in a single week", but on the other hand Locus listed it in its September 1980 issue. Perhaps the printer used the wrong gutter code?.. Ahasuerus 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got no idea. I was just calling out an anomaly.  Whatever date you decide to use works for me.SFJuggler 05:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries! We can leave it as "August 1980" since it's unlikely that the Locus gang received its copy from the future :) Ahasuerus 05:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Exploring the Earth and the Cosmos
I have approved the submission, but B&N and Amazon's data from the 1980s is not always reliable (Amazon UK seems to have the best data for older books), so I changed the date back to 1982-00-00. I also added the following line to Notes: "Barnes & Noble and Amazon list the book as a 1988-12-12 release, which may be a typo for 1982-12-12." Hopefully we will find a better source some day... Ahasuerus 04:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Somewhere there are records of all this stuff...SFJuggler 07:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Foundation and Empire Prologue
I've put your proposed reclassification of Prologue (Foundation and Empire) from ESSAY to SHORTFICTION on hold. I don't necessarily disagree with the change, but (a) you have to get the other verifiers to agree and (b) we also classify the "Prologue" in the other books as ESSAY, too. They should all be one way or the other. So I suggest you raise a discussion on the Community Portal and ask the various verifiers to chime in to get a consensus. Thanks. --MartyD 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've cancelled the submission. I don't think it's that big an issue. ;)SFJuggler 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Science Fiction Hall of Fame Volume
I have your submission on hold -- the price discrepancy makes me wonder if the current record may be for a book club edition or some other mutant beast. According to Greg Pickersgill's list, this pub was not reprinted by the UK SFBC, but perhaps there was another edition? Let me post a query on the ISFDB:Help desk... Ahasuerus 06:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect that it IS a book club edition. My copy has all the usual Gollancz features/markings.SFJuggler 06:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No luck so far... In the interests of time, I have modified the original verified pub to explain our suspicions. I then cloned the pub and updated the resulting pub with the information that you originally provided in your submission. I think it is all set and should be ready for primary verification - could you please take a look? TIA! Ahasuerus 02:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that will work for now. Verified.SFJuggler 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Book of Ellison
The title already exists, but under [Ellison]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will edit that one.SFJuggler 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ferret Fantasy's Christmas Annual...
I changed the publisher on from "Ferret Fantasy Ltd." to just "Ferret Fantasy", matching several other entries, to avoid creating another publisher record. --MartyD 01:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me.SFJuggler 01:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Twayne's United States Authors
Some comments/explanations about your two submissions dealing with "Twayne's United States Authors Series":
 * Proposing the series for a title, Isaac Asimov, is not appropriate. This is a publication series (if it were to be picked up and published by someone other than Twayne, the new publications are highly unlikely to continue to carry that series name; also, the works are unrelated, except by the publisher's grouping).  In addition to that, the  publication is already in the series.  So I rejected this submission.
 * For the new publication, where you did use the publication series, I normalized the publisher name from "Twayne" to Twayne Publishers to be consistent with our other entries and removed "Series" from the end of the name so that it would match the existing Twayne's United States Authors.  I didn't change anything else, but please double-check that pub.

Thanks. --MartyD 12:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw later that you already had the series under a slightly different wording. I was waiting for the changes to go through before correcting it.  I'll do that now.SFJuggler 17:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Bloch: A Bio-Bibliography
I modified three contents of : NONFICTION is a container type. Those three titles were not showing up in the publication listing as the software only expects a single NONFICTION record under a NONFICTION publication. With the exception of "NONFICTION omnibuses" (for lack of a better word), the various parts of an NONFICTION book should be entered as essays.
 * Interview One - changed from NONFICTION to ESSAY
 * Interview Two - changed from NONFICTION to ESSAY
 * Bibliography (Robert Bloch: A Bio-Bibliography) - changed from NONFICTION to ESSAY, added publication title

As "Bibliography" is one of those generic titles, I added the container type similar to an introduction.

However, I am assuming "Interview One" and "Interview Two" are indeed really interviews? If so, they should be entered as interviews. If you edit the publication and scroll down to the bottom, you will see a special place to enter interviews. The benefit of this is the interview will be listed on the interviewee's author page. If these are indeed interviews, can you please add them as interviews (help) and then delete the existing two essays?

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A Killing in Xanadu
I accepted the submission updating this record, but wondered why you chose to remove the note which sourced Locus #241 (February 1981), that said this is a "150-copy signed edition with dust jacket". If that's not true of your copy, perhaps you have a different edition requiring a separate record. Mhhutchins 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured the wording "Pamphlet with paper wraps" conveyed the same info.


 * Really? "Pamphlet with paper wraps" has no connection with "150-copy signed edition with dust jacket", IMHO. Mhhutchins 05:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If not, I can reword it. I can put it back if you want (or you can) but I've been told in the past to remove things like that if the information comes from the item itself.


 * It is proper to remove a source when a primary verifier can confirm that the information that came from that source matches the physical copy of the book. But sometimes it's important to keep source data when it directly conflicts with the actual book so that a later editor won't change it again based on the reliable secondary source. In this case, it would have been better to keep the data and note that it's in error, if you have positive proof that there was only one edition of the work. The note you added seems incomplete: "Limited to numbered copies signed by Pronzini." Is that stated in the book, and if so, does it not give the number of copies? BTW, does it have a dustjacket? "Paper wraps" implies that it is softcovered and without a jacket. Mhhutchins 05:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the dustjacket issue and corrected the typo on the limitation. The number was left out (numlock apparently not on).SFJuggler 02:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Roc
I changed the publisher given in this record from "Roc" to "Roc / New American Library" which is the ISFDB standard designation for this publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted.SFJuggler 04:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fantasy Classification System
I accepted your submission adding a record for this title assuming you'd already checked the database. There was already a record for it so please reconcile the two pub records, deleting one of them, and merge the two title records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Will take the price from the other listing and incorporate that when I upload the cover.SFJuggler 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lowry's The Truth...
According to the list provided by SFBC editor Andrew Wheeler to the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup, this was a December 1996 selection of the club. You can use this as a reliable secondary source to date the record. Mhhutchins 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Same date for this SFBC edition. Mhhutchins 18:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that. I remember buying these together but wasn't sure they were in the same month.  Looks like they were.  I'll do another edit on both.SFJuggler 18:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

John Killian Houston Brunner
I accepted the submission adding this record, but believe it is sufficiently different from the title you placed it under for it to be considered a different work: different title, without the co-author, and less complete than the later work.. Mhhutchins 22:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Same situation with the other bibliographies. It's my understanding that the later publications with Stephenson-Payne are different enough that they should not be merged with the earlier versions. Mhhutchins 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, you should only use the "Add Publication..." function if the titles are exact matches. If you have to edit the title field, then you're entering the pub under the wrong title record. Mhhutchins 22:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted.SFJuggler 00:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bishop bibliography
You seem to have added a duplicate record for this title. Please check with the primary verifier of the other record to determine if two records are necessary. Mhhutchins 22:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. Not sure if they're exactly the same as the page count differs.  Hauk may have just missed the introductory material which has different page numbering than the body of the work.  If that's so then his can be updated and mine deleted.SFJuggler 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Chandler bibliography
It seems someone else has added this record which is similar to the one you just added. Please determine if they're different publications and, if they're the same, reconcile the two records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The image leads me to think you may have entered the first record as well. Mhhutchins 01:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. One has a slightly incorrect title.  I've put it in for deletion.SFJuggler 01:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"The General's Wife''
I've corrected the title in the notes to from The Floating Dragon to Floating Dragon and changed the link to keep the user within the same window/tab. It's best to keep interior links (to pages within the database) opening in the same window/tab. Mhhutchins 09:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Did the same thing with this record. It also probably would have been better to link it to the SHORTFICTION record instead of the CHAPTERBOOK record. It's possible that the piece might be reprinted in the future in a collection or anthology. Mhhutchins 09:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll change link styles. My personal preference is that a link open in a new tab so that I don't have to keep going back and forth through links to compare things.  As for shortfiction records...noted.SFJuggler 16:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Inactive primary verifiers
There are many editors who have verified records and are no longer active on the database (such as this one). When we've noticed that an editor has been inactive for a number of months, we place a message at the top of their talk page to alert other editors to their status. Please follow the instructions as outlined in that message. Thanks. Mhhutchins 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Linking the LCCN
When linking to the LCCN record on the LoC website, please use the format that I've used in updating this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Demon Download
Were all of the interior art pieces in this publication a collaboration among the four artists? Or were there individual pieces by each of them? If the latter, you need to create four interiorart records, one for each artist. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Words Without Pictures
According to Locus1, there is a trade paperback edition of this work. You should have cloned this record to create a hardcover edition. Your updating of this record deletes the trade paperback edition. I'll clone the current record, to create one for the trade paperback, and then accept your submission that changes this record to a hardcover edition. Mhhutchins 06:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.SFJuggler

Linking the LCCN, again
For the second time in two days, I'm asking you to use the established standard for linking the LCCN to the ISFDB record. I've corrected it in this record. Your cooperation is much appreciated. Mhhutchins 05:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Enstrom's Encounter Program
I'm holding the submission to update this record for the previous verifier's response. Please see the note I left on his notification page. Mhhutchins 05:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * okay.SFJuggler 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula
I accepted and fixed the LCCN link to conform to the standard Michael mentions above. Why did you keep the July 1978 date from the record you cloned? Is it in the book? From a secondary source? In the absence of any statement of printing or secondary source, I think you should either go with a bare 1978-00-00 from the LCCN and gutter code or with 1978-05-00 derived from the gutter code (with a further note saying there's no statement of publication date). --MartyD 11:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Likewise, the LCCN in, and a somewhat related dating comment: If there's no statement in the book, no secondary source of date, and all you have is the September-indicating gutter code, I think you should either use 1979-00-00 or use the date indicated by the code 1979-09-00, rather than guessing/assuming the release was in November. I will seek a second opinion.  --MartyD 12:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The second opinion says you're right to estimate publication date of 6 weeks after printing date indicated by the code. So don't mind me.  --MartyD 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Four to six weeks has been the "standard" on the Doubleday stuff so I was just using what everyone else here has used. Unless there's a review slip in the book and I have an exact date that's pretty much my thinking.  If somebody has a tighter standard they can point to I'd love to know it. As for the links, I'll fix the format.  I didn't see the message as it was in with a couple of others.  Is there a reason links outside the ISFDB site are NOT opened in a new tab?  It's generally considered undesirable  to throw somebody outside of your site in the same window/tab.  Just curious.SFJuggler 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's a stated policy, but if you want to start a discussion on the Rules & Standards page go for it. But I believe the statement "It's generally considered undesirable to throw somebody outside of your site in the same window/tab" is incorrect. Many hyperlinks keep the user within the same window/tab. Outside links on one of the largest websites in the world, Wikipedia, stay in the same tab. As do links on a little concern calling itself by the strange name of Google, and a book-selling site known as Amazon. Mhhutchins 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Inklings
The binding/pub format field of this record should be CD-ROM instead of ebook. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed.SFJuggler 23:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Matheson bio-bibliography
Can you confirm the spelling of the first name of the publisher and co-editor of this record? It doesn't match the author of the Preface. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected.SFJuggler 06:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Leiber
There is another record already in the database very similar to the one you added today. The only difference is one is tp and the other hc, but both have the same ISBN and the same price. Can you get with the verifier of the other record to reconcile the differences? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?388349 is one of the print-on-demand copies that you can theoretically still order through Alan Bard Newcomer in Eugene. It was probably produced early-on at the request of library or collector.  There's no separate ISBN listed for it and it's not listed in the Library of Congress or on the copyright page of the trade paperback (as the other hardcovers were when they were issued by the press at the same as the trade paperbacks).  I don't know what the official policy is here but I would suggest removing the ISBN and going with a $14.95 cover price which was the last price listed for the hardcovers.  I'll suggest this to biomassbob and see if he has any better ideas unless you've got one.

Linking the LCCN, again, again
Sorry, I don't mean to be super-picky, but the reason why we've settled on a certain format to enter the LCCN is so that if we later decide to create a field specifically for it, it would be easier to do a mass change instead of doing it record by record manually. The more records that don't follow this format exactly, the more that we will have to do manually. So please remove "LCCN" from the link, giving only the actual number within the link, e.g. in this record, I've changed this link:

LCCN: 92-10679

to this link:

LCCN: 92-10679

I'm sure there are records in the database that don't follow this format exactly, but the less there are, the easier it will be when we get around to creating a specific field for the LCCN (and other related catalog/database records). OCLC numbers should also follow the same format. One of these days someone will get around to documenting all of these "standards". So I apologize for what may at first seem to be a trivial matter. Really, I'm not as anal as it may appear. (Well, maybe a little.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought I'd corrected the template. Will fix it.02:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A Hal Clement Checklist
I'm not sure how the submission to add a new record differs from the one already in the database. I'll dig out my copy to see if it has an addendum. If so, then it was issued at the same time, because as I recall it was purchased upon publication directly from Chris Drumm. Mhhutchins 02:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The cover is different. The one in the database does not have "Notes Toward a Bibliography" on the cover.  When you go dig yours out check a couple of things.  Mine doesn't mention anything about being Drumm Booklet #2, the last item mentioned on the back page is #53 (The Nitrogen Fix) and the physical production is on heavy cardstock with lousy Xerography (the toner's not really set and the pages tend to stick together when stored).  If it turns out yours is the same then just reject/cancel the submission.SFJuggler 02:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If I ever find it. As happens more often than I'd want to admit, I know exactly where everything is...until I start looking for it! I'm thinking I pulled out all of the Drumm booklets several years ago and never put them back where they were supposed to be. Give me a couple of days and I'll keep searching. I did find a run of Drumm Catalogs #1-#96. Let me know if you ever need to know anything in them! Mhhutchins 02:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. I just got my collection back from storage after moving a few years ago.  I'm rediscovering a lot going through it but have no idea where most of it is.SFJuggler 02:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still unable to locate my copies of the Drumm booklets, so the submission is still on hold. Could you get with Hauck, the second verifier of this record, to discuss the differences between each of your copies? I'm beginning to think that you may have a second, updated edition, because of the laid-in addendum sheet. It wasn't until 1983 that Drumm began putting out his booklets regularly, and a few of them have the "Notes toward a Bibliography" subtitle. (It doesn't help that Clement didn't publish anything between 1981 and 1983 to pin down any updates.) Hauck uploaded the current image linked to the record, so it's obvious his differs from yours in that respect, but I can't get past the date situation. One Abebooks dealer listing gives a 1983 date to the "Notes" version of the checklist. If I recall correctly, my copy didn't have a card stock cover. I believe it may have a cover of the same quality paper as the interior pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess we hold it until we see what he says.SFJuggler 03:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen King as Richard Bachman
Can you confirm the author's name as credited on the title page of this publication? Both LCCN and OCLC credit "Michael R. Collings". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 05:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. The "R" is there on the title page.  Making the change.SFJuggler 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be a good idea to note that the middle initial is missing from cover. This will prevent other editors from bugging you about the discrepancy. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will go do that now.03:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Player on the Other Side
Can you confirm that Sturgeon is credited as the author on the title page of this book? I'm assuming it was published as by "Ellery Queen". Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 06:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is correct. The book is by "Ellery Queen." SFJuggler 06:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you'll correct the pub record, I'll do the unmerging so that it's under the proper title record. Or you can do it if you're familiar with the function. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed. Not familiar with unmerging yet.  Will read up on it but if you'd do this one that would be great.SFJuggler 06:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks...and verified.SFJuggler 06:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Links to Locus
Since Locus1 is not a static database [it gets upgraded/changed/amended] just like ours, we don't put links to it in the notes as they often end up pointing to a wrong page. Just an FYI! Cheers. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Linking standards documented here. Mhhutchins 04:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Won't do that, then.

Planet of Bottled Brains
Just checking before accepting the edit to remove Fastner as artist from [this]. I have the pb edition and both Kaluta and Fastner are explicitly given joint credit for the cover painting on the copyright page. In the pb the credit is a line just above the LOC number line. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Fastner in there and I'll change the notes. I found him credited above the copyright for Byron Preiss on the contents page but he is NOT credited on the dustjacket at all.SFJuggler 05:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Adversary Universe
In the submission to update this record you left a Note to the Moderator that "You might want to consider renaming "The Adversary Universe" since it does have an official name." This is not the best place to offer suggestions or advice. This is more properly done on one of the open community forums which allows other editors the opportunity to join in the discussion. Having said that, I'm looking at Wilson's website, and can see that he's has been "Asimoving" his writings (doing some re-writing of earlier works, and then re-arranging them into a grand overall design.) I'll begin working on bringing the ISFDB series into line with the current official designations (until the author decides to shuffle things up again!) Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an idle comment. I hadn't decided whether or not it was worth renaming or not. He says in the "Author's Note" at the beginning of "The Dark at the End" that it is the last of the "Repairman Jack" novels and that it was always meant to be a closed-end series and that the "Secret History" series will end (or did end) with the heavily-revised "Nightworld" in 2012.  I hope he sticks to it.  BTW, is "Asimoving" an official term?  I like it.SFJuggler 04:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really. It's something I coined to describe such "retrofitting". I'm sure other authors have done it, but Asimov's writings in his last few years seem to be almost entirely devoted to fixing most of his fiction into a single universe. Mhhutchins 04:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of > and < in a record's note field
Recently you added several records which used the angle bracket "<" as a pointer. Unfortunately, these records came up in the clean-up script which finds HTML errors in the note field of a record. It expects a closing bracket for each opening one, assuming (incorrectly in this case) that you were adding an HTML tag. I've fixed them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wellll, I won't do that again.SFJuggler 03:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

White Saturday & Sunday Morning
White Saturday & Sunday Morning from your verified is dated 1893. Since that is well before Rudy Rucker was born, I'm guessing this is a typo? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Rucker is just really, really good with the time travel stuff. Typo fixed!  Thanks.SFJuggler 20:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Year's Best SF 3
The link to OCLC you gave in this record is malformed. The "http://" is required. As it turns out the link is unnecessary. Any user who clicks on the WorldCat link under "Other Sites" will be taken directly to the OCLC record. Mhhutchins 00:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you also check the page count? According to the OCLC record this has "xi+448" pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected.SFJuggler 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kill Your Darlings
I'm pretty sure that "Mallory" is a title series and not a publication series. You'll have to remove it (and its number) from the publication record and add it to the title record. Mhhutchins 04:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.SFJuggler 04:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

True Crime
A couple of problems with this record. Like the one above, "Nathan Heller" must be a title series. And the binding of "hb" is not an ISFDB standard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I'm tired.

Starblaze publications
Hello, I have put your submission for a book by Jane Fancher & C. J. Cherryh on hold. Basically it is okay, but there's a difference to the way we have the publisher canonized. By now, we only have publications as by Starblaze / The Donning Company (see here. Would your submission possibly fit into this slot, or are there serious differences in the way the publisher is credited? Stonecreek 09:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It could go under Starblaze / The Donning Company. They created "Starblaze Graphics" as a separate line specifically for art books and graphic novels.  I don't know if it's a "serious" difference, though.  If the first one is accepted I'll add the second volume.SFJuggler 04:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll approve of your submission and directly afterwards change the publisher to the standard. You'd may think about establishing "Starblaze Graphics" as a publication series: this case seems to be similar of Ansible E-ditions. Stonecreek 08:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia it appears that they only published a handful of things (although they missed the Cherryh stuff entirely so who knows...?).

No Cure for Death
Please confirm the publication date of this record. I think it should be 1983. Also, please enter any obviously non-spec-fic books as NONGENRE. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

To do that last request, click on "Add New Novel" and then you'll have to change the drop-down menu from "NOVEL" to "NONGENRE". Mhhutchins 06:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Date fixed. Thought I was changing to "NONGENRE", guess not.SFJuggler 06:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you were, there may be a bug. I've had to change all of the title records for the mystery novels by Max Allan Collins you've entered tonight. I'll do some testing to see if there's a problem. Mhhutchins 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's working right. In a submission to add a new publication, if you change the drop-down menu from NOVEL to NONGENRE, the system automatically makes the record into a NOVEL and the title record into NONGENRE, which is the intended outcome. Mhhutchins 06:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Check Majic Man. I double-checked that one to make sure.SFJuggler 06:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It was entered as NONGENRE and was correctly handled by the system which keeps me from having to change the title record. Mhhutchins 06:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably "user error" then;).SFJuggler 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd
I'm not sure why this record is in the database at all. There doesn't seem to be any supernatural element, and the author is not a spec-fic associated author. (BTW, according to most sources, the author is Thomas Peckett Prest. Robert Mack was the editor.) Mhhutchins 05:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Amazon "Look Inside", it appears the work was originally published as a serial anonymously. The point would be moot if we decide not to keep the record. Without regarding serial killer novels by such spec-fic luminaries as Robert Bloch and Stephen King, I don't see a reason to keep it. Do you believe it belongs in the ISFDB? Mhhutchins 06:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually surprised it was in ISFDB. I did the edit simply because it was there and I ran across it in the boxes as I was going through them.  I see no reason to keep it.SFJuggler 06:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pub (and its contents) deleted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tomorrow Is Another Day
I don't think this is NONFICTION. It also seems to be a mystery by an author is done very little spec-fic which would make it ineligible for the database. Is there any spec-fic element in the novel? Mhhutchins 00:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the other Kaminsky novel is in the db due to it associational connection to The Wizard of Oz. Very tenuous connection in my opinion, but one of the pub records has been PV'd by one of the moderators who is a big Oz fan. Mhhutchins 00:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant to hit NONGENRE. As I noted in the change to the series this stuff is strictly historical mystery.  I say leave it out.  If that's the decision I'll stop entering the other ones.


 * That'll be for the best. But keep in mind, it's possible that one book in a series could have a spec-fic element and be eligible for the db, while others in the series wouldn't be. That doesn't mean all of the books in the series has to be entered into the database (unless the author is "above the threshold" like Asimov's Black Widowers collections.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the only other one in this series that would apply would be "Down For the Count" which has a Dracula connection.SFJuggler 02:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I meant "Never Cross a Vampire", "Down For the Count" was Joe Louis and boxing.SFJuggler 02:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you confused it with the vampire-disco novel "Getting Down with the Count"? :) Mhhutchins 02:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it. Sounds weird, though.  Just added "Never Cross a Vampire."02:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You've never heard of it because I just made it up. So don't go and try stealing my idea. My vampire looks absolutely fabulous in his white polyester leisure suit. Mhhutchins 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a fantasy, right? Who looks good in a white polyester leisure suit? ;)SFJuggler 03:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone can pull it off, the Count would be the one. :) Mhhutchins 03:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I now have a mental picture of Saturday Night Fever crossed with Interview with the Vampire. Please write it, but if you make a fortune from it consider my meagre contribution - which is, "should the title role go to John Travolta or Brad Pitt"? An "Executive Casting Director" credit would be enough. BLongley 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Darn it, you've got my mind racing now. (You'd think I was taking amphetamines rather than just stopping the Prozac that's been killing my brain for 3 years.) "The Count" obviously comes from Sesame Street, but he wouldn't be the same in white. There definitely was a Sesame Street Fever though, so they got part way there already - maybe you should write this as a musical? Forget about "Tomorrow Is Another Day" though - I can't imagine how to fit "Gone With The Wind" into all this. BLongley 07:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All I can say is, Bill, I want some of what you're on! Mhhutchins 03:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more like what I'm OFF. And you probably don't want to spend a week in hospital changing over. But I do feel mentally great - I think my brain has suddenly started catching up after three years of medical malprescription. The way I'm going, it's as if I'm trying to recover the lost years in just a few weeks. BLongley 06:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's wonderful to hear. Mhhutchins 20:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The final scene could be the Count in his suit doing an elaborate routine with Scarlett down the grand staircase at Tara while Atlanta burns. SFJuggler 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I misread that as "Atlantis" first and wondered how a drowned city could catch fire. ;-) We can obviously work that idea in somehow though - and make it more SFnal. Imagine the Count trying to call the emergency services - "1! 2! 3!" etc, till he gets up to "910! 911!". (Or "999!" for the British version.) :-) BLongley 06:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Scratch that idea - it would be a terribly boring scene. Or maybe we could be cheeky and assume nobody would stick around for all the numbers - we could then stop filming anything after that. If anybody complains we'd have to film the rest, but it could be like "Kill Bill" where people paid again to see part two! BLongley 06:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A freak time machine accident traps the Count and Scarlett O'Hara in ancient Atlantis (before it sank). A malfunction in the Count's improvised disco ball causes Atlantis to catch fire and while trying to extinguish the blaze they cause Atlantis to sink instead.  There, SF tie-in!SFJuggler 19:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My rather silly idea has turned into something quite surreal. A publisher would only buy it if we throw in some S&M bondage and teenagers running around in the woods playing "Rambo" (see this list and weep.) Mhhutchins 20:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now it's going to have to be a trilogy. But then we can sell the movie rights and make a mint!SFJuggler 20:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page
Your talk page is becoming increasingly larger, making it longer to load for users with limited download speed. Would you mind if I archived the older messages? All will preserved on a separate page. (For example see my archives here.) It can be used as a template for archiving the next set of messages when you find the page is growing longer again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it.SFJuggler 19:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. See the link at the top your page which leads to the Archive. On that page there are links to each of the separately archived pages covering a range of months which you can decide. If you want to, in a couple of months, you can move the December messages over to the 2012 archive page. Just for reference, I usually try to keep the last couple of months on the active user page before removing them, but that's up to you. Mhhutchins 19:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.SFJuggler 20:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Shifting Realities
If I accept the submission to update this record you will have to make more than three dozen submissions to merge these new contents with the ones already in the database. (And a moderator will have to handle each submission!) It would have been better (and saved you MUCH time and typing) to import the contents from this record. Mhhutchins 05:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't I clone that one then. Can you copy my notes into my talk page so I can paste them in?SFJuggler 05:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you clone you're creating a new record. There already is a record for your edition, (the one you're updating). Just do "Import Contents" from record "320955" into the current record. Here are your notes:

Edited by Lawrence Sutin. Publication date from code "2/95" on back flap of dustjacket. From the back flap of dustjacket: "Jacket photograph by Nicole Olivieri Panter" "Jacket design by Archie Ferguson" LCCN: 94-27812. Appears twice in Worldcat/OCLC: OCLC: 232672161. OCLC: 30734361. The 232672161 listing in OCLC is under the incorrect title "The Altered Reality of Philip K. Dick: Selected Writings."
 * BTW, there's no need to link to that first OCLC record. Not only is it the wrong title, it's incomplete. This happens when a record is created from a publisher's announcement catalog but without the real book. Then they forget to delete the record. You can usually tell these records because of the warning "Sorry, no libraries with the specified item were found." and in the description field, the page number and dimension is blank. Mhhutchins 16:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Imported. I'll add the notes afterwards.  As for the incorrect title in OCLC.  I didn't expect it to be useful.  I was just linking in the name of being complete with the references.  I'll just put in a note and leave out the link part.SFJuggler 04:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregg Press series
Hello, I've approved two submissions for PKD titles. You've put one in a "Gregg Science Fiction" publication series and the other in a "Gregg Press Science Fiction" publication series. The net result is one title in each series, note there is also a "The Gregg Press Science Fiction Series". Perhaps should all titles be put in the same series ?. Hauck 09:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized the difference after I put the first one in but it was too late to correct. The official title of the series is "The Gregg Press Science Fiction Series."  Fixed now.SFJuggler 19:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregg Press ed. of Spinrad's The Iron Dream
What is the source for the publication series number given in this record? Mhhutchins 20:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Edge of Forever"
I pulled out this pub out of storage and reviewed what's stated there. There is a slight difference between the way the subtitle appears on the cover and the way it appears on the title page, so I documented it in Notes. I also found the jacket design attribution on the back flap and added it as well, but that's not necessarily the same as the cover art credit. I guess with this kind of stylized design there may not have been a separate "cover artist", but it's also possible that the original art used on the dust jacket was by someone else, so it's probably safer to leave the cover artist field blank and document what we know in Notes -- see the current state of the record. What do you think? Ahasuerus 21:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I neatened up the notes a bit and put the links back. I agree it's probably best to leave the cover artist blank since there's nothing authoritative in the book or on the jacket.SFJuggler 22:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just need to get Stonecreek to release it now.SFJuggler 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Story Behind the Story
You'll have to remove the "name" of the publisher as given in this record and just leave it blank. Explain in the Note field that no publisher is given and any other circumstances that give evidence that the book was privately published. Also, you'll need to disambiguate the "Foreword". Would you have any idea who "M. B." is? If so, you can make it into a variant record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with this record. (And that "(Biography)" needs to be disambiguated.) Mhhutchins 06:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.SFJuggler 06:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

West of the Sun
I accepted the submission updating this record but reverted the date to the original and removed the Amazon source. Amazon's dates become less reliable the older the publication. I personally don't trust any of their dates before the company was founded in 1995, and even then only with corroboration from another source (and not Abebook dealers since they started using the same database after Amazon bought that website.) BTW, the book club edition was an April 1953 selection of the SFBC, so it's likely that the trade edition was published earlier in the year. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize they aren't exact but the only date I've found.SFJuggler 06:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it's better to leave it as just a year date. I couldn't find the Amazon listing that dated this as April. The only one with that date clearly states it's the book club edition. Mhhutchins 06:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification preference
Please read the notification preference on my talk page when you get a chance. (And the notice on my notification page, too.) I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay.SFJuggler 06:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Kings Will Be Tyrants
I have your addition of Ward Hawkins's Kings Will Be Tyrants on hold. Is this speculative fiction? Your synopsis and it's Wikipedia article don't make it sound like it. If not, I question if this author meets the notability standard for inclusion of non-genre works and would ask you post a question at the ISFDB:Community Portal to see what folks think. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Submission deleted.SFJuggler 19:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Converts by Watson
Is there a statement in this edition that it is the first US and first hardcover edition? Mhhutchins 02:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That was left over from whoever initially made the entry. I'll look at it.SFJuggler 02:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking to OCLC
Please use the "Permalink" feature that is at the top of each OCLC page to get a "clean" URL. For example: You linked this ISFDB record to OCLC record 799732 with this URL:

 http://www.worldcat.org/title/wampeters-foma-granfalloons-opinions/oclc/799732 

when it could have been:  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/799732 

This really cuts down on the Note field "clutter". Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't know about that. Will use that from now on.  Thanks.SFJuggler 03:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Howard Waldrop collection
ISFDB standard: give the title of the foreword in this publication as stated on its title page, not the TOC. Mhhutchins 04:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll change it. You might want to check this  to see if it's the same there.04:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it when I did a second primary verification of the record for the US edition. The title of the foreword in my copy is the same as the one in your Australian edition. I'll change the title record which will change them both. Mhhutchins 04:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was too late. Another moderator accepted your change when it wasn't necessary. Now you'll have to merge it back to the original title record. Mhhutchins 04:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already been done.SFJuggler 04:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Entoverse
Are you certain the apostrophe is in the correct position in this record's title? Mhhutchins 05:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No apostrophe in Giants. Reflex action. ;)SFJuggler 05:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick: Electric Shepherd by Bruce Gillespie
Hello, I'd like to variant the german printing of an excerpt from a PKD letter (published here). It is only stated as to have been taken from the publication mentioned above that you verified. It is on The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch and dated 8th June 1969. Would it be possible for you to determine which of the items in the book should be made into the parent? Stonecreek 09:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It won't happen tonight but I'll try to do it Saturday/Sunday. I'm re-catalogging my collection after it being in storage for a while and there's a bit of chaos.  I know approximately where it is but not exactly.SFJuggler 04:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just take your time. Stonecreek 08:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mutants: Eleven Stories of Science Fiction
Just a note that, after checking my copy, I changed the authorship of "Let the Ants Try" from "James MacCreigh" (an early Pohl pseudonym) to the canonical name in your verified Mutants: Eleven Stories of Science Fiction. We have quite a few older records entered back in the 1990s which have similar problems, although things are getting better. Ahasuerus 06:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why we check and (sometimes) double-check. ;)SFJuggler 21:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And triple-check. And quadruple-check. And eventually googoltuple-check :) Ahasuerus 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

St. Martin's
I know it's hard to know how each publisher is given in the database, and you'll learn the more you create records, but this particular publisher is entered as "St. Martin's Press". (I changed a few of them awhile back but forgot to leave you a message.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.SFJuggler 04:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible Typos
Would you mind checking the following records to see if these are typos in the database or original to your verified pubs? If they exist in the original pubs, it wouldn't hurt to add a note. If they don't exist in the original pubs ,they should be corrected. For "The Dalmation of Faust", there is already a The Dalmatian of Faust so it can be varianted or merged as appropriate. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Acknowldedgements vs. Acknowledgements: Sources & Acknowldedgements (The People V. Lee Harvey Oswald)
 * Dalmation vs. Dalmatian: The Dalmation of Faust
 * Essense vs. Essence: Essense of Ellison
 * Offical vs. Official:
 * The Truth Is Out There: The Offical Guide to The X Files
 * Cover: The Truth Is Out There: The Offical Guide to The X Files
 * Cover: The Truth Is Out There: The Offical Guide to The X Files
 * Corrections submitted.00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bova's The Multiple Man
Why would you not just update the current record? Mhhutchins 02:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Stated second printing. Didn't want to disrupt it.  I can change it if you want.SFJuggler 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The one I linked to above is the first printing. There's another record for the second printing. Mhhutchins 02:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I, JFK
Can you confirm that the publisher as given in this record is "Dutton" an imprint of Penguin USA, or "E. P. Dutton", the independent publisher which was acquired by Penguin in 1989. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * E.P. Dutton / NAL Penguin, Inc.SFJuggler 05:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it says "E. P. Dutton" on the title page, the record should be updated to reflect that. I separated these awhile back and wanted to make sure that the records don't get commingled. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Minority Report
Can you confirm that this publication only contains the one story, a novelette? The page count seems pretty large for a novelette unless it's illustrated or has extremely large margins and large type. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just one story. It was a "gimmick" book printed to coincide with the Tom Cruise movie (although it makes no mention of the movie at all).  Printed vertically, about the size of a daily comic strip collection and really cheap construction.SFJuggler 18:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Strangely, the OCLC record for this ISBN gives the contents for the collection of the same name. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 23:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Castle of the Otter
Is the real book's title as hard to discern as it is in this image? Mhhutchins 04:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. They chose dark blue on a black background.  Go figure.  The scanned image is actually EASIER to read than the real thing.SFJuggler 05:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the SFBC thought it would be nice for the title to be apparent. Mhhutchins 06:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It does show up better. I think they used a different shade of blue (or it could have to do with the cover stock they used for the BC edition.  It's CHEAP.

Lupoff's Writer at Large
This publication should be typed as NONFICTION. I'm aware that it was mistyped before you updated it, but without the contents no one was able to confirm that. I will update the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Shadow on the Doorstep etc
If you'll look at the record for this title, you'll see not all of your page count survives. This field can only hold so many characters. Are the unnumbered pages important enough to include in the page count? If so, you'll have to come up with a creative way to include them. Why not just add them all up and place them in brackets with a note explaining what's on each of them? The field is for the page count, and sometimes editors confuse that with pagination, a totally differently-colored horse. Mhhutchins 06:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a discrepancy in the number given in Chalker/Owings for the clothbound edition. 297 or 197? Mhhutchins 06:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 10 red leather + 103 purple leather + 297 cloth + 500 paper = 910 copies. Did I get the math wrong?SFJuggler 06:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Math not wrong, just the description.  I'll fix it.SFJuggler 06:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit to The Shadow on the Doorstep / Trilobyte
I approved your submission to Edit to The Shadow on the Doorstep / Trilobyte. However, the pages field is still truncated. I thin you are hitting the length limit on that field and you may want to add a note as to the actual numbering. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And I mentioned the same thing but got no response in my previous message. Mhhutchins 18:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just split the difference and added them to each side.SFJuggler 04:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Forever Peace. To Stop War
I'm holding the submission to add a CHAPTERBOOK of this title, which has no content record for the work which is contained in the publication. Is it a work of fiction? If so, I'll accept the submission and ask you to add a content record. If it's nonfiction, we'll have to change the type of the record. Mhhutchins 05:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's poetry. This is the first "trade" appearance of the work.  There was a previous extremely limited "art" version of the work issued one month earlier and I can clone this entry and add what I know about it.  Also note the punctuation is not a typo.SFJuggler 05:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've accepted the submission. Update the record to add the single content record. (If it's more than one poem, you'll have to change the record to a COLLECTION.) Mhhutchins 06:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It's one poem.  I'll clone the record and add the original "art" version.SFJuggler 06:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you add the content record when you added the cover image link? Mhhutchins 06:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't see your note before adding cover. Content is in, now.SFJuggler 06:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * With only 4-8 pages, would these better be described as pamphlets? Or are they closer to the trade paperback format? Mhhutchins 06:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The original edition was 11-1/4 x 15 and I'd say it was a folio. The "trade" edition distributed to congress is about the size of a trade paperback but only a few pages.  Pamphlet would be closer.SFJuggler 06:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If the original is not bound, and with loose sheets/plates, you can enter "portfolio" into the binding/format field. If the trade edition is lightly bound, despite its dimensions, you can enter it as "ph" (for pamphlet). Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll change the trade edition to ph. As for the original edition.  I looked at it a couple of years ago at the publisher's table but I don't remember the specifics on the binding.  Just from the publisher's description it IS bound in some way.SFJuggler 17:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

War of Honor
Unless you have a secondary source for the publication date of this printing, you should date it as 0000-00-00 ("unknown"). Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking but don't have one yet.04:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

David Starr: Space Ranger
There is an OCLC record for this publication. Mhhutchins 04:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. Made the update.SFJuggler 04:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Complete Robot
I have your submission to update this record, but it appears you may have entered the publication date incorrectly because it's been zeroed out. (The system will zero out any nonstandard formatted date given in this field.) I'll accept it and ask you to make a new submission to correct the date field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.SFJuggler 14:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Fool's War
Repaired the OCLC [link] and it does show a 24cm edition which has to be a hardcover [there is no tp]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll verify the ISFDB listing but the OCLC entry looks like a bad copy-and-paste job (Timothy Zahn, Bantam Spectra, etc.). Just my two cents.SFJuggler 19:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong publisher, wrong author... If it were my verified record, I wouldn't link it to that bad OCLC record. And is your copy 24 cm (9.5 inches)? That seems rather tall for a BCE. Mhhutchins 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it in my initial submission but Bluesman put it back. I'll stand by my info but not the OCLC listing.SFJuggler 03:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Removed the link, even though it is half right. The original link didn't work which is why I thought you wanted to remove it. As for the height I have another of Zettel's books that is a BCE and it's the same height as the trade hardcover. There were lots of them in the late 90s and early 00s that were identical to the trade editions externally. Without the BCE # block and no price they're quite indistinguishable. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have been clearer on that. Some of the Worldcat listings are of execrable quality.  I'm comfortable with it as it now stands.SFJuggler 18:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A title in Philip K. Dick: Electric Shepherd
Could I ask you to dig out Philip K. Dick: Electric Shepherd and please check this title? I'm indexing the early issues of SF Commentary and the titles for the first two in this essay series are "Mad Mad Worlds: 7 Novels of Philip K. Dick", not "Worlds". Thanks. PeteYoung 09:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about this. In fact it's become something of a quest.  The book seems to have disappeared into a black hole.  We've had an overseas guest for the past two weeks and I haven't been able to do much of anything for that time but I'm back to cataloging now and will move some boxes.SFJuggler 18:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in the middle of indexing another bunch of early issues of SF Commentary. Any luck with finding this yet, or has it genuinely been pulled into another universe? ;) PeteYoung 05:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm almost ready to go with the universe thing. My books are in boxes just out of storage and not in any order yet.  I thought that I had separated out the "reference" books but it's not in any that I can lay my hands on.  I am still actively looking for it and have a couple more ideas of where it might be but won't be able to actually move the boxes until the weekend.   SFJuggler 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Downs
This author is not considered a spec-fic author, so his nonfiction works would not be eligible for the database. (Rules of Acquisition #5) If you disagree with this assessment, post a notice on the Moderator Noticeboard asking for other opinions. I'll hold the submission and let you decide if it should be cancelled. Mhhutchins 00:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it had enough speculative content to submit but it's not a landmark book or anything.SFJuggler 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-genre stories
We currently have no way to designate that a short story is not spec-fic. So we can not effectively enter non-genre short stories into the database, regardless of the status of the author. This is in contrast to the policy that allows the inclusion of non-genre novels by authors who are "above the threshold." In the case of Fredric Brown, because he is without question "above the threshold", we can easily designate (and accept into the database) his mystery novels using the NONGENRE type. But we don't have a clear way to enter his (or any other author's) non-genre collections, but editors occasionally skirt the issue with some creative and non-standard results. Some time in the past, an editor (unknown to me) got around the problem with Brown's mystery collections by placing them into a series titled Detective Pulps (non-genre) and entered them using the COLLECTION type, which for ISFDB purposes must only be used for collections of spec-fic stories. There was no problem with this as long as the contents of these mystery collections, obvious mystery stories, were not entered into the database. This prevents the creation of records of obvious non-genre stories. Until, if, or when, the software is changed so that a work can be entered using the NONGENRE STORY type, we have to make sure such stories don't sneak into the database. So I have to reject your submission to update this record with the contents. I will go back and add the new data to the record, but will not create contents for the stories. This procedure follows the policy for only creating records for the sf contents which appear in nongenre publications. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand why it was held so long and then rejected. That's why I didn't enter the other books in the series.  In spite of the fact that it was called "Fredric Brown in the Detective Pulps" (the actual title of the series of 19 books) there are actually SF stories collected in these books.  The series should have been just "Fredric Brown in the Pulps" but Dennis was aiming at a mystery audience for the most part.  "The Frownzly Florgels," for instance, already has an entry in the database (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?672673) as well as a couple of others from this one.  I assume that only entering the SF content would be okay, though?SFJuggler 04:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. But make sure to note that only the sf contents have been entered, and then record the non-sf stories in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Will dig the first 12 back out then.SFJuggler 04:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Older question without a response
This question may have been overlooked. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stray keypress? Removed.SFJuggler 03:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Early Asimov
You have a Tuck verification for [this] edition. Tuck only goes to the end of 1968. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Meant to hit "N/A" and missed. Fixed now.  Thanks.SFJuggler 01:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Missed"? A likely story!! ;-)) I hate those little 'dots', I can hit a dartboard bullseye from ten feet easier than the wee blue thingies .... --~ Bill, Bluesman 06:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Got to be an easier way.;)SFJuggler 20:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Asimov's June 2013
Problems with this record:


 * 1) Nonfiction pieces which are contained in a larger work should be typed as ESSAYs. The NONFICTION type is reserved for book-length works of nonfiction.
 * 2) When more than one party is responsible for a role, you must give credit on a separate entry field. So you'll need to split the credit for the cover art.
 * 3) The column names are not entered into the title field. After the submission is accepted you go back and enter the title records into the appropriate series. This should be done for the editorial, and the pieces by Silverberg and Kelly.
 * 4) Four of the content records have different dates than the issue's date. Unless you have strong evidence that the work was previously published, you should leave the date entry field blank when creating a publication record for a magazine. This will automatically date the contents the same as the issue.
 * 5) You'll have to correct the spelling of the reviewed author's name on page 108, even if the name is spelled incorrectly in the review. That's ISFDB policy.
 * 6) The ellipsis in Silverberg's title must be entered as ". . . " (spaces after each period), regardless of how it looks in the publication. Another ISFDB policy.
 * 7) Confirm that the Strauss piece as "The" in the title. It's not been used for several years now. (Make sure you've entered titles from the work's title page, not the contents page. Another ISFDB policy.)
 * 8) Did you count the covers in the page count field? Magazines' pages are counted differently than books.
 * 9) The review of a nonfiction book by a non-genre writer should be entered as an ESSAY instead of a REVIEW. This prevents the creation of a stray author, one who has no publication records in the database but is present only because of a review.

Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed the title of the essay for the review of the nonfiction work to indicate it's a review. Don't forget to remove the REVIEW-type record from the publication record and then delete it from the database. And are you certain that the Reed story was first published in June 2012?. Also, the poem by Clark is still undated. Mhhutchins 03:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they're all fixed now.SFJuggler 03:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please confirm the title of the Straus piece. It's normally "...Conventional...", and not "...Convention...". Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "Conventional" on both the table of contents and the actual page. It's "Conventional" in the April/May issue, also.SFJuggler 03:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The next step is to enter the columns into their respective series. (I guess now you realize just how much more complicated are magazine records.) Mhhutchins 03:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I couldn't wait any longer, so I went ahead and removed the REVIEW record for Paradox, and then deleted it from the database. Mhhutchins 01:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I thought I had submitted the change already.SFJuggler 04:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Brown's The Office
When you get a chance, add a content record for Farmer's introduction to this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.SFJuggler 02:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction, June 2013
I put Robert Reed's story "Precious Mental" into the proper series The Great Ship Universe from this issue Asimov's Science Fiction, June 2013. I also gave the original place of publication of "Celebrate National Science Fiction Day By Learning to Live in the Future" by Ed Finn. These edits are awaiting their acceptance. I hope I didn't tread on your toes. MLB 10:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem.SFJuggler 04:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Arena: Sports SF"
After approving your submission for this book, I went ahead and deleted the version of "Nobody Bothers Gus" that you tagged for deletion, and merged your revised version of that story with the other version of that form in the system. You should, preferably, return to that book and add your formal verification of the title. Chavey 06:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done!SFJuggler 18:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Serve It Forth
I'm not sure why you would have added such an extensive note to the "Note to Moderator" field of the submission updating this record, knowing that the moment the submission was accepted by the moderator that the data would disappear forever. So I decided to copy it here for you convenience so that you can determine whether it is worthy of noting in the actual record or not.


 * Note typos and omissions in "Whitefist Béla" which is actually "Whitefish Béla"; "Tina Improvisa" is actually "Tuna Improvisa"; "Marilyn Walker Carl's Crisp Dill Pickles" is actually "Marian Walker Carl's Crisp Dill Pickles"; "Mandarin Flambe (accent on the e in flambe)" is actually "Mandarin Flambé (A Dessert)"; "Soya Sauce Stewed Chicken" is actually "Soya Sauce Stewed Chicken (Triple-S Chicken)"; "Duttercream Frosting" is actually "Buttercream Frosting"; "The Best White Bread in 12 Systems" is actually "The Best White Bread in 12 Systems or What To Do Till the Next Scene Develops"; "Butternut Dumplings" is actually "Butternut Dumplings (Squash Gnocchi)";"Old Fashioned Leftover Fish Pie" is actually "Old-Fashioned Leftover Fish Pie" and "Death by Choclate: A Murder Mystery" is actually "Death by Choclate: A Murder Mystery (a.k.a. Chocolate Brownie Tart)."

Reminder: the "Note to Moderator" field should only contain data about the submission. Any data about the publication should be entered into the "Note" field. If your intention was to let the moderator know that you're correcting the titles of some of the contents, something like this would have been sufficient: "Correcting titles, will be removing incorrect titles in the next submission". Mhhutchins 02:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pre-emptive double-check as I sometimes get requests to re-check the spelling on the actual page, etc. I ignored the execrable table of contents on this one and went through it page by page.SFJuggler 04:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I make it a practice to never look at the table of contents. It will save you some time. There is an option to compare the titles in the table of contents with the title pages of the stories, but that isn't required. Mhhutchins 16:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Format for frontispieces
Re this record: INTERIORART records should be titled the same as the work they illustrate. Some specialized INTERIORART records, like maps and frontispieces, can be disambiguated. So this record should be titled "Lost (frontispiece)". Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Change made.  SFJuggler 16:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cloud by Day
Re this record: pre-decimalization British prices are entered in the format "S/P". Shillings before the stroke, pence after the stroke. If one or the other isn't applicable use a dash in its place. A book priced at 15 shillings would be entered as "15/-". One priced at 3 shillings and 6 pence would be entered as "3/6". This standard is explained here. (Also, about the content record: "map" (as a disambiguation of an INTERIORART record) and "uncredited" are entered uncapitalized. The system automatically corrected the author field, but you'll have to manually enter the correction in the title field.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected. SFJuggler 18:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of The Great Explosion
I'm holding the submission to update this record, because you're changing the publication date from October to August 1962. According to Volume Three of Tuck, this was the October 1962 selection of the SFBC. It is ISFDB policy to use a title's selection date as the publication date, unless there is evidence otherwise. The gutter code can be used to estimate the publication date when there is no other secondary source. The date of this title's selection is also supported by the lists provided by SFBC editor Andrew Wheeler to the rec.arts.sf.newsgroup back in 2003 (here). Do you have a conflicting source for the August date? Mhhutchins 00:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with an October date. I'm just offering up my notes from old catalogs and records.    SFJuggler 00:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've accepted the submission, reverting the date and noting the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Will review it and do the PV.  SFJuggler 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Submission for "The Dueling Machine"
I'm a bit confused by a detail in your submission to update "The Dueling Machine", by Ben Bova. You changed the page count from "247" to "247+[2]", then list the "About the Author" as being on p. [259]. Was that supposed to be [249]? Chavey 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Late at night...can't add. ;)  I'll fix that.   SFJuggler 14:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, I just wasn't sure what was intended. I approved the submission and changed [259] to [249]. Chavey 23:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see it's fixed. Thanks.   SFJuggler 02:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Asimov's New Guide to Science
I accepted the submission add ing this record to the database, but it was added under the wrong title record. You should not use the "Add Publication to This Title" function if you change either the title field or the author field. They must be identical. Otherwise use the appropriate function under the "Add New Data" menu. Once you've read this message and looked at the record (see how its title reference link doesn't match the publication's title field), make a submission to unmerge this record from the title record. You can then make the new title record into a variant of this title. Mhhutchins 03:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unmerge submitted.SFJuggler 03:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Try again. Only unmerge the publication which doesn't match the title record. Mhhutchins 04:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay.SFJuggler 04:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Pieces of Six
Is this edited by "Anonymous" or is it simply uncredited? Also, the pieces original to this publication should have the same date as the publication. And do you know anything about the paperback edition of this? The record has the same ISBN as your hardcover record. OCLC (which you linked to the hc edition) says it's 18 cm which makes it a pretty small hardcover. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Anonymous" just came from the cloning process. As for the paperback edition, it is still available from http://www.bucconeer.worldcon.org/index.htm#book.  They don't say anything about the ISBN for that edition but the one I have came from the book itself.  This was obviously planned as a paperback and they decided to do a small hardcover print run at the last minute.  The dustjacket is totally blank on the endpapers.  I suspect that they just bound up however many sets of sheets in hardcover and called it good.  SFJuggler 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You should make the editor "uncredited" on the title record and the pub records. Is it 18 cm tall, or is OCLC wrong? Mhhutchins 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Change already made. The pages are 18cm, the binding a little more.  OCLC has a tp copy.  I don't think there's a separate ISBN for the hc.   SFJuggler 05:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OCLC doesn't give the binding of their copy (they rarely do). We only know it's 18 cm which would be entered as "pb" in the ISFDB record of the softcover edition. (I'll correct the record.) It would be a good idea to note the smallness of this edition in the record for the hardcover edition.


 * Also, you gave a lot of information in the "Note to Moderator" field to update the record, which was apropos to nothing, since you kept the editor as "uncredited". It's fine to speculate about the possible editor and to give evidence to support your belief, but that would be better given in the "Note" field of the visible record. If your research finds indisputable evidence that Brown was the editor, then you can make this anthology's title record into a variant credited to him. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Island of Dr. Moreau
This record was accepted into the database, but there are a few problems. It should have been entered under the title record that's already in the database, because it is essentially the same work, even though it may have additional material as part of the text. You will have to merge its title with this one, retaining the canonical title. The publisher should be "McFarland & Company", and the publication series is misspelled (there should be a space after each period in an initialed name.) I await your submission making corrections. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see there was a similar publication series published by McFarland in 2012, edited by Leon Stover. Was your copy of the 1996 edition also edited by Stover? If not, we may have to differentiate between the two series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to do the merge as a separate process. The 2012 McFarland edition is the trade paperback version of the 1996 edition I was entering.  I'll submit corrections with note about Stover.SFJuggler 00:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

BCE of The Island of Dr. Moreau novelization
Is the title that you've changed this publication exactly as it is given on the book's title page? According to the OCLC record the title is "The island of Dr. Moreau / a novelization" (with the usual librarian method of only capitalizing the first word and proper names.) Thanks for looking. BTW, I'm assuming the "Th" is a typo. Mhhutchins 00:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Th" is a typo. The complete text of the title page is "THE ISLAND" [over] "OF DR. MOREAU" [over] "by H. G. WELLS" [over] "&" [over] "THE ISLAND" [over] "OF DR. MOREAU" [over] "a novelization of the screenplay by" [over] "JOSEPH SILVA" and at the bottom of the page "NELSON DOUBLEDAY, INC." [over] "Garden City, New York" (capitalization exact). SFJuggler 01:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'll correct the typo if you haven't already submitted a change. I rejected the submission to merge this publication's title record with the title record for Wells' novel. This work is an omnibus, so it's title record is distinct from each of the two titles which are contained in it, with each of those having their own title records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Already submitted the correction. Thanks for the info on the merge.   SFJuggler 01:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The King Who Was a King
This record was created using the wrong function. Instead of using the "Add New Novel" function, it would have been better to go to the title record already in the database, clicked on "Add New Publication to This Title", and then added the subtitle as given in your book to the title field. We don't create variant titles based on subtitles (even though you may see them occasionally in the database, incorrectly I might add.) You'll have to merge the two title records, keeping the current title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the publisher "Doubleday, Doran & Company" to "Doubleday, Doran" the common name used in the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OCLC links
NINE!!??¿¿??!! You're a sick puppy ...... lolol  Maybe just pick the best two ... what will you do when there's thirty? ;-00 --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * At least I filtered out the 100+ others for you! ;) I don't think OCLC has anyone paying attention to these things.  SFJuggler 03:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * With over 837 million records, would you like to volunteer to clean out the dross?? ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, in my copious free time...;)   SFJuggler 03:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Why enter secondary sources at all when you're doing a primary verification of the publication? Seems like a lot of effort with very little return, IMHO. You may even be able to free up some of that "free time". Mhhutchins 04:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it's just me.   04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Food of the Gods
Does [this] one match? --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I guess I was cross-eyed after Ann Veronica.   SFJuggler 03:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a trick/shortcut when dealing with umpteen OCLC records. I just type in the title and the date. Cuts through a lot of crap! Cheers!  --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.SFJuggler 03:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Mind at the End of Its Tether
A collection of essays should be typed as NONFICTION. Please change the type of this publication and its title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.   SFJuggler 05:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not yet. The title record hasn't been corrected. Mhhutchins 06:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Horrible lag here.  Title record wouldn't come up.  Should be fixed now.  SFJuggler 06:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

National Lampoon Treasure of Humor
I added notes to this recod, but didn't change any of the data fields. Mhhutchins 15:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool.  SFJuggler 17:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy Quest
This is not the same work as the title record under which it was created. If you use the "Add New Publication to This Title" function and have to change the name of the author credit, you should stop because you're using the wrong function. (Perhaps this guide will be helpful in determining which function to use to create a publication record.) The publication record should be unmerged from its title record, which will automatically create a new one. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, realized that. The correction is already submitted.   19:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Submission accepted. Mhhutchins 19:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * One more thing: if part of a title is in a different font or typeface and/or a different size, and is clearly meant not to be part of the main title, it should be separated from the main title by a colon, even if the colon isn't present in the actual publication. This is the ISFDB standard procedure for entering subtitles. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Shasta ed. of The Demolished Man
The first and third OCLC records which you linked to this ISFDB record is for the book club edition (look at the page count). If an OCLC record doesn't match a primary verified ISFDB record, it shouldn't be linked to it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fix submitted.   SFJuggler 03:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Cover art credit for Dallas Down
Can you confirm the spelling of the cover artist credited in this publication? If entered as stated, please create a variant crediting Don Brautigam. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, spelled "Brautigam" on the jacket.  SFJuggler 01:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Privately Published"
Unless the publisher is stated as "Privately Published" in this publication, the publisher field should be blank and this fact can be given in the note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Same situation with this record. Mhhutchins 01:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Both corrections submitted.   SFJuggler 01:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifying primary verifiers
I noticed you left a message on the talk page of an inactive editor concerning changes made in this record. There are two very active editors who also did a primary verification of that record. Those are the ones you should have notified, not the Primary 1 verifier. This position has no priority over the others. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted.  SFJuggler 04:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Evolution's Shore
Added notes [there were none] to [this]. Didn't note a price source, matches Locus but you may have added it from your records? --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird. I thought I had added notes to that when I came across it in the boxes.  Thanks.   SFJuggler 04:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Too Long a Sacrifice
I added the introduction to this verified pub and changed the pagenumbering from 210 to x+210. Hope you can agree. --Willem H. 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Must have been sleeping on that one. Thanks.    SFJuggler 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Travel[l]er's Rest
Could you check how the first word is spelled [one 'l' or two] in [this] pub? Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One "l".  SFJuggler 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ghosts of the Titanic
Is it safe to assume that "Ghosts of the Titanic" was supposed to be the title and "Charles Pellegrino" the author for ISBN 0688139558? :) Ahasuerus 07:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is incredibly safe to assume that! ;)  SFJuggler 15:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Next question: Would you say that is above that "certain threshold" which makes his non-SF books eligible for inclusion in ISFDB? The Library of Congress lists numerous non-fiction books by Pellegrino (Darwin's universe: origins and crises in the history of life, Chronic fatigue syndrome: the hidden epidemic, Return to Sodom and Gomorrah: Bible stories from archaeologists, Unearthing Atlantis: an archaeological odyssey, Chariots for Apollo: the making of the lunar module, Jesus family tomb: the evidence behind the discovery no one wanted to find, Last train from Hiroshima : the survivors look back, etc) while we list only 4 SF novels and one story. Ahasuerus 21:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure about that...directly. Indirectly, his work has very influential to SF.  His (and Jesse Stoff's) models and theories of oceans under the ice of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn led Arthur C. Clarke to base the sequels to 2001 there.  Jurassic Park is said to owe much to his writings.  He may not be mainly a science fiction author but other author's mine his stuff for ideas so he's definitely an influence.  SFJuggler 04:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm, good points... Let me post this question on the Community Portal and see what other editors think about this. Ahasuerus 05:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever you decide is fine. But if Asimov wrote a limerick about him in response to a blurb request he must have something going for him. ;)    SFJuggler 02:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like the discussion has more or less petered out. There was no consensus, but if I am reading the tea leaves correctly, the intersection of the plurality opinions held that non-fiction books by "under the threshold" SF authors should be either reviewed in a genre magazine or be on a borderline SF subject ("ancient astronauts" etc) in order to be "in". For better or for worse, I will reject the submission and hopefully at some point some reviewer will do us a favor and review Pellegrino's books in an SF magazine. Well, probably not Chronic fatigue syndrome: the hidden epidemic :-) Ahasuerus 20:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The community has spoken...which is what it's there for. ;)   SFJuggler 20:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy's Faces
I see you note that there is no LCCN for this publication. It's highly unusual (although not impossible) for a British publisher to apply for a record from the US Library of Congress, so it's not necessary to point this out in the ISFDB record's Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just being thorough. I've had a couple of British books pop up in the LOC so I make it a point to always check.    SFJuggler 05:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Mysterious Cure and other ...", by J. O. Jeppson
I corrected a page number, and added three small notes (at the end), to your verified copy of this book. Chavey 21:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me.  SFJuggler 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Janissaries III: Storms of Victory
Could you please check your copy of Janissaries III: Storms of Victory to see if Pournelle is credited as "Jerry E. Pournelle" or "Jerry Pournelle" on the title page? There is a mismatch between the publication record and the title record, so I am not sure if we need to correct the publication record or create a variant title. TIA! Ahasuerus 02:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and ditto The Sillymarillion, which lists the author as "D. R. Lloyd" at the pub level and "Donald Lloyd" at the title level. Ahasuerus 02:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Credited as "Jerry E. Pournelle" on both the cover and title page. As for "The Sillymarillion" I made a note to the moderator (I know, not kept) that he was referred to as "D. R. Lloyd" throughout the book.  I have no idea where the "Donald" came from. ;)   03:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have set up a VT for the Pournelle/Green collaboration and corrected D. R. Lloyd's name. The latter is referred to as "Don" on various Web pages (including one apparently maintained by the book's publisher), which is presumably where "Donald" had come from. Ahasuerus 03:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info.   SFJuggler 03:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Blood of Ten Chiefs
Is this a "tp" as entered, or "hc" as noted? Thans. Mhhutchins 04:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Myth Adventures
The author credit of this record was changed to "Robert Lynn Asprin", but you entered four content records credited to "Robert Asprin". Mhhutchins 04:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Brain fart. The original novels were credited to Robert Asprin, I believe.    SFJuggler 07:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * True but if the omnibus is credited to "Robert Lynn Asprin", so should its contents, unless each has a title page which credits "Robert Asprin". Is that the case here? Mhhutchins 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The Blood of Ten Chiefs
I've had to reject your edit to add a cover to this pub, the link was for your cover of Asimov's The Universe. Don't worry, we've all done it :) PeteYoung 09:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try that one again.   SFJuggler 21:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life...
I added a missing content record in this record. (All CHAPTERBOOK records require a content record for the titled content.) Please add the page number to the content when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have to see if I can find the box it's in.  SFJuggler 04:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have this book myself, but it's packed away with my theater books and plays. I never thought of it as SF. Isn't the bag-lady character sorta nuts and not really in communication with aliens? I thought of it as a theatrical device that binds the diverse characters into a cohesive storyline. Mhhutchins 04:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Vinge's "Psiren"
Do you have a copy of this publication? Your past submissions have led me to believe your collection includes many such publications (pamphlets from obscure publishers). I have a question concerning the content story. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a copy of this. Whether I can lay my hands on it in short order is another question entirely, but I'll give it a go.;)    SFJuggler 18:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good. My suspicion that it was you who entered the publication (but without verification) was based on the style of the notes. It's good to know my detective skills haven't lost their edge. Mhhutchins 21:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't into verification back then. Didn't know what was involved.  I"m slowing going back over my edits and verifying what I can but it will be some time.   SFJuggler 00:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Young Witches ...
Corrected a minor html 'glitch' for [this]. "Shelf-back"??? Is this the same as 1/4 bound? The spine material wraps on each board about 1/4 of the way? I haven't seen that description before. Doesn't need to be changed or anything, just curious if it's what I think it is ... ? --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, same thing. Bookbinder/bookseller term that's been in use for the last century or so.  Also called spine or backbone.  "The exposed part of a bound volume when shelved."    SFJuggler 03:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

King's Lisey's Story
How is your copy of this title different than the record I verified in 2009? (Other than the date I give based on the Amazon.com listing.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Appear to be identical. I obviously didn't see that entry for some reason.  One or the other can be eliminated.    SFJuggler 03:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the second record, but moved your scan of the cover to the original record. Please do a primary verification of it when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.SFJuggler 03:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Gregg Press ed. of The 10th Victim
I have added further notes to this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool.SFJuggler 03:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Crook Factory by Dan Simmons
You've verified this title. On the notes it says that all interior art is uncredited. On my copy of the book the illustrations are listed on page 436 and the illustration on page 323 (Frenchman Bay) is credited to Joseph Ascherl. Could you check your copy, if it has the same entry? Thanks. --Jorssi 11:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't get to my copy at the moment. If you want to make the corrections I have no objection.  Thanks.   SFJuggler 03:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

SF of the 20th Century
I had to remove this publication from the original title record which only credits Robinson, and made it into a variant. You might want to discuss this situation with Hauck who did a primary verification of the trade edition, but gives a different author credit. Mhhutchins 23:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Will drop him a note.SFJuggler 03:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Uncredited foreword in TZ Revisited
Re this record: if the foreword is uncredited (as you state in the Note field), why is it credited in the content record to Gibson? Mhhutchins 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Change submitted.SFJuggler 04:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Murder Madness
I added to the notes for Murder Madness. Also a suggestion: you give the publisher as FPCI, which is commonly used of course, but most who have entered books published by Crawford have used "Fantasy Publishing" instead. I don't think it matters which is used, but consistency would seem to be preferred for users of the data base. Up to you, of course. Bob 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

FPCI or Fantasy Publishing Company, Inc.
Re your verified record: please join this discussion when you have an opportunity. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wells' The Croquet Player
Please confirm if the publisher of this book is stated as "The Viking Press", which is the ISFDB designation before it became an imprint of Penguin in 1984. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 19:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. SFJuggler 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I didn't receive a submission to correct the record, I went ahead and made the publisher "The Viking Press". Mhhutchins 04:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been out of state until today.   SFJuggler 04:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the delay in responding to the original request. That's no problem. I assumed since you had confirmed how the publisher was given that you would make a submission to change the record. Anyway, it's fixed now. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

H W J N
Please confirm if the stated ISBN has 14 numbers in the publication. Also, you added a content record for the novel. If this is a novel, you should remove the duplicate novel content record and delete it from the database. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function to remove titles from a publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Done.SFJuggler 23:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

FPCI
This is a followup to a discussion which started on my talk page concerning FPCI and petered out without a resolution. How is the publisher given on the title page of this book? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have "Fantasy Publishing Company, Inc." in my records (FPCI on the spine).SFJuggler 23:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please update the record when you get a chance to indicate the publisher as given on the title page. Yours is the only record crediting "FPCI". Most of the records by this publisher have been entered as "Fantasy Publishing Company, Inc.". Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Frontispiece
Re this publication: A frontispiece should be titled in the format: "Title of Work (frontispiece)". Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Will have to do Who Goes There as well when you put it through.    SFJuggler 00:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Make sure the "f" in "frontispiece" isn't capitalized. Otherwise, it could be mistaken as part of the title. Mhhutchins 00:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay.  SFJuggler

Tuck's Handbook
This publication should have been entered under this title record using the "Add Publication to This Title" function. Instead you used the "Add New Nonfiction" function which creates a new (duplicate) title record. I have merged the two title records so that the review records (and award) which were linked to the original title record are not broken. Mhhutchins 01:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew that :(.  SFJuggler 02:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Holt printing statement practices
I accepted the submission updating this record, but added a sentence to clarify your statement that the "First Edition" statement is removed after the first printing, assuming it retains the same number line. I know other publishers did this in the 70s (Random House did it for 30 years!), but I can't find any other Holt book which did it. (Unless it occurred in a very small window in 1974.) For example: I have a 1973 Holt publication which doesn't have a number line, only a "Second Printing" statement. Another editor tells me that this 1974 Holt publication didn't have a number line, only a "First Edition" statement. There are no Holt publications from 1975, but there's this 1976 publication which has a complete number line and a "First Edition" statement, and a 1977 publication with a complete number line. Mhhutchins 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm familiar with both of those examples (I own both of them). I think this one is either an exception or the first printing of this book was so small that it's almost non-existent.  In almost 30 years of looking I have yet to see one with a "1" on the end of the line.  In 1974 Haldeman was an almost total unknown so they may not have had enough faith to do a large printing.  In any case, if someone comes up with a copy that has a "1" at the end I'll gladly revise the listing.SFJuggler 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the note I added about this being the first printing, and let the published statement speak for itself. Mhhutchins 06:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I would love to know if any copies with a "1" exist.SFJuggler 17:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Exploring the Matrix
I've changed this publication record from ANTHOLOGY to NONFICTION. Mhhutchins 18:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. That's just what it was when I got there.SFJuggler 21:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I give you permission to correct any mistakes you may find in non-primary verified records. :) Mhhutchins 21:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But if I don't find them I don't have permission to correct them, correct?;)SFJuggler 21:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek III: The Vulcan Treasure
Your note to the moderator in the submission updating this publication:


 * I don't believe that Wendy Barish should be included as an author here. She's was an editor at Simon & Schuster who was overseeing Rotsler on this project but she is not credited in or on the book at all, nor in the LOC listing. Your call.

You have the book, not me, so it's your call. Why update a record and do a primary verification of one which is incorrectly credited? Mhhutchins 22:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Matrix and Philosophy
Can you confirm that there is an ISBN-13 in this 2002 publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Same question for this one. Mhhutchins 21:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this message in case you missed it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Probability Pipeline
Hello, can you have look at (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?52209 your verified pub] to see if the co-author of _Probablity Pipeline_ is given as Mark or Marc Laidlaw. Thanks. Hauck 09:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I can locate it in the boxes I will do that. I've shifted them around to bring out a new batch to catalog and cannot currently locate it.SFJuggler 21:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Noisy Outlaws...
Such an innovative cover design deserves to be credited in the Note field, don't you think? Otherwise, I don't think you would have gone to the effort of scanning in the whole thing. :) Mhhutchins 02:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbor House Treasury of Horror...
In this record you changed the LCCN from 80-70220 to 80070220. Is that how it is given in the book? At that time, LCCNs usually included a dash. Thanks for checking. Also, please take a moment to respond to this message from September 18. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has a dash in the book. The LCCN was copied from the LOC website verbatim which does not have a dash.  As for the Matrix book...I have to find it again.  I just put it back but don't remember where at the moment.SFJuggler 02:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You should give the LCCN as stated in the book, not the LOC website. I see you did the same with this record as well. I guess I'd never noticed you were doing this before. It's not a big deal, but it makes it clear how the LCCN is presented in the book itself. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the books don't have the LCCN in the book itself and I've been looking them up and linking to the listing. Because of this I have an HTML template that I use and just paste the permalink URL in and my editor pastes the LCCN into the proper place.  I'll try to remember to change it when I can but I can't guarantee I'll always catch it.  I was just trying to be consistent.SFJuggler 03:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If the LCCN is not stated in the book, you must say that in the Notes. Mhhutchins 04:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Red Dwarf
I would suggest changing the notes in this record to say that the verified copy doesn't have an ISBN. It's obvious from the OCLC record that some copies did have an ISBN, otherwise it wouldn't have been part of their record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * K.SFJuggler 04:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Length designations for screenplays, teleplays, etc
Re the last piece in this pub: There should be no length designation given in SHORTFICTION-typed records which are screenplays, teleplays, and stage plays. Leaving the field blank will default the record to just "shortfiction". Giving it a "short story", "novelette", or "novella" designation would be misleading. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed.SFJuggler 04:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rushing to Paradise
I did a second primary verification of and added some notes to this. Stonecreek 19:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool.SFJuggler 06:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

LCCN as displayed in the publication
How is the LCCN displayed in this book? Is the usual dash missing and replaced by a zero? Mhhutchins 04:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "96-11391" is how it's displayed in this particular book. You said in a previous message that this wasn't a big issue so I have kept on the side of consistency.  Let me know.SFJuggler 05:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To be consistent, enter the number as displayed in the publication. The fact that you were entering it wrongly is not a big deal. But the standard is to enter it as it appears in the book. In 2001, the LoC dropped the dash and changed the two digit year to a four digit year. It's misleading to give an undashed number in previous years, making the user think the new system was used before it actually was. Mhhutchins 05:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to catch myself.SFJuggler 23:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Devil's Workshop
The use of bracketed roman numbers in the page count field of this record is non-standard. Brackets are only used for unnumbered pages, so any roman numbered pages can't also be unnumbered. How are the pages numbered? Also, is there substantial data on these unnumbered pages to require they be included in the page count? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I put in a correction to make it conform along with the cover scan. Several pages of acknowledgements & quotes.SFJuggler 22:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Update excepted, but if that [1] is a blank page, we don't include it in the page count. We add the highest roman number to the highest arabic number. (Also, there's an extra plus in the field.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The page isn't blank. It's just not numbered.  Will fix the plus.  ("excepted"?)01:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Long strange trip... :) You should derive the unnumbered page's number. If the page before it was labeled "viii" then its number would be "ix" and that should be entered into the page count field. We're trying to get an accurate number that reflects the page count, not the pagination. Believe me, there's a difference, and some records' page count field would look like an algebra equation if we tried to enter its pagination. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Pagecount fixed per the "formula."  It looks cleaner now.SFJuggler 03:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Computers, Computers...
According to the OCLC record, the title page of this book gives the title as Computers, Computers, Computers: In Fiction and In Verse. Note the second "In", and the colon, which is the ISFDB designation for a subtitle given in a different font size. This also appears to be the cover title as well. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean in the Note field about the main title entry on LOC. The record on the LOC gives the full title, and it's identical to the one given in the OCLC record, and without a final exclamation point.

Another question: on what page does the poem "Glorobot Number 1-18" appear, and is it explicitly credited to "Anonymous"? Mhhutchins 04:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

One last question (I hope): Both OCLC and LCCN give the editor as "D. Van Tassel". How is it given in the publication? Mhhutchins 04:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the note about the LOC title. Apparently this is only in the LOC entry reproduced on the copyright page.  As for the editor, it is D. Van Tassel but I didn't see that I forgot to make that change until I had already hit "submit" so I thought I would just wait until the entry was accepted and make an additional change.  The Glorobots thing really needs re-working there and I'll do that.  Each of the 18 stories is preceded with a limerick (here called a Glorobot).  They are credited to Gloria Maxson in the acknowledgements but are not otherwise noted.  Again, I'll add these once the entry is accepted.SFJuggler 04:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What about the title? Mhhutchins 14:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Different font size. Fix submitted.SFJuggler 03:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You forgot to correct the title and author credit of the title record. When a change is made in the title or credit of a publication record, the title record is not automatically updated. I'll do it. Mhhutchins 03:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the essay on page 9 credited to the full name? Mhhutchins 03:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes.SFJuggler 03:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Road to Science Fiction #4: From Here to Forever
I'd like to make a number of changes to James Gunn's The Road to Science Fiction 4: From Here to Forever which we both own: Let me know if you concur and I'll go ahead and make the changes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Change the title of the book to The Road to Science Fiction #4: From Here to Forever (with the pound sign) as it appears on the title page. I'll also fix the parent title record.
 * 2) Change the author credit of the introduction from "James E. Gunn" to "James Gunn"
 * 3) Add the individual story introductions.
 * 4) Change the name of "Dune (excerpt)" to "From Dune" as it appears on its title page.
 * Go for it! ;)SFJuggler 14:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Trade ed. of Epoch
Can you confirm that the pagination and page count of this record is correct? Its contents have the same pagination as the book club edition, but the page count is higher. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find it. If I can, I'll check it out.SFJuggler 02:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Captain of [the] Guards"
I suspect you may have created this unverified record. If not, pardon me. If so, please get with Biomassbob to discuss working out the differences between your record and his verified record. I've started a discussion here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply on his page.SFJuggler 19:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I copied the cover scan from your entry onto my verified pub. I stuck with the title the way I entered it.  From my perspective, Michael can delete your entry at this point.  Any other thoughts? Bob 20:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it as long as it's documented. I'll put in for a deletion.;)SFJuggler 20:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Using the ISFDB as self-referential source
I was looking at this record, hoping to find the gutter code to update this list, and saw that you used the ISFDB as the source for the date. The data on these lists come from various sources which are acknowledged on the section's front page. If these listings are your sources for a publication record's data, it would be better to give the original source. For example, for this 1983 edition the source would be "The SFBC announcement flyer, with corroboration from monthly issues of Locus, and the lists provided by SFBC editor Andrew Wheeler to the rec.arts.written.sf newsgroup." It would appear strange, IMO, for a database to give itself as the source for unstated data. Hope this doesn't appear to be too picky. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll keep that in mind. One of these days I'm going to run across my SFBC fliers in my files and I'll use those. ;)SFJuggler 03:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There Will Be War
Can you confirm the editor credit of this record as shown on the book's title page? (The cover credits "J. E. Pournelle".) Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "J.E. Pournelle" on cover, spine and title page. It's only on the copyright page that he's referred to as "Jerry Pournelle."SFJuggler 05:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Price's Grubstake
Can you confirm that the author's name is misspelled on the title page of this publication? I looked up the cover and see that it's also misspelled as "Hoffman" instead of "Hoffmann". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "Hoffman" on the cover, spine, title page and copyright page.SFJuggler 04:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Jeez. Can you imagine having a book published that spells your name wrong? I'll create a variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At least they were consistent.SFJuggler 05:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Vaneglory
I've restored the BLIC number to the Note field of this record and linked it to the record on the British Library website. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Do you know if there are permalinks for BLIC? SFJuggler 03:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Up until two weeks ago, there wasn't a way to link ISFDB records to BLIC records. One enterprising editor linked more than 1400 publication records before I discovered that they weren't permanent. (He was moderating his submissions so there was no check-and-balance.) The URL addresses were tied to the user and session-timed, which meant the next day the links didn't work, not even for that particular editor. The records with those links remain uncorrected in the database. My request to the editor to remove the links and leave the BLIC record numbers in the Note field was to no avail. (They're easy to find using the Advanced Search.)
 * So two weeks ago, I went back to the problem, and with a bit of experimenting came up with a permalink which I described on the Community Portal. Didn't get a single diddly response, not even from the editor who linked all of those records. Feel free to use the method I describe. And if you come across any of those 1400 records, please consider fixing the links. I do so when I'm updating one of them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've added the method to my templates.  I'll keep an eye out and start using it.  Good work! SFJuggler 04:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The test for the James White pub links properly. Mhhutchins 05:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll start using it then.SFJuggler 05:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Book of the Sixth World Fantasy Convention 1980
I approved your edits to The Book of the Sixth World Fantasy Convention 1980. I have one small objection: I don't fell that the pocket program should be included in the cover scan. My thoughts are that it is really a separate publication (It is unlikely that it was included with the copies of the book sold outside the convention). I'm going to ask the other verifier to weigh in. The Amazon cover that was there previously is likely a scan of my copy. It may predate the time when we began uploads to our wiki. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can re-upload the cover without the pocket program. I scale down my scans for uploading and whatever's in my database gets into ISFDB.  Let me know what you want to do.SFJuggler 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I should note here that I was not at the convention and purchased my copy years later from Underwood-Miller and the pocket program WAS included.SFJuggler 00:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ron that the pocket program is separate from the main book. I did not get a copy of the pocket program when I purchased this pub on the secondary market. However, I have had the pocket programs for other conventions, and never include them with the primary pub.  Given that the content of the pocket programs usually include only lists of activities, and not essays, fiction or artwork, I see no reason they should be included in the data base at all. Bob 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * New cover scan uploaded (without pocket program).SFJuggler 18:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Cacher of the Rye
This appears to be a CHAPTERBOOK publication with a single work of fiction, not a COLLECTION (two or more works of fiction by the same author). The title record explicitly states it's a collection of pieces by more than one author. If that's the case it would be an ANTHOLOGY, unless the pieces are nonfiction and would be typed as NONFICTION. Can you confirm the contents and author(s) credited in the publication? BTW, even if a single work is authored by more than one person under a single pseudonym, it would still be a CHAPTERBOOK. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have to dig it out again. I may be able to do it this weekend.SFJuggler 06:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No rush. Just when you find it and have a chance to look at it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 08:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the review in Science Fiction Review this contains the fannish writings of "Carl Brandon", and there is no mention of a novella of the title name. If so, the pub should be typed as NONFICTION, and then varianted to the various authors who wrote as "Carl Brandon". The review also mentions that not all copies were signed by Carr and Brandon, but only the early copies ordered from the publisher. (It doesn't state how many.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Still haven't found this in the stacks again. Will look some more this weekend.SFJuggler 04:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Convergence
Can you confirm the spelling of the artist credit given in this record? The artist's name is normally spelled "Gary Freeman". If the credit in the record matches the actual publication, please variant the record to the artist's canonical name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Mother Night
The 'signature/initials' on the cover of the Dell editions, like [this] are dip, as in Don Ivan Punchatz. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Author data
The data in this author's legalname field was corrected to the standard ISFDB format: Lastname, Firstname Middlename. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember that. I haven't done many of them.SFJuggler 21:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Title unmerge submission
It isn't clear from the submission exactly what you're trying to do with this record. Perhaps you want to remove the variant? Or remove it from the publication? This submission to "unmerge" the title from the publication wouldn't change anything if I accept it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Trying to delete the non-existant, generic "variant" but it's linked. I should have just entered the correct one and deleted the other later but I wasn't thinking.SFJuggler 04:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To "unvariant" a title from another title, click on the link "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" under the Editing Tools menu. On the next page, enter "0" (zero) in the Parent# field. Once that submission is accepted the two title records are separate. Then you can delete the wrong one as long as it's not part of a publication record. If so, you'll have to use the "Remove Titles From This Pub" function. Ask if you need help. Mhhutchins 04:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Publication date of 2001
I'm not sure how the premiere of the movie can be used to determine the publication date of the book? Is there any reliable secondary source for the book's month of publication? Mhhutchins 04:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia lists a June, 1968 publication date. 2001. That still fits in with the jacket copy as it started hitting  a lot of foreign markets a few weeks after that.SFJuggler 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Then shouldn't it be dated June 1968 instead of April? The book jacket copy doesn't specify the publication date. You should use Locke as the source for the month, and neither the movie premiere date nor the Wikipedia article. (Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for data, but you can use their source.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I will ask the verifier of the Locke publication to confirm the month given in his copy. Mhhutchins 04:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just asked Rtrace and then noticed that you have a copy of Locke as well. That would settle it if you could use him as the source of the date. Mhhutchins 04:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if I could lay my hands on it right now. ;)SFJuggler 04:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The other editor holding a copy of Locke says it does not confirm the information which the Wikipedia article uses as a source. I would suggest returning the publication date to an unmonthed one, and adjusting the notes accordingly. I personally feel that the book's statement about the movie premiere isn't specific enough to determine the book's actual month of publication. Your speculation of that month can be given in the note field. Mhhutchins 05:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this? Try this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=mSwhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=a45151+copyright+1968&source=bl&ots=6UGnGReaQ2&sig=nRGdYRM3q0nBVSDx9rp8HAk7vLg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ilGtUoWxA8TfoATByYG4DQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=a45151%20copyright%201968&f=false and look at 2001.  It puts a June 28, 1968 date on it.SFJuggler 06:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that's better. Change the date accordingly and give that publication as your source. Mhhutchins 19:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done!SFJuggler 19:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

At the Mountains of Murkiness
The errata shouldn't be part of the cover image for this record. There's also an error in the link for the LCCN. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Crawling Home From the Future
The essay Crawling Home From the Future by David G. Hartwell, which appears in your verified, is dated 1895. Should this really be 1985? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed it to 1985 but I can't confirm that it WASN'T written in 1895. Hartwell may be older than he looks! ;)SFJuggler 01:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Science Fiction: The Paul Walker Interviews
Per ISFDB standards, the individual records for the interviews published in this collection should be dated for the dates of their original publication, not the dates of the interviews. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll correct the records. --Willem H. 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.SFJuggler 05:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Rucker's Transreal
Can you confirm the co-author of the story on page 353 of this publication is credited as "Mark"? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 17:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Try "Marc" instead. I'll put in an edit.04:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Asset in Black
I have removed the appendix "A Novel" from this work's title field, as being unnecessary. Also, please give the source of the publication date in the note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See updated entry.SFJuggler 03:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

All-American Alien Boy
A quick question about All-American Alien Boy: The United States as Science Fiction, Science Fiction as a Journey; A Collection: one of the lines in the Notes field says "No LCCN", but the next line says "An LCCN of 96-32790 is given on the copyright page but this does not exist in a LOC search." Should we remove "No LCCN" then? Ahasuerus 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I put the note in to explain that, although they give an LCCN number, it's not legitimate. I don't believe that there really is one since it wasn't issued.   You can remove it if you want.  Your call.SFJuggler 03:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Well, how about we change the wording to "Although an LCCN of 96-32790 is given on the copyright page, it does not exist in a LOC search and appears to be in error" then? Ahasuerus 04:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I'd sign off on it.SFJuggler 04:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done and done -- thanks! Ahasuerus 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.SFJuggler 05:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold Sea Rising
Can you confirm that the spelling of the artist credit for this publication is "Don Brautigan"? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "m", not "n".SFJuggler 00:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Shield
I accepted the submission to update this record, but changed the price field to "15/-" which is the ISFDB standard of entering 15 shillings. I also notified the primary verifier of the change. It would help if you would do a primary verification of the record, which informs the moderator that you're working from the book itself. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for the change.SFJuggler 08:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Followups
Have you had a chance to check out this posting about the cover art credit for Convergence and this one about Cacher of the Rye. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to keep bugging you, but perhaps you missed the first one? (About the cover art for Convergence.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hadn't forgotten. Just difficult to get back to them once they've been put away.  Space limited right now.  The fix has been submitted.SFJuggler 06:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Asimov's Frontiers
Submission to update this record was accepted, but I'm wondering about the change in the publisher field. If "Truman Talley Books" is given as the imprint and if "Dutton" is indicated on the title page as the publisher, it should be entered as "Truman Talley Books / Dutton". (Note the spaces surrounding the slash.)

Also, I'm wondering if the effort you're taking to link to all of the OCLC records is of any material value. If you're going to do a primary verification of this record (which I assume you will), then there's really no need to link to the OCLC record at all. Especially in a case like this, when an ISFDB record with an ISBN is automatically linked to the OCLC through the "Other Websites" list. The reason why some editors do this is to provide a link to the secondary source for the data. Can you see any further benefits in adding links to six different OCLC records? (There's always a possibility that some OCLC entry clerk will eventually combine these into one record, leaving broken links in the ISFDB record.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll make the changes surrounding the slash (unless I see that you've already done it). As for the OCLC links...that's just "documenting the hell out of it".  Something that some editor (hichens or hutchins or something like that) said a year or so ago that you should do. ;)  No. I don't have to list them all and it's easier to list only a single one.SFJuggler 05:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Frontispiece entry format
Frontispieces should be entered in the format "Title of Work (frontispiece)". I've corrected the title field of this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Thanks.03:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Seven Conquests
Are you certain that that's a catalog number on this publication? It's rare that hardcovers have catalog numbers pre-ISBN era. If you're certain that it is a catalog number, it should be preceded by "#". Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I could only find one record which gives a catalog number on a 1969 Macmillan hardcover: here, and it's also suspect. The two numbers have no connection to each other, unless Macmillan published 12000 titles in the 7 months between these two books. Mhhutchins 06:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not necessarily be consecutive and, indeed, may not be catalog numbers. Ones I have to hand immediately are 7 Conquests (50191, 1969); Good Neighbors and Other Strangers (59467, 1972); The Bridge of Lions (61181, 1963) and U.S. on the Moon (62099, 1969).  If you don't want to use it as a catalog number, that's fine.  It's an identifier of some sort, though.SFJuggler 06:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An identifier isn't necessarily a catalog number, unless the publisher actually used it in their catalogs. If they're not consecutive, I can't imagine how the publisher used the number. It may be a code used only by the publisher for its own purposes, especially if it only appeared on the dustjacket. I have no objection to recording the number in the Note field. If you feel strongly that it should be recorded in the ISBN/Catalog # field, please start a discussion on one of the community pages to get a group consensus. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed.SFJuggler 15:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Homeward and Beyond
I accepted the submission adding notes and changing the page count field of this record, but am unsure why the foreword's page field is bracketed. Neither the OCLC record nor the LCCN mention any roman-numeraled pages. If these pages are not numbered, they should be entered as Arabic numbers, e.g. "[8]+204", if the only reason is to give a starting page for the foreword. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They may not mention it but the copy in my hands has "Foreword/viii" on the upper right-hand corner of the page facing the TOC. The Foreword starts on the previous page which has no page number making it [vii].SFJuggler 05:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, there shouldn't be brackets around the page number of the foreword. The standards explain that the editor can extrapolate page numbers by going forward or backward to the closest numbered page. Brackets are only used for sections of unnumbered pages. Since we can extrapolate that the previous eight pages were roman-numeraled, we can assign those page numbers to the contents without brackets. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Before I make the change...page viii is the only page explicitly numbered, vii is not. Change or no?07:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, please change to vii, you may add the note that page viii is the only page (of the preceding pages) explicitly numbered, if you like. Stonecreek 10:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Will submit change.SFJuggler 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wells' Joan and Peter
Can you confirm whether the publisher as stated on the title page of this book is "The Macmillan Company"? That is the ISFDB designation for the US division of this publisher for at least the first half of the 20th century. The UK division was "Macmillan and Co." I'm trying to move titles away from the simpler "Macmillan" which came into more common use around the 1960s. Thanks for checking and adjust the record if necessary. Mhhutchins 22:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is "The Macmillan Company." Change submitted.SFJuggler 05:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"A Novel"
Re this publication: it was established several years ago that the ISFDB doesn't consider "A Novel" as a subtitle and that it shouldn't be part of the title. I'll look to see if it was documented and get back with you. Mhhutchins 05:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted. Title change submission cancelled.SFJuggler 06:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Of course, I can't find any documentation for the standard, but it arose from a discussion about how every other book in the database would be designated "A Novel". You're encouraged to use it in a publication record when it's something like "A Novel of Terror" or "A Novel of the Future", but not in the title record, similar to how it's allowable to enter series data in the title field of the publication (if given on a book's title page), but not in its title record. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 06:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A similar case is to be made for Knave & the Game, I think. Also, you gave an exact day, while referring only to a late July printing in the notes. So what is your source for that exact date? Stonecreek 14:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The LOC and OCLC use the subtitle and many of the collections in ISFDB use similar subtitles (see here, here, here and here for a few examples. As for the printing date vs. the publication date...the printing date can only be pinned down to the week per ISFDB Gutter Codes while the publication date comes from the LOC Catalog of Copyright, entry TX0002147196.  The Catalog of Copyright entry is considered the final word for the courts as to when something was published and what is in and out of copyright so I figure it's good enough for ISFDB use.  I've been using it for some time and it has been accepted for all entries.  If there's a problem with it please let me know.SFJuggler 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about the mysteries of the gutter code, I really was ignorant on that field :-). But I removed the subtitle: 'A Collection of Short Stories' really is redundant (just as 'A Novel'), considering the structure of our database, whereas two of the examples you cited ('... about Christmas' and '... from the Golden Age') are not. They tell something about the contents, not the form. The third is in fact superfluous, and I'll remove it (thanks for the link).
 * In addition, in cases such as this one (changing metadata of a primary verified record), there really should be a discussion with the verifier(s) even before submitting. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 09:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay.SFJuggler 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Uncredited cover art
I've removed the cover art credited to "uncredited" in this record. The field for cover art should remain blank if the cover art is not credited in the publication. If there is a secondary source for the credit, that credit can be used in the record. Otherwise, editors are tempted to variant the "uncredited" record to the sourced credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay.SFJuggler 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Publication dates
Re this record: If a month of publication is stated in the actual publication, you should use that in the Date field of the record. You can record the actual date from a secondary source in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay.SFJuggler 19:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Take Back Plenty
If something isn't stated in the pub, you should make that clear in the Note field. In this record, it should be noted that "First Hardcover Edition" isn't stated in the pub. (I usually just add the parenthetical "but not stated" to the note.) Thanks. Mhhutchins

The Hour of the Thin Ox
Oddly, the OCLC record you link to this record gives the page count as "[304]" and a different publication year. Perhaps it would be better to link it to this OCLC record which matches your copy's date and page count. (I saw that the OCLC record was already part of the record when you updated it, but without a link.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed the number was good. Bad me.  New link submitted.SFJuggler 05:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)