User talk:Biomassbob/Archive/2012Jan-Mar

BLongley 20:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bolo: The Annals of the Dinochrome Brigade
Thanks for adding this! I made a few minor changes: Standardised publisher to "Millington" rather than "Millington Books", Price £4.25 rather than L4.25, and moved "Graham Tucker (photograph)+Lorie Epstein (design)" to notes - we want just artist names in this field, not roles. Thanks for contributing. BLongley 20:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of rookie mistakes. Thank you for being patient with me.  Biomassbob
 * We all made mistakes when we first started here, so it's very understandable. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't believe the mistakes Michael and I made at first, now we repay that by (hopefully gently) pointing people in the right direction. I can see you're going to be a valuable contributor, though - keep going! BLongley 02:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Make a mistake??? How dare you, Bill! I never make a mistake! (Well, maybe a handful of a hundred or so, but that's all.) I looked back just now to my archived user talk page and saw that I'm coming up on my Fifth Anniversary.  I also saw that I became a moderator within six weeks of joining.  Never realized it was that fast! Don't worry, Bob.  We're not going to expect you to be moderating your own submissions until you're comfortable to do so. But like Bill, I see you're really catching on. Mhhutchins 03:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, Michael, you and I can correct the help pages to match what we did when we started - we just can't correct them in different ways! So one or the other of us was occasionally wrong, but there's plenty of retired Mods and editors we can blame. :-) BLongley 03:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see I missed my own Fifth Anniversary. :-( Oh well, if I forgot it, I can't really expect someone to bake me a cake or something. :-( BLongley 03:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The World Shuffler
Thanks for this too. One improvement you could make is to use "Add Publication to This Title" rather than "Add New Novel" the latter creates a new title that has to be merged with the original. BLongley 20:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow I got locked in to the small part of the instructions I did read. Sorry, a dumb error.  Biomassbob
 * It's certainly not "dumb". It's taken a few years to more-or-less nail down the rules for English-Speakers, and there's still room for improvement. If the help pages are unclear or out-of-date, let us know, it's almost as often the fault of editors that have gone before you without clarifying, as it might be your own mistake. BLongley 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bill, I want to add a book to a single short story. There are already a couple of books in this pub, and I guess I just used "add a new novel" the last time I encountered this situation.  But with single short stories, there is no option to "add publication to this title".  This sort of publishing is kind of annoying -- you certainly don't get your money's worth.Biomassbob 03:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Add a CHAPTERBOOK containing the single short story as content. Once approved, merge the two short story titles. By the way, I agree they're rarely worth the money, but we also use this trick for Project Gutenberg and Librivox editions, and you can't claim "free" is too expensive! BLongley 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I found Project Gutenberg when I was given an i-Pad 2 for my birthday last year by my children. (There's an app for that!)  I've read 7 or 8 books from that site so far.  But I really like hardcover books when possible.  Biomassbob 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The House in November
I think we already have it here? BLongley 20:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I messed up. Still not sure how.  Thank you for spotting my dumb move.  Biomassbob

Recording data in notes vs. creating wiki bibliographic comments pages
In most cases, it's better to record data in the record's note field rather than creating a bibliographic comments page. The data, such as the LCCN and the price, becomes a recorded and visible part of the record, and even more permanent if you do a primary verification of the record. Information recorded on a wiki bibliographic comments page is highly mutable, and is not a part of the visible record. I moved the price you supplied in the wiki page to the database record for The Glory Game, and the LCCNs to the records for Five Fates and How to Design and Build Flying Models. The bibliographic comments pages have been deleted from the wiki. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 04:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm a slow learner at times.  Biomassbob
 * We expect that it takes some time to learn the ropes. There's a lot of information in our help pages that can be hard to digest at once.  The one page with the most info is here. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Laumer's Galactic Diplomat
I'm holding the submission to edit this record for a couple of reasons. The first one is because you want to remove the LCCN from the note field and enter it into the ISBN field. The "ISBN/Catalog #" field should be used only for either one of the two numbers for which the field was created. Either the ISBN or the publisher's catalog number should be placed into this field. If a book has both, the ISBN goes into the ISBN/Catalog # field and the catalog number goes into the Note field. In any case, the LCCN should always go into the Note field. I've rejected a couple of your submissions that added the LCCN to the ISBN field and gone back to add the LCCN to the Note field. Another reason for holding the submission is because the record has been primary verified. It is ISFDB etiquette to first notify the editor who was the primary verifier of a record before you make any major changes to the record. This is done by leaving a message on their user talk page. Just click on the linked editor's name in the Primary line of the Verification Status section of the record. You're taken to their user page. Then click on either the "Discussion" tab or the "Discuss This Page" link to go to their user talk page. Then click on either the + (plus) tab or the "Post a Comment" link (depends upon what Wiki skin you've chosen). In the dialog box that opens leave a message about what changes you propose to make in the record. Together you'll decide what changes are appropriate. Once this discussion has taken place, I'll either accept or reject the submission. (Submissions can't be changed one made; they can only be cancelled by the original submitter, or accepted/rejected by the moderator.) All of the information I'm giving here is in our help pages. Concerning the use of the ISBN/Catalog # field go here. Concerning updating verified records go here. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 18:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit frustrated. I've tried three times to get my e-mail address verified, but never received a verification e-mail.  Please e-mail me at relumpkin@att.net.  Biomassbob
 * I'll bring this to the attention of the programmers. May be some glitch they can fix. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of Retief!
You can remove content records from a pub (as in this case, the essay by Flint) using the "Remove Titles from This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu. I've gone ahead and done that for this record. Mhhutchins 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that until you pointed it out. Actually, I was just lazy and figured you'd take care of it.  I was irritated because I didn't realize the stories were in alphabetic order right away and typed in several that I had to take out when I did realize.  Sorry.   Biomassbob

Submissions placed on hold
All submissions that have the same problems as I've outlined in previous messages have been placed on hold. I can only assume that you haven't found your wiki user talk page yet. Because you didn't give us an email address, I have no other means to contact you other than through this page. I hope that seeing your submissions on hold will prompt you to seek out this page. Mhhutchins 18:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. But I don't have a record of the changes I proposed (actually, I found this page long before I found submissions on hold) so it may take a little while to chase down the information again.  Biomassbob
 * I'm going to accept each one and make the corrections. (Moderators can't modify submissions. We can either accept them or reject them.) Most of the problems have to deal with notifying primary verifiers and the use of the LCCN. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking uploaded images to database records
Thanks for uploading cover images to the ISFDB wiki. The next step is to link those images to the records of the books for which these are the covers. As the instructions (step 6) explain:


 * Once the file has been uploaded, the image's wiki page will appear. In order to get the URL (address) for the image you just uploaded, left click anywhere on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window. (Or right click on the image and choose "Copy Image Location".) If you're adding a cover image to a pub record, this is the URL which you would enter into the pub record's "Image URL" field.

So once you have the image's URL, go back to the pub record (it's linked on the image's wiki page) and then click the "Edit This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu. This opens up an edit page. Under the Publication Metadata section, there's a field labeled "Image URL:" Enter the URL of the image you uploaded into this field, and then click on the "Submit Data" button at the bottom of the page. Once the submission has been moderated the cover image will be linked to the publication record. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the quoted instruction above, but your explanation following cleared things up. I resubmitted half a dozen images, and can do the other 18 fairly easily.  Biomassbob


 * The recent submissions linking the images to the records went well, so please continue. You've picked up on this a lot sooner than many new editors, so that's something you can be proud of! Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just finished linking the rest. See my note at the end. Mhhutchins 01:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Should I contact primary verifiers when all I do is add an image of the jacket? Biomassbob


 * Yes, you should contact them after the submission. If you want to change any of the data fields, you should not make a submission until you've left a message on their talk page.  Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A Plague of Demons
Submission updating this record was accepted, but some changes were made in order for it to comply with ISFDB standards (see this help page.) The currency symbol was changed from "L" to "£" (ALT+0163 on US keyboards, hold down the "alt" key and enter "0163" using the number pad). Cover artist was changed from "W.F. Phillipps" to "W. F. Phillipps" (space separates the initials). Mhhutchins 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no clue that was how to get £. Thank you!  Biomassbob
 * You're welcome. Just one of the little tricks you'll pick up if you stay around. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We English are blessed in knowing how to get the "£" easily, and the "$" is just as simple. The "€" is a little more tricky, and I'm sure we'll need to add lira, yen, zlotys, etc to the help pages eventually. BLongley 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Books with two prices
Only enter the first price in the Price field. Enter any other prices in the Note field. I've corrected the update you made in this record. Mhhutchins 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Actually the first price given was the £1.05, with the 21/- below it.  Should that be "corrected"?  Biomassbob
 * Yes, you can make a submission that reverses the field. Place the first figure in the Price field, and the second in the Note field. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've run into one of the big "price" problems there! Which are mostly due to British/Irish/Australian/New Zealandish/South African/West Indian/Spanish/Maltese/Etc differences. "£1.05" is fine. "21/-" is something I've used, but not updated the help for - that's a "guinea" and only applied to books I was too young to buy. But "first price in the price field, rest in notes" is good advice and we'll explain the rest (like why does a modulo 20 price go up to 21?) later. :-) BLongley 03:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Entering pre-decimalization British currency
An 18 shilling (18s) price should be entered as "18/-". (See help page.) I've corrected the price in this record. I've also notified the primary verifier. As stated in an earlier message, it is the responsibility of the editor who updates a verified record to notify the editor who verified it before making major changes (such as adding or changing the price). Mhhutchins 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll learn eventually.  Biomassbob
 * This little oddity catches everyone when they first arrive. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary verification
You should only do one primary verification of a record. If the first space has already been used by another editor, move to the next one. Please remove the Primary3 verification on this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew I had screwed this up, but I'm a little slow - just figured out how this is done. Biomassbob
 * Yes, it looks like you've picked up verifying a lot sooner than most new editors. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Making new lines in the Note field
When adding new data to the Note field, and you wish to start a new line, please use the HTML code    at the end of the previous line, which initiates a line break. A keyboard return stroke is not readable in this field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. You're very patient with me.  Biomassbob
 * Another "gotcha" that gets everybody in the beginning. Mhhutchins 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing about Wiki conventions
Congratulations on finding your wiki user page. You won't believe how long it takes some users to start responding to messages left on the wiki. I wish someone could figure out someway of doing it better, but... About leaving messages and responding to messages: you should always "sign" the message with four tildes ( ~ ), which automatically dates it and adds your user name to it. Also, you indent each successive message within each topic by adding a colon to the number used in the previous response. So the first response would have one colon, the second would have two colons, and so forth. Look at how I edited the responses (both yours and mine) to get an idea of how the colons change the message display. Other than that you have picked a lot in such a short time. I assure you that it will get better as you go along. Thanks for contributing to the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I have no problem with the signature. But where do you put the colons? Biomassbob 01:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Place them at the start of your response. Look at the raw edit of this message (click on the [Edit] link again) and you can see that my response is indented, twice, because I placed two colons before it.  Yours response starts with an HTML line break  which doesn't do much in the wiki environment.  The database (not the wiki) uses XML to record and store the data, but uses HTML to display it, I think! Mhhutchins 02:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All uploaded images have been linked
I'd saw that you had started linking the images and thought I'd help you out. Having a little extra time, I found the unlinked images and linked them to the database records. This should save you some time so that you can upload more images! (And then link them! Sorry this process isn't as automated as most of us would like. It's still a whole lot better than it was when I first came here.) Mhhutchins 01:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nine by Laumer
You had a note to the moderator in the submission adding the price to this record that "Note to primary says this change was made, but it hasn't been yet." Actually if you go back to the talk page for the primary verifier (Hauck), you'll see I informed him of your previous submission to add the price to Retief's Ransom, not Nine by Laumer. I'll let you practice your wiki skills by letting him know about the change to this record. I'll also accept the submission. Mhhutchins 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Biomassbob 03:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Retief's War
One last submission before I retire for the night: your update to Retief's War changes the cover artist credit to John B. Gaughan. I just wanted to confirm that this is exactly how he's credited on the dustjacket. It's the first instance in the database where Jack Gaughan is credited with his full name. So before I set up a pseudonym, I just want to make sure. Thanks for looking again. Mhhutchins 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is exactly how he is credited on the copyright page. On the jacket, he is credited as John Gaughan. I am presuming they mean Jack.  Biomassbob 03:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Again
Just thought I'd welcome you again, less formally than the initial time. Glad to see you have found your wiki-page, and I look forward to your long productive relationship with the rest of us in future. We're not ALL insane, it's just ISFDB that turns you that way. ;-) BLongley 03:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But some have a shorter road to travel!! :-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a Mad Mad Galaxy
I have the submission to add contents and update the record for [this] on hold. If I accept it the way it is submitted, five new story records will be created that will have to be merged with the existing story records. We have a handy little Editing Tool called "Import Content" that will do the work automatically. The paperback [edition] already has the contents you want to add. From the URL of that record, copy the number at the end, in this case 18787. Then, when you have the [record] for the Dobson edition open, choose "Import Content" which will open [this] page. You'll then copy/paste the number 18787 in the field provided [notice that you have the choice of using the existing page numbers if they match, if not then uncheck the box] and then click on the Import Content 'button'. What you will get is a record that now includes all the stories and you can add the page numbers but that's all that you are allowed to do in this step. I don't know why we can't also alter the field contents so the notes and such can be updated at the same time, but so far we can't. The biggest advantage to adding contents in this way is that they will automatically be merged with existing records. For collections with large numbers of stories this saves a lot of extra work. You can do this before or after altering the notes/fields but wait for the first edit to be accepted before submitting the second one [regardless of which order you do them]. If you don't then the second edit will overwrite the first one and eliminate those changes. I'll reject this submission as it is less work to do it correctly than merge all the story records. The learning curve is a little steep at first but no individual type of submission is particularly hard to do, it's just learning the correct steps. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bill. I'll resubmit.  I'm really glad there is a shortcut; even entering all the stories is a bit of a pain, particularly when other editions already do so.  Biomassbob 03:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! That's what we are here for. A few messages can ease the journey/learning curve a lot. Makes your experience here better and our jobs much easier as well. Happy editing! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"It Could Be Anything"
I have the submission to create a record for a standalone publication of this story. As advised earlier, "Add a CHAPTERBOOK containing the single short story as content." Your submission failed to give a content story. A CHAPTERBOOK can be considered a collection of one story, so they should have a content record for the story. I'll do that for you and then merge the title records. It would have been simpler with less submissions to clone another record that was similar to the one you created, like this one. Cloning allows you the ability to make changes in the fields, while avoiding the need to merge the duplicate records that would otherwise not been created. You'll find that function ("Clone This Pub") on most pub records under the Editing Tools menu. Mhhutchins 18:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know I left out the content, but I was intending to come back and import the content, which I couldn't do until the pub existed. I never thought of cloning because I've never done it before, but I have imported content.  Sigh!  Biomassbob 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A good rule of thumb: don't use any of the "Add New..." functions before you look for the title. Here's the path I recommend:
 * Is the exact title and by the same author in the database?
 * Yes: Is there a similar pub?
 * Yes: Use the "Clone" function.
 * No: Use the "Add Publication to This Title" function.
 * No: Use the appropriate "Add New..." function.


 * Using this path will reduce the number of submissions needed to create a complete record. The "Import" function copies contents from one pub to another one that's already in the database. It's only used when you discover that a record already in the db has no contents. Mhhutchins 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good process. I was just doing what Bill Longley suggested, that scoundrel!  See "The World Shuffler" on my talk page.   Biomassbob 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the suggestion (as I noted in the second line of this message). Bill wouldn't have known there was a chapterbook of the short story already in the database unless you were specific. They're relatively rare as far as publications go. So I wouldn't be too tough on him, although it does keep him on his toes. :) Mhhutchins 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Woundhealer's Story
I accepted the submission updating this record but removed the publication series data that you added to the pub. Book of Lost Swords is a title series, not a publication series. The pub's title is already in the series. Here's a help page to explain the difference. Mhhutchins 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K., that seems fine. But there appears to be an inconsistency.  Woundhealer's Story is as modified.  But the next book in the series, Sightblinder's Story (in the same series of hardcover books) is listed as The Second Book of Lost Swords:  Sightblinder's Story.  Should we not be consistent?  Biomassbob 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We give editors the option of including the series in the title of the pub record if that's how it appears on the book's title page. (I personally feel it's not truly part of the title so I don't enter it.) But, the series usually shouldn't be part of the title record. Looking at the series data, I see that the second book (Sightblinder's Story) does not include the series in its title, but looking at the title record, I see there are three ways that editors have entered the title in the pub records. This is not an inconsistency. It's just an allowed option. The title records are consistent, the pub records don't have to be. (This is not related to the original issue of mistakenly entering the title series in the publication series data field. That's a separate issue.) Mhhutchins 23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm too anal to be happy with that "allowed option", but I can live with the policy. I understand the original issue; I just wanted to know if I should change the titles as I modify the pubs; I'll ignore those differences.  No Big Whoop!  Biomassbob 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Golden Reflections
Can you confirm that the title of the novel in this anthology (as it is credited on its title page and not the contents page) is The Mask of the Sun and not Mask of the Sun as the verified copy of the paperback edition states? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is "Mask of the Sun" on the contents page, the credits page,the first page of the story and at the top of each page of the story. It does not appear in either form on the title page, which has "Golden Reflections.  Stories of the Mask" Biomassbob 23:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You should correct the record then. Do you know how to remove titles from pubs and then enter a new content title record? If not just ask, and I'll step you through it. Mhhutchins 00:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I started to do this to another title http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?345003 Empire of the East, Macdonald. I entered the new title, and then you, or whoever took care of that change, finished the elimination of the bad title and whatever tie-in was needed.  I've lost the help page for that, though. Biomassbob 00:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did that one for you. But you've caught on well enough that I believe you'll be able to handle it now. I see that you updated the record, adding the new content record, and that Bill (Bluesman) removed the content record for The Mask of the Sun.  Now all you have to do is to merge the title record you just created with the one already in the database.
 * Click on the Advanced Search link at the top and left of any page.
 * In the first field (term 1) enter "mask of the sun" (as title) and click "Submit Query".
 * There will be 11 records returned for this search. Disregarding the cover art and review credits, there are three novel records. One for The Mask of the Sun (as a parent title), one for Mask of the Sun (as a parent title, this is the one you created) and one for Mask of the Sun (as a variant title, indicated so).
 * Check the boxes of the two Mask of the Sun novel title records and click on the button "Merge Selected Records".
 * On the next screen you will have to resolve any conflicts between the two records. In this case you want to keep the earlier date (1979) and the record number of a parent title to which it is a variant. Click on the bullets of your choices, then "Complete Merge".
 * A moderator will then check the submission, approve it and you'll see that there is now only one title record for Mask of the Sun. Mhhutchins 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, that was fun! You're a very patient teacher. Thanks.  Biomassbob 23:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A teacher can only be judged by the results of his student... The submission to merge was accepted and it looks fine. A few more of these and you'll be merging in your sleep. Most merges that don't involve a variant are a lot easier. Check out this help page. There are three ways of merging and you used the advanced search method. The other two are much simpler. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Holmes-Dracula File
I have a submission to add a new publication to this title, but I'm somewhat puzzled. It's not dated, there's no ISBN, and no price, but has the note "First Ace Printing: November 1978" and "Fourth Printing: September 1982" are on the copyright page of the fourth edition. Frankly, I'm not sure what this means. We have records for both the first and fourth Ace printings. What is the "fourth edition"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * When I discovered that the book I have said it was a fourth edition, and that identified the first edition as one that was already in the data base, it seemed reasonable that there are two additional printings that have not yet been entered. I didn't know how to handle this, but I wanted to bring it to your (or another moderator's) attention.  I've seen other "date unknown" entries, but nothing like this.  My entry was an attempt to bring notice that two printings were missing from the data base.  You old hands are better judges of how to handle this situation. Biomassbob 15:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Such stub records exist, but it's usually better to have more information before creating them. You should have secondary sources for all records that you create or update if you don't have the books themselves. If you were trying to make a record for Ace's second or third printing (not edition), then it would have been better to just note "Second Ace printing" or "Third Ace printing" and make two different records.  It's also possible that in this case, there may not have been a second or third printing. Ace is known to have been sloppy when numbering their printings. FYI: most of those "date unknown" records are for verified records of books in which the publication date is not stated, not stub records to fill in missing printings. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Frankenstein Papers
In the submission to add a cover image to this record, you also want to change the artist credit from Steve Hickman to "Steve Hickson". If you're certain this is how the cover is credited, I'll accept the submission. Then we'll have to create a pseudonym and make a variant of the title. Please check again. Mhhutchins


 * Hickson is definitely the attribution on the copyright page. I am unfamiliar with the artist under either name, and I said so when I notified the primary.  If you know an artist named Hickman, and that there is no Steve Hickson, or if you recognize the art style as Hickman's, then I guess you'll need to create a pseudonym. In that case, it's likely the publisher's error. Biomassbob 15:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not that familiar with Hickman's style, so I'll leave it as stated. Is there a visible signature? Mhhutchins 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC editions that reprint the trade edition's ISBN
It is ISFDB policy to record the SFBC ID number in the ISBN/Catalog # field. Starting in the early 90s, they reprinted the copyright page of the trade edition, including the ISBN. This ISBN is not really a SFBC ISBN, which they assign to exclusive SFBC editions, not to reprints of other publisher's editions. So I'm going to reject the submission that updated this record with the trade edition's ISBN. I will record that ISBN in the note field. Here's a link to the help page for entering SFBC editions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added more notes to give the sources for data that is not stated in the pub. Mhhutchins 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The SFBC number is on the back of the jacket, so attributing that number to Locus is not necessary. That's the reason I removed that attribution from the notes. Biomassbob 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you meant this response for the following message. Locus doesn't list this edition. Mhhutchins 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Pub currently attributes the SFBC number to ABE, not Locus. Sorry. Otherwise the comment stands.  Biomassbob 18:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. Please remove that part of the notes when you get a chance. I added the source of the date and the reference that Locus1 doesn't list it so that a later editor won't go there looking for the price.  They were our source for prices between 1984 and 2008. If you kept your receipt for this book, you can add that to the record and note the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of Coils
In your submission to update this record, you remove the note "Info from Locus #260 (September 1982)." and replace it with "Publication month from Locus #260 (September 1982)." This would mean that the price of $2.98 is stated in the book and not from the Locus listings. Since we both know that's not true (not every user will know that), I'll change the note to read "Publication month and price from Locus #260 (September 1982)." I also noted the reason why Chaykin is mistakenly credited as the cover artist. Mhhutchins 05:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have a record of what I paid for the book. You are right that the price doesn't appear in the book itself, of course.  I have no objection to your attribution change.  I'll keep my personal records out of submissions in the future.  I have a hard time considering MMPBs as "trade editions", although of course they can be.  Thanks for the extra information. Biomassbob 15:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If your source for the price is a receipt, then it's perfectly OK to note that as the source. Especially for books without printed prices. (We just have to be careful that the price paid isn't a discounted price or an after-market price.) And in this case, I was using "trade" to mean "retail", with no reference to size. The term "trade paperback" is actually a shortened name for trade-sized paperbacks, meaning larger than rack-sized paperbacks (MMPBs). Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC prices
I accepted the submission to change the price of this pub but wanted to point out that the SFBC switched from $XX.98 to $XX.99 pricing in October 2001. Are you certain you were charged $14.98? Also, do you keep copies of the book club's catalog? I was in the club from the mid-70s to the mid-80s, a brief time in the early 90s, and then rejoined in Feb. 2009. I have many of the catalogs from the 70s-90s, and all since 2009. I'm hoping to find someone who has catalogs from the mid-2000s through 2008, when Locus's coverage became very sketchy. Mhhutchins 07:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My records say $14.98, but that's from a computer file, not from hard copy. It's possible I copied the number wrong into the file.  I established my Access computer records in 2000.  So I know I bought the The First and The Second Chronicles of Amber at the same time and received them May 15, 2006.  I paid $17.33 each for them, including shipping.  I show the $14.98 price for each.  So this price may not be the original price for either volume at the time they were first issued.  It may be that your catalogs will show the asking price, but it's possible I bought off-catalog.  I have been in the SFBC continuously since the early 1960s, but never kept the catalogs; sorry.  Biomassbob 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC dates
On the notification page for changes in my verified records, you asked about this record: Shouldn't there be an attribution for the Dec 1978 date, since that differed from the publication date? As far as the ISFDB is concerned the printing date and the publication date are two different things. Many books give one or the other and in most cases we enter the one that is stated in the record's Year field. Some books give neither the printing date nor the publication date, so we have to rely on secondary sources, or leave it undated. Also, because the SFBC never gave the publication dates until relatively recently (in the last decade or so, but only then for their exclusive publications, not for their reprints of other publisher's trade editions), we determined that the publication date would be the month in which the book was first offered to club members. The special rules for entering SFBC editions are on this help page. Here's a page to explain gutter codes and how they can be used to determine the book's printing date (not publication date) for SFBC printings between May 1958 and September 1987. See this page (and those linked to it) for a comprehensive listing of all book club selections from March 1953 to the present. This is not a list of printings, only selections, although we've tried to give as much info as possible when we know certain selections have several printings. Mhhutchins 07:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! Glad to know all that.  I used to buy a lot of SFBC books, but have replaced many of them with trade editions when I became aware of how the internet made that possible (about 2001).  I kept all SFBC copies for Zelazny and Robert E. Howard, though, and I still have a number of them where there is no trade edition (other than paperbacks), where I haven't found the trade edition yet, or where I can't afford the trade edition (Heinlein, for example).  Now I buy SFBC exclusive hardcovers and Terry Pratchett books, and not much else.  Their quality has improved recently, but the prices are seldom better than Amazon's. Biomassbob 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * True about their prices for reprints being comparable to Amazon's. I only buy their exclusive hardcovers as well. And their quality is much improved over the past decade or so. Mhhutchins 17:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Easton Press ed. of Nine Princes in Amber
Is Ron Walotsky credited with the cover design of this book? I have more than a hundred Easton Press editions and none of them credit the cover designer. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled why you created another entry for Easton's Nine Princes. The only difference I see is that you placed this one in a publication series named "Collector's Edition".  All Easton Press edition's carry that identification on their title pages, or should I say, all of the ones in my collection.  I don't have a volume of the Masterpieces of Fantasy series, but if they're like the Masterpieces of Science Fiction series they can only be identified by the endpaper design.  Nothing in the book itself gives the name of the series of which it is part. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by the note in this record: "One in ten of the Masterpiece edition were signed by the author and the number was limited." Did Zelazny sign any copies of this volume? This edition was published the year after his death.  Mhhutchins 07:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I'm confused by Easton's practices. All Easton books I bought were purchased from secondary sources.  Most have "Collector's Edition", but not all.  For example, most of my Bujold editions and McDevitt's Engines of God have "Signed First Edition" on the title page.  But Borders of Infinity by Bujold has "First Edition" only, although it is signed.  All these have the fancy endpapers.  All the "Collector's Edition" have the cheap endpapers.  On the other hand, Slan by van Vogt is signed but has the cheap endpapers and has "Collector's Edition".  So should those other than "Collector's Edition" have a separate citation?  For the Zelazny book, I took some of what I wrote from http://reviews.ebay.com/What-Easton-Press-Books-are-True-First-Editions_W0QQugidZ10000000003802955 and http://reviews.ebay.com/Guide-to-Easton-Press-Masterpieces-of-Science-Fiction_W0QQugidZ10000000003800054.  Anyhow, when I saw that the Zelazny book had "Collector's Edition" and not "Masterpieces of Fantasy" on the title page, I worried that there were two editions. Biomassbob 15:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Collector's Edition" should not be a series name. It is used on several series without regard to what the series is. It probably appears on all Easton Press editions that aren't true first editions. Go to the ISFDB page for The Easton Press and look at the list of publication series. Also go to the record for Slan.  Does your copy match this record? It should have endpapers with the "Masterpieces of Science Fiction" logo, which was replicated as the cover design on their edition of Foundation.
 * Also, I would recommend removing from the record for "Nine Princes" the part in the notes about signed copies. It might confuse some users (as it did me), that one in ten of this edition was signed by the author. You can update the note field of the publication series with additional information about the series. BTW, can you describe the endpapers?  It might help identify the series when we start getting more volumes primary verified. Mhhutchins 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still uncertain why you feel that your copy isn't the first Easton Press edition. What's the difference between the two? Looking at the copies available on Abebooks, there are 2 of 16 that mention anything other that regular endpapers. The dealer (who overprices everything in his store) who gives "moire fabric" as the endpapers does that on all Easton Press editions. I wrote him about several books in my collection that didn't have "moire fabric" endpapers and he never responded. The "unicorn" paper endpapers that you describe appears to be how Easton distinguished the "Masterpieces of Fantasy" series. Look at the description of the endpapers in this dealer's listing and another one's listing. Mhhutchins 20:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do have a number of Easton books that are specifically labelled first editions or signed first editions. All of these have the "moire fabric" endpapers.  I have no copies (that I've looked at for this exercise) that have the moire endpapers that do not have first edition on the copyright page.  So right now I have no reason to believe that the moire endpapers are not a sign of a first edition.  I suppose it's possible that there are first editions with neither moire endpapers nor labeling as a first edition, so I'm willing to remove my conclusion.  And what series the book belongs to seems to me to be impossible to tell unless the endpapers are printed.  Biomassbob 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Zelazny's The Guns of Avalon
I accepted the submission to update this pub, but you added the LCCN when there was already one in the notes (linked to the Library of Congress). Also, I think you and Willem should get together to determine if he has a first printing. Doubleday would drop the "First Edition" statement after the first printing and, until 1987, you could tell if it were a later printing by the gutter code. Perhaps you and he should compare gutter codes. Mhhutchins 07:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hint Michael. I hadn't thought of the guttercode when verifying, mine has O1, meaning a January 1973 printing date. So here's what I did: I cloned the October 1972 first edition for what's probably a second impression and dated this January 1973. I then removed my verification and notes from the first edition (and also the 2nd LCCN). BB, you can (and should) now take over the primary verification. Also take another look at the notes and maybe upload a new cover scan. --Willem H. 10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for clearing up several things for me. I submitted a new mod for the pub and put in as primary.  I hadn't realized that the link worked, having seen the same line printed on copyright pages in the past.  The gutter code in my copy is N38.  Biomassbob 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Willem. That was one of the things that was great about the gutter code system, determining the dates of later printings.  Too bad they discontinued it. Mhhutchins 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Hand of Oberon
Concerning the update adding a month of publication to this record: the printing date indicated by the gutter code should not be used as the publication date (see the link I gave above about gutter codes). I have to emphasize again: a printing date is not a publication date. On the average, there is a six week delay between printing and publication. I would estimate that a Doubleday book with gutter code "G18" would be published in June 1986 (18+6=24=June). This is the same date that the Amazon listing gives. One more thing: this should have been ran by the other primary verifier before making a submission. Changing fields other than the note field and the cover image field is considered a major change. I see you gave Willem a note on this page for verified records changing, but looking at the note on [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Willem_H. his talk page] you see that page is only if you've "added a COVER IMAGE or NOTES to any of my VERIFIED PUBS". If he's like me, he only looks at that page when he has a chance, unlike he would have if the note had been left on his talk page. Mhhutchins 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Same situation with The Courts of Chaos. "I33" indicates a printing in August 1978 (not April), so it was published around the 39th week (September). Mhhutchins 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood. About the Courts of Chaos.  There are currently two pubs from Doubleday.  The one verified by WillemH shows the publication date as October and cites Locus.  The other just shows 1978, with a gutter of I46.  Why is Willem's date different from yours?  And there should be some way to put the undated one below the first edition (and surely below the magazine appearance).  Without this discussion, I would really be confused. Biomassbob 21:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's one of the great things about the Wiki system, even though some think it's an outmoded form of communication. It's just the best we got. About the dates of Courts of Chaos: I was estimating based on the average of six weeks; it could be shorter or longer.  Six weeks would have been the last week of September.  Most books published in the last week of a month have an "official" publication date of the following month.  So it's OK that the other record gives Locus's date of October. Mhhutchins 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot, about the ordering of pub records under the title record. That's based solely on the date. A book published in 1978-00-00 will become before one published in 1978-01-00.  Until the first book is given a month of publication it's going to always come first.  A book dated 0000-00-00 is displayed at the end of the list, which wasn't always true.  Up until a couple of years ago, they came first! Because the number 0000 comes before 1978. Maybe we could program all monthless pubs to be processed as 13, although displayed as 00.  That way they'd all be at the end of the year, not the beginning. Mhhutchins 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that a feature request? I could support that. Both politically and programatically, although software improvements are getting further behind than I'd like. BLongley 01:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The more I get into this, the more I find problem areas, I guess. I suggest that there should be a system for handling printings beyond the first.  I keep running across later printings that are scattered through the other publications.  However, fixing this may require a significant change.  Ideally, the later printings would be added to the first one. Biomassbob 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Undated pubs is another matter, but ordering pubs that are only year-dated to the end of that year would be a nice feature. Mhhutchins 20:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Faber
I see that "Faber" is given on the spine of the image you uploaded for this record, but how is the publisher's name given on the title page. Most of the books in the db are entered as "Faber and Faber" with a few "Faber & Faber". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Faber and Faber, usually Faber and Faber Limited. But once you corrected me for adding Press or some such to the name of a publisher, and I think I saw a pub with just Faber, so I thought that was the "official" name for this publisher.  So it's Faber and Faber and not Faber and Faber Limited.  O.K., sigh. Biomassbob 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. As I may have mentioned, we "regularize" most publisher's name, and in this case it's Faber and Faber. We usually don't add "Ltd" but I've seen some publishers entered that way. Mhhutchins 21:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know where if see just Faber all the time. In the list of pubs for each title.  It's never Faber and Faber there, always just Faber.  Understandable, but it sure confused me. Biomassbob 22:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Listings of pubs under title records should give the exact data that's given in the publication record. What title lists the publisher as just "Faber"? I only see two pubs under the Faber publisher listing and both records were created by you. Mhhutchins 22:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Faber" is now almost always used in articles about "Faber and Faber" publications. I don't even know what the official name for them is now - I can't afford their latest titles. But "record them exactly and we'll figure out the rest later" is always good advice. BLongley 01:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of Trumps of Doom
You want to remove the publication date and gutter code information from this record. When updating SFBC editions you're going to find that other editors may have entered the gutter code in their copies and they may have added dates based on secondary sources which they failed to note. That doesn't mean you should remove such data. You can add the gutter code in your copy followed by [verified]. You can note that the publication date isn't stated in the book, even though many users already know that. If you don't want to research the publication dates of SFBC editions, you can always cite the ISFDB listing of SFBC selections as your source. The list itself already cites the sources for its data. So, I'll accept the submission, but restore the date, (citing the source) and restore the later gutter code. Mhhutchins 20:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of Blood of Amber
Again, you want to remove the gutter code already given in this record because your copy doesn't have one. And your note to the moderator says "Someone should say where the price and date of publication are found." That someone should be you, before you do a primary verification of the record. I'll accept the submission, restore the gutter code, keep the note that your copy doesn't have one, and then note the source of the price and date. Mhhutchins 20:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Same situation with Sign of Chaos. I'll source the date and price. Mhhutchins 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not making it easy for you, am I? I'm surprised that earlier moderators allowed uncited information on SFBC pubs.  One of those "everybody knows" things, I guess.  But everybody doesn't know. Biomassbob 21:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree totally with you here. Most of these records were in the database when I first came here, and if you look at how I've dealt with submissions since becoming a moderator, you'd know that I am constantly harping on editors about citing their sources. It seems that other moderators do not have the same "zeal" (putting it politely) that I have and it got to the point where I was about to quit entirely. This is a situation where I can only guide new editors and hope they are "indoctrinated" with the same sense of purpose that I have. Unfortunately that comes with a price, and very few editors are willing to pay it. It should not come down to the luck of the draw about which moderator actually handles which submissions. But looking at my totals you can see I've guided more than my share of new editors, even some who are now moderators. Most editors burn out around the 1000th submission, but those who get over that hump usually hang around. I hope that my handling of your submissions doesn't drive you away. It would be easier to leave them in the submission queue and let other moderators handle them (or not), but I see something special in them and think you've got what it takes to become a great contributor and future moderator. Mhhutchins 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Changing Land
You made a submission to update this record, but there was no apparent change made in it. There was a note to the moderator that "Source of price and date of publication not identified; they are not in the book." But that does not become part of the visible record of the publication. The purpose of the "Note to Moderator" field is to supply additional information to help the moderator's decision to accept or reject the submission. Since there was no change in the record, it didn't matter whether I accepted or rejected the submission. Adding the note to the "Note" field would have made it part of the record. Was that your intention? I've found a source for the date and price, and have updated the record. If you have any questions about records before doing a primary verification, please post them on the community page or the help desk. Mhhutchins 20:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My intention, or at least hope, was that somebody could do just what you did! Thank you.  Not a very nice thing for me to do, but I was getting very frustrated with seeing case after case where I didn't know if I could believe the information on SFBC pubs. Publication dates a month after printing dates, for example. Biomassbob 21:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's explained on the SFBC pages. Because the books aren't dated, we had to make a decision about how to date them. It came down to the month in which the books became a selection of the club. Having been a member of the club, you know that you get the book in the month that was given on the club catalog. You get the February catalog in January, you given time to let them know if you want it, then it arrives in the mail in February.  So the publication date is February, even though it was printed weeks earlier.  By comparing the gutter codes with the months of publication, we could determine that the average time between the gutter code's date and the book's arrival was six weeks. This wasn't just an arbitrary number but arrived at when several editors (mainly Bluesman and me) started gathering gutter code and id number information on all of the book club selections, which was no easy task. As for trade publishers who give printing information, check out some reprints of early Ballantine Books (like here which give both the printing date and the publication date of the first editions.  Or publications by Knopf that give several printing dates before the date the book is "published." It only makes sense that the printing date and publication date cannot be the same, even if only one is given, if at all. Mhhutchins 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dilvish the Damned
I have added a source for the price and date of this record. Mhhutchins 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you once again. Biomassbob 21:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Posting messages on Wiki pages
I've noticed that when you post a new message on a wiki page, you're adding it to the bottom under the previous posting. This makes it look like part of the previous posting and not a new one. (Look at the message you posted at the bottom of this user's page and you'll see it has no subject line separating it from the previous message.) Perhaps you're failing to add a subject line, or you're editing the entire page instead of using the "Post a Comment" function. The best way to begin a message (as opposed to responding to one) is to click the + (plus) tab at the top of the page which creates a new topic. Write a short summary of your message in the subject line of the top box and then write your full message in the larger box below.

Another thing: several editors have created separate pages in order for you to leave a message about changes to their verified pubs. You have to be careful to read the message because some only want notifications of additional notes or cover images. Most verifiers want to be notified about changes to other fields made on their main talk page. And these notifications should be made before you make a submission to change them. If you're changing a page count (I'm holding a couple of submissions to do that), you should talk it over with the verifier before making the submission. And leaving this kind of message on the user's notification page will probably delay the response, because many editors are not as diligent about reading their notification pages because they're supposed to be about minor changes. (Note that when you're posting on these notification pages you don't have to use the + tab or create a topic line. Clicking on the user talk page link does that automatically.  In these cases you just go to the bottom and record your message. That's different from creating posts as I described above.)

I admire your enthusiasm and am very glad to help you in helping us build the database together. Mhhutchins 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The page change to my verified To Die in Italbar is correct, and can be approved. Thanks, --Willem H. 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not used a title on these notes, not noticing that there should be one. Mea culpa.  In most cases, I have used the + tab.  Changing the page count in the two Italbar pubs seemed minor, and why the error was made was obvious, but I can suppose some might take offense.  I guess I make minor changes like that because I honestly don't care is someone does the same to me. It saves both the original editor's time and mine to just make the change and just let him change it back without bothering to tell me.  But I'll conform.


 * It might help to add a note about the lack of a number on the last page. Both the LCCN and the OCLC (both linked on the record) give the page count as 182. I don't think it would be OK for a future editor to change it back citing these sources without consulting the primary verifiers. Would you expect a moderator to accept such a submission without question either? Back to the number: in some cases we would enter the page count as "182+[1]" (bracketing a number indicates an unnumbered page), but that's for you and Willem to decide. Mhhutchins 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Easton's Lord of Light
I rejected the submission to add a note about the endpapers to this record, because there's one already there: "One of The Masterpieces of Science Fiction series, indicated by the logo printed on the endpapers." Those aren't the "Foundation" figures. They're the series logo. Mhhutchins 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that how is an occasional user to know what that logo printed on the endpapers is? Your wording strikes me as falling in the "everybody knows" trap.  The fantasy series has unicorns, which makes it easy to describe.  There has to be an easy descriptor for the science fiction logo. Rhombic figure? Biomassbob 21:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the problem with describing non-illustrative logos. But calling it the "Foundation" logo doesn't help either, does it? You can describe the Tor logo, but how would you describe the very-well known Del Rey logo? Mhhutchins 22:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of This Immortal
I accepted the submission updating this pub, but again wonder why the note to moderator: "Publication date and price sources unknown." This is not a visible part of the record, and you should not have done a primary verification of the record until you can confirm or cite the information that's stated. I have updated the record citing a source for the date and price. Mhhutchins 22:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. As I said to your last note like this one, I'm manipulating you.  I'll stop. Biomassbob 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. Once you get to know me, you'll learn it doesn't take much to get me to do anything you want when it comes to getting records in the best shape possible.  I take anal-retentiveness to a whole new level. Mhhutchins 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL Biomassbob 23:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking references
You can link references by using HTML in the note field (don't use it in any other field.) Here's the help page that explains how to do it. If you need further help, just ask. Mhhutchins 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've linked your reference in this record. Look at the raw HTML in a pub edit to see how it looks. Also, what was the "(227113)"? I couldn't find that number in my copy of the bibliography. Were reference numbers used in a later printing? Mhhutchins 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That number is the digits at the end of the URL for that publication in this data base. It was an attempt (but obviously not a successful one) to i.d. the publication. Biomassbob 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I linked it to the title record, not to the pub record. Mhhutchins 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your submission to add the artist removed the HTML that linked your cited source. Was that intentional? Mhhutchins 23:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I have another submission that restores the HTML, but doesn't include the artist. You should wait until a submission to update a record has been accepted before making another submission that updates the same record. If not, info entered in the interim submissions will be lost. I'll reconstruct the note field to what I think you want.  Mhhutchins 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Check it out now and make any further changes if necessary. Mhhutchins 23:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That was before I found out how clever you were! Love it.  Thanks. Biomassbob 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Damnation Alley
Please recheck how the cover art is credited in this record. Is it spelled "Gaugan"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am in the running for the world's worst speller. I had the book right in front of me and still misspelled the name.  Twice.  I submitted a correction. Biomassbob 04:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Doorways in the Sand
Did you mean to say this record is a second printing when the number line would indicate it to be the third? Also, the date should be 1977-00-00 based on the number line. Mhhutchins 02:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I'm holding another submission that's identical to the one above. Was that a mistake? Mhhutchins 02:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops! Yeah, it should be third.  I didn't realize there was a second submission.  I think what happened is that I paged back after submitting the first time, then got a phone call.  After the call, I forgot that I had already submitted the change and hit submit again.  I'll stop answering the phone. Biomassbob 03:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You can cancel submissions that haven't been approved. Go to "My Pending Edits" on the home page, and then click the "Cancel submission" link. This can be done anytime you've discovered an error and want to make a new submission. Unless the moderator is faster than you are! I'll go ahead and reject the submission and change the record to third printing and 1977 publication date. Mhhutchins 04:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks once more. In this case I was oblivious. But there have been cases where I forgot something on one submission and immediately submitted a second change.  Now I can perhaps cancel the first one and resubmit. Biomassbob 04:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating generic titles
When entering contents with generic titles (e.g. "Editorial", "Introduction", "Afterword", "Book Reviews", etc.), it is ISFDB standard to parenthetically add the title of the book or magazine in which it appears, e.g. "Introduction" becomes "Introduction (Title of Book)". This creates a unique record and helps keep similarly titled works from being accidentally merged.

The introduction in this book will have to be disambiguated. Mhhutchins 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to do the same with this one. Mhhutchins 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Caught that one by myself! (Gloat, gloat)Biomassbob 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Of Berserkers
I think you may have fallen into the trap that titles of records should be entered exactly as they appear in print. In the case of the titles that you duplicated and want to remove from this record, it appears that the capitalization is editorial not authorial. Sometimes it's just a typesetter or book designer's choice to go with all capital letters. We regularize capitalization in order to avoid creating thousands of records that differ only because of it. This rule is spelled out in the help section. Go to the 'Case' subsection of this page. I'm going to reject the submission and remove the capitalized titles. I'll also have to delete those records from the database. Mhhutchins 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K. There were other minor changes as well in those items, but I have no trouble with ignoring those as well as the capital letters.  Of course, I really have no trouble ignoring whether or not "the" is in the title, either.  At lease I don't have to go back and merge titles. Biomassbob 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"The White Bull"
According to the editor who verified the trade paperback edition of Of Berserkers, Swords and Vampires: A Saberhagen Retrospective, "White Bull" is only used on the contents and copyright pages. It is the ISFDB standard to record titles as stated on the page on which the piece begins (its title page). Can you check to see how the story is titled on page of 213 of this book, and make the appropriate changes? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. I had just looked at the contents page and copyright.  I'll come back and do the links. Biomassbob 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Entering roman-numeraled pages
As the example given in this section of the help page, don't leave spaces around the "+" in the page count field. I'll make the correction in this record. Mhhutchins 16:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Decade Plus One of Roses
I approved your submission to add the hardcover of When Pussywillows Last in the Catyard Bloomed. In the note to the moderator you state that "Decade Plus One of Roses" is not present in this pub. Could you check this again? In Threshold the notes with the poem are steted to be from this publication, and in The Ides of Octember Christopher Kovacs does have this poem in the contents of the collection. I think he has it right after the introduction (forward?). Thanks, --Willem H. 19:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Amber Dreams, Levack's Zelazny bibliography, the poem is included in its entirety in the author's "Foreword" (note spelling), and is not listed in the Table of Contents. Mhhutchins 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is in the Foreward. Zelazny calls it a parody piece.  He notes, "It doesn't belong in the body of this book, but it can occur at this point as an autobiographical gesture indicating interests and attitudes."  The title is buried in the preceding text, not attached to the poem itself.  I guess I have no serious problem in listing it as part of the volume, but I think I'll add words to the notes indicating it's location.


 * Sounds like a good idea! --Willem H. 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to confirm (as pointed out twice above) that the spelling of the foreword is "Foreward". Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And is "steted" intentional? I know "stet" is a proof-reading term, but I've never seen it in that form before. BLongley 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hymn to the Sun: An Imitation
At 22 cm (according to OCLC) the binding format of this pub would be "tp". And if you feel each of the contents should have the same date as the pub, you can update the dates of each record. Click on the title record link, then click "Edit Title Data", and change the date field. Mhhutchins 04:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I made the change to tp, which was a silly oversight. I changed the dates on Appendix C to that of Eye of Cat and for the main poem to the publication date of Hymn to the Sun. Biomassbob 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Berserker Throne
Around the time this book was published, Simon & Schuster would place a date/price code on the back of the dustjacket. For example, on my copy of Empire of the Sun there's the code "10841645", meaning it was published in October 1984. And on the back of The Legacy of Heorot the code was "07871745", which meant July 1987. Does your copy of The Berserker Throne have such a code? If not, you can use Locus1, which gives the date as June 1985, but received in May 1985. Mhhutchins 04:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that code! Yes, it's there.  Question.  Is "Locus1" accessible?  I hadn't realized.  I've seen lots of reference to it. Biomassbob 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, just click on its link on every pub record in the database. Or you can bookmark this URL: http://www.locusmag.com/index/ Mhhutchins 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, you should use the publisher's printed code to date the book. In this case it matches the Locus1 publication date of June 1985.  Only use the Locus1 received date as a last resort, but make sure to note that as your source. Mhhutchins 20:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Got that bookmark! I have the magazine index disk (1890-2002) to find story lists for authors I collect, but never used the book indexes. Bob 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Messages left on my verification page
I just noticed that you left two messages on my notification page on the 13th. I don't check that page very often because it's only there to notify me of additional notes or the linking of cover images to my verified records. Normally it's not necessary to respond to messages left there. If you think a message needs a response, it would be better to leave it on my main talk page.


 * 1. Michael, I added the endpaper description to http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?20672 Lord of Light from Easton. Incidentally, my copy has green leather covers, not brown. Biomassbob 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to note that in the record: "Primary2 copy is bound in green leather." You can even upload a scan of it and link it in the notes. If you want to do this let me show you. If you use the "Upload new cover" link, my image will be replaced, so I can step you through the process of having two images linked to one record (only one of which is visible, alas.)


 * 2. I have two copies of this SFBC book http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?175841 Changling by Zelazny. One is as you describe. I entered info on the one that was different from yours - no gutter number, catalog number on back of jacket and much darker print. Biomassbob 19:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I never saw the submission to do this, and the present record doesn't have the changes you mention. There was a submission to edit the pub [2012-02-13 13:52:06	/ 1787516 - PubUpdate	/ Biomassbob	/ Mhhutchins	/ Changeling] which I accepted, but I don't recall what the submission changed. Your message is dated more than five hours after the submission.

If your copy has the same ID number (3909), you can add a note: "Primary2 copy has no gutter code and the ID number is on the back of the dustjacket." If your copy has ID number "03909", then clone the record, making the necessary changes, to create a new record. Mhhutchins 05:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just noticed the note about the later printing. Must be getting late or I'm becoming more blind that I'd like to think. Mea culpa. Can you still confirm that the catalog number doesn't have a leading zero? Starting in the mid-1980s, they began reprinting older titles with the "0" added to the old ID number.  We've decided such reprints warrant a separate record due to the new ID. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The catalog number DOES have a leading zero. I'll go ahead and edit the extra text out of the older edition and clone the later edition off of it.


 * I'll also make the note about the green cover on Lord of Light. I've tried to upload new scans of books a couple of times, but never succeeded.  Willem had suggested I upload a new scan for Guns of Avalon, Faber and Faber edition.  I encountered problems and just dropped it. I guess I need some instruction on uploading replacement or added scans. Biomassbob 16:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no problems with your uploaded scans, they're even linked to the right publications. See The Guns of Avalon Doubleday and Faber. In general, upoading once is enough. Could it be you forgot to refresh the page (F5) after uploading? --Willem H. 16:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grief, they do look good. I got some kind of message when I hit Upload that I didn't take time to analyze and seemed to be an error message.  I'm glad they worked out.  I love the scans that show the wrap-around jackets.  I have trouble doing that because my jackets usually have a Brodart cover that gives funny shines to the scans and inhibit laying them really flat on the scanner bed.  Sometimes these covers are taped on (not by me, but by whoever I bought the book from), and I'm reluctant to try to remove the tape.  That was the case with the Faber cover on Guns.


 * The error message was probably because it was unable to generate a thumbnail based on your preferences. You should reset your preferences to the maximum display size. When you're logged into the wiki, click on the "Preferences" link, go to the "Files" link (or tab), change both sizes in the drop-down menus to the maximum, then "Save".  Just try to keep the files under 150K and the dimension of the longest side less than 600 pixels.  Otherwise you'll get another warning message, which you can override.  If you're uploading wraparound cover art feel free to go over these limitations and then bypass the warning message. Mhhutchins 20:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've run into those warnings, usually when I've forgotten to save the reduced size image. I have generally been careful to keep the longest side below 600 pixels.  I'll fix the preferences. Biomassbob 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A Checklist of Roger Zelazny
I made the following changes to this record: changed the binding from "tp" to "ph" (for pamphlet, based your note that it is stapled), changed the publisher from "Ultramarine" to "Ultramarine Publishing Co." (the most common form of their name), and add a dollar sign to the price. Mhhutchins 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have trouble with the ph designation. Of course, my habit is to think of pubs like this as chapbooks, but the definition here would make that inappropriate.  So a stapled tp should be a pamphlet.  I entered one or two saddle-stitched pubs before.  Should they also be ph?  As for the $, another careless mistake.  I wish I could figure out when to add words like publishing co. or house, or whatever, to the names of publishers.  There is obviously no standard, except maybe how it was first entered.Biomassbob 20:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no hard and fast rule about binding format, and the line between pamphlet and trade paperback may be thin. My personal rule is if it is softcover and has any binding other than glue (like most paperbacks), I call it a pamphlet regardless of the dimensions. About the names of publishers, it comes down to wanting all of the publisher's publications under as few names as possible in order to help users who search by publisher. I recommend going for the one with the most pubs, but sometimes that can't be followed. Even the use or not of an extended name doesn't determine which one to use.  For example, it's St. Martin's Press, and not St. Martin's, Simon & Schuster, not Simon and Schuster, DAW Books, not DAW, Tor, not Tor Books, Charles Scribner's Sons, not Scribners. In other words, there are no rules. Stick around and you get to know which one to use. Mhhutchins 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The saddle-stitched pubs are usually pretty fancy, with high-end paper and covers and relatively high prices. I would not want to call them pamphlets, which smacks of handouts on the street.  So I'll call non-magazine stapled pubs ph, but not the fancier pubs. Bob 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point. There should be something that closer describes them. Feel free to bring up a discussion on the Rules and Standards page.  We're always willing to listen to changes that improve the db. Mhhutchins

David Gemmell series
The note you gave in the submission to update this record really doesn't have anything to do with the publication record. It's a title record issue. Only title records can be placed into title series (author-derived series); publication records are placed into publication series (publisher-derived series). Feel free to submit changes to correct the order of the series. Keep in mind: a title record can only be in one series, and a series can only be under one parent series. Mhhutchins 03:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem appears to be that Sipstrassi and Stones of Power are really synonyms that include the Jon Shannow books as a subset. Jon appears in the third book of the Sipstrassi or Stones of Power series and runs through the fifth.  Seems to me that whoever set up the current series organization never read the books.  I'll see if I can fix the series. Bob 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Should an omnibus of the series be numbered first? We usually don't number an omnibus that contains books of the series. Mhhutchins 18:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I realized that after I entered the whole list. I will go back and remove that number and renumber what are now 2 and 3.  I figured you'd gig me for that.  Bob 19:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Catalog numbers
When entering catalog numbers, they should be preceded with the number symbol (#). I've corrected it for this record. At one time, this was the only thing that made sure that the system didn't try to handle it like an ISBN. I'm not sure if that's the case these days, but its use is still an ISFDB standard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that. I had it in at first, but removed it because of the CN leader. Bob 19:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ISBN detection is a bit better than it used to be, but could still be improved: e.g. 14 digit ISBNs should be flagged as an error but aren't (yet). BLongley 16:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Foreword or Foreward
I asked in the message above about the poem in the introduction, but never got a response. Is the foreword in this book titled "Foreward"? (It's spelled that way in the notes as well.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the way it's spelled in the book. Bob 15:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

David Gemmell's Legend - The Graphic Novel
IFSDB standards do not allow graphic novels into the database (with a few exceptions, based on the reputation of the author of the graphic novel, not the author of the novel on which the graphic novel is based.) So using a strict interpretation of the rules, this record should be deleted. It appears that Stan Nicholls is the actual author of the graphic novel, not David Gemmell. Nicholls has a considerable body of work already in the database, so this record may squeak by using the exception rule. In that case, the author credit would have to be corrected and the pub's title record would have to be unmerged from Gemmell's novel's title record. I'm not sure why someone made it into a variant of the novel in the first place. If you want to make these submissions, please proceed. If not, I can handle them. Mhhutchins 04:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to see this in the data base, but since I had a copy, I went ahead and filled in the information. I think it should be deleted, to be honest.  It's like the camel's nose under the tent edge.  I'll do that this afternoon. Bob 15:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have a love/hate relationship with "graphic novels" - sometimes they sneak in on a Fixer submission or suchlike, but they are technically out, even for such big names as "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" - when a comic becomes a film and gets a novelisation then we should technically include the book but only note it's prior history as a comic. Sometimes we go too far one way (e.g. I'm pretty sure someone deleted the illustrated copies of Stardust along with the graphic versions at one point, then some graphic novels sneaked back in). This is probably one of the fuzziest areas we have in our inclusion/exclusion policy - we don't yet have rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty, to quote Douglas Adams. BLongley 16:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"sc, stapled"
This is not one of the standard pub formats. If you mean it has a stapled softcover binding, it should be entered as "ph" (for pamphlet) and then you can describe the binding in the note field in this record and this one, (See this previous discussion.) You will also need to add a content title record to this chapterbook. If you had cloned this record you would not have needed to add a new content record which will now have to be merged with the existing one. (See this previous discussion about adding content records to chapterbooks and when you should clone a record instead of add a record.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I got fooled. I entered "s", going for softcover rather than paperback, and my computer put "sc, stapled" into the space. I figured that was a standard I hadn't encountered before.  But obviously it was just something my machine recognized, not information from the data base.  Duh! I still hate that ph designation, but can't think of a decent alternative.  These pubs are NOT pamphlets.  I will go back, delete the pub and clone the first edition pub instead; that seems like the easiest path. Bob 17:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Chariot to the Stars
I have your submission to add a record that is quite similar to this one: same publisher, same year of publication, same page count, same price. Your submission is for a single content chapterbook, while the one in the database is for a collection of stories. Locus1 has data corroborating the latter one. Are these two different publications? Mhhutchins 03:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * They are almost certainly the same publication. I couldn't find the one you identified before I entered mine.  As for the question of whether it's a chapterbook or a collection, it's definitely the latter.  If I entered it as a chapterbook, I would hope I would have fixed that when I went back to upload the scan of the cover and verify the pub.  It was a long, busy day yesterday.  Mea culpa. Bob 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Two Tales of Korval
I accepted the submission for this publication, even though I think you may have confused the title series as a publication series. If so, please remove the series data from the pub record and add it to the title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it may be both. I have at least half a dozen pubs to enter that are specified to be in the "Adventures in the Liaden Universe" series by the publisher.  As a title series, they should be in a sub-series of "Liaden Universe".  I don't know how to create a new subseries.  Move one to a parent, yes.  But not create one. Bob 20:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just as you'd create any title series: update the series field of the title record. The only thing that makes a series into a subseries is adding a parent series to it. Mhhutchins 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Master Walk
In the moderator's note to update this record you say "I like the designation "digest" a lot better than the official designation pamphlet." Well, "digest" is a standard designation. Why not keep it? I'll again direct you to the list of standard formats. Mhhutchins 20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * After reviewing digest, it seems to be limited to magazines, or was at least invented for that purpose. After thinking about it, why not use "sc, stapled" as a new standard for pubs like this? Bob 20:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Start a discussion on the rules and standards discussion page. Mhhutchins 20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Bob 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fellow Travelers
I'm holding a submission that's identical to this record. I'm assuming it was a mistakenly duplicated submission. If so, please cancel it. If not, let me know and I'll accept it. Mhhutchins 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I hit some button too soon and think I prematurely submitted the pub. I went back and finished it.  Then I went to eliminate the first submission, but only one submission was there. In retrospect, the one there was probably the first one, the one I should have eliminated.  Asi es la vida, as they say. Bob 22:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Adventures in the Liaden Universe
Just a note that I have changed the Publication Series number in this publication from "#1" to just "1". When titles are displayed, the software adds the "#" character automatically, so there is no need to enter it manually.

I also have a larger question: should the individual stories in these collections be added to the Adventures in the Liaden Universe series? In case it's not clear, we have two types of series: publication series and regular (or "title") series. Publication series are for things like Ace Doubles and Millennium / Gollancz SF Masterworks while regular series are for internally related works like the Foundation series or the Harry Potter books.

Thanks for editing! Ahasuerus 09:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another moderator asked the same question. My answer is that Adventures in the Liaden Universe is both a publication series and a story series.  The publisher designates the chapbooks to be in that series, sometimes on the front cover, sometimes on the title page.  That seems to me to constitute a publication series.  And the stories are certainly related, so I grouped them in a stories series as well.


 * And I intend to add them to the story series once they are in the data base. I also need to upload the cover scans and verify them. Bob 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Liaden Universe Companion Volume 2
I'm holding a submission that you entered under the title record for Loose Cannon, but you've titled as "Liaden Universe Companion Volume 2" which "Contains the stories in booklets #6 through #10 in the "Adventures in the Liaden Universe" series." Yet, the only contents are those from "Loose Cannon" and the image is from that same publication. I believe this should have been entered using the "Add New Collection" function, instead of "Add Publication to This Title", as it appears the title you've entered it under is for an entirely different publication. I can accept the submission, but you'll have to make several submissions to correct the problems, among which are unmerging it from its current title record, linking the correct cover image, and adding the content records. Just give the word, and I'll step you through the process. Mhhutchins 05:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I cloned the publication, which is why it appeared as an "Add to Title". I was trying to avoid having to merge all the story titles.  I intended to import the remaining contents, even though I recognized this would require repeated entries.  And of course, I have to add the cover scan and verification.  I really didn't consider that it would need to be moved from a second title under Loose Cannons to an unnumbered item under "Adventures in the Liaden Univese".  Entering new collections containing existing stories is a major operation! If you don't mind, I'd like to see if I can finish this.  I'll call for help if I run into a problem.  Bob 17:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've accepted the submission (the record's here). Please proceed to make the necessary changes.  Just ask if you need help. 17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have another similar collection to enter containing most of the Lee and Miller short fiction not related to Liaden Universe. How would you suggest I enter this one?  Bob 17:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest using the decision tree that I outlined above. If it's a new title, one that's not in the database, use the "Add New Collection" function. Mhhutchins 17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your changes to the record were accepted, but you won't find it on the authors' pages, because by removing its title record (previously that of Loose Cannon), it has become a stray publication record: a record without a title reference (only title records are visible on an author's summary page.) If you had unmerged the record from its title record, the system would have automatically created a new title record for it. No worries, it can be easily fixed.  Go to the record, choose to edit it, at the bottom of the contents section click "Add Title" and create a title record for the publication: leave the page field blank, fill in the title exactly as given in the title field of the metadata section, leave the date field blank, change the type field to match that of the metadata (COLLECTION) and leave the length field blank.  At the same time you can add the remaining content records. Mhhutchins 23:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool! Bob 23:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Changeling"
I accepted the submission to merge this record, but changed the date from May 2001 back to 2000. The story was first published in the Fall 2000 issue of Absolute Magnitude. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. Bob 03:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Garrett Files
I have a submission to update this record but no change was made. Should there have been? If so, please cancel the submission and try again. Mhhutchins 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I didn't see the SFBC number and went to add it. When I saw it was there, I just exited.  Unfortunately, I was on the phone at the time, and didn't realize what I had done.  Bob 03:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Garrett, P.I.
The submission to update this record changes the date from August 2003 to July 2003. But you've Locus1 verified it, and Locus1 gives the date as August. If the primary source or another secondary source conflicts with a verified source (Locus1 in this case), you should record that in the note field. Is the publication date stated in the pub itself? Mhhutchins 03:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. Locus seems to have been a month late on several Cook SFBC volumes I've done tonight. Bob 04:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Garrett Investigates
I wonder why you want to remove the publication date from this record and make it unknown. Your verified source gives it as October 2004. Mhhutchins 03:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how this happened. Again Locus was a month later than the book.  I'll add that information to all of these Garrett omnibuses. Bob 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've accepted it so you'll need to correct the date, which was changed to 0000-00-00. This may have been caused by entering an invalid date in the submission. Mhhutchins 04:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Black Company Goes South
Again, your verified source (Locus1) dates this record as August 2002, but your submission changes the date to July 2002. Is that the stated date of publication? If so, you should point out the verified source's error. Mhhutchins 03:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Passage at Arms by Glen Cook
Sorry, but I had to reject your request to delete one of the publications of this title. The publication was verified and can be deleted only in accordance with the primary verifier(s), plus: it seems to be another printing than the first; the notes differ in that regard. Stonecreek 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Placing chapterbooks into series
Up until recently, a bug prevented the placing of CHAPTERBOOK type records into series. That bug was fixed, but the de facto standard remains: place the shortfiction content record into the series, not the chapterbook record. This is concerning a submission to place this title into the Retief series and give it a number. You can see that the story is already in the Retief series, and by placing the chapterbook into it, the series list would give the same work twice. Another concern: the numbering of the series. Are you aware of any "official" numbering in this series, or did you just take up where the last novel/collection number ended? If later stand-alone publications of other "public domain" stories appear would you also believe they should be numbered as well? I would think this and this would be numbered before a chapterbook reprinting of a single story. Mhhutchins 01:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the submission adding this chapterbook to the series answers my last question. Mhhutchins 01:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been a couple of days and there's been no response to my inquiry. I'm assuming you've read this and don't want to present an argument to keep the series name and number for these chapterbook records.  I'll reject the submissions. Mhhutchins 17:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I never saw your note for some reason. I agree with rejecting these submissions.  I can see why putting chapterbooks into the series is simply a duplication; I just never thought about it in that light.  Now I know.  Thanks again. Bob 18:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unpublished books...
...should be dated 8888-00-00. (It's on the help page I keep referring you to.) I'll change the date of this record. Mhhutchins 01:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of deleting this record, I'm going to 8888 it. There are links from this ISBN to Amazon and OCLC, and if we delete it, someone may create a new record based on those secondary sources. By 8888ing it, at least there's a record that indicates the publication doesn't exist per se. Mhhutchins 01:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dating undated books
It is ISFDB policy to enter all undated books as 0000-00-00, unless there is a reliable secondary source which can be noted. Arbitrarily assigning a date in order to place it on the publication listing of title records isn't a good idea. By allowing such entries, we open ourselves up to a whole array of personally created schemes. There's one already in the database in which an editor took it on his own to date undated pubs using the printing number as a part of the date. It doesn't work and one day I'm going to get up enough nerve to go through and repair them, regardless of their being primary verified. (I've already fixed the unverified ones.)

I accepted the submissions to date some of the BCA editions that you entered over the past week because of the unusual circumstances surrounding book club editions. But with regular trade editions, we have to stick to the rules. Please feel free to broach the subject on the rules and standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to Moderator field
As I explained in an earlier message: The purpose of the "Note to Moderator" field is to supply additional information to help the moderator's decision to accept or reject the submission. It does not become a visible or permanent part of the record. So I'm puzzled with a submission to update this record that has the moderator note:

"I think this book and a number of other recent tps with one or two stories are print-on-demand. The last (unnumbered) page always says "printed in Lexington, KY" and in this case gives the date as May 3, 2010. Amazon still give February 15, 2010 as the date of publication."

It's interesting information, and probably true. As the moderator who handled the submission, I'm the only person who will ever see this note. Why not add it to the note field as a part of the record? "This is possibly a print-on-demand publication. 'Printed in Lexington, KY' stated on page 123 with the date May 3, 2010." And if you want more editors to be aware of your suspicions you can also post a message on one of the community pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do this to get your reaction (or any moderator's). Thank you for giving it. I'll add the remark to the notes.  What do you do about publication date for print on demand books?  Bob 04:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The same as for all records: we give the stated publication date. If it's undated, we give the date from a reliable secondary source. If there's no secondary source, we zero it out. BTW, a better way to get the attention of all active moderators is to post a message on the Moderator Noticeboard. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting note to moderator
In the submission to update this record, you say in the note to moderator field: "This must be print-on-demand. Last page (unnumbered) says "Charleston, SC 22 May 2010" The date does not agree with book's stated publication date or Amazon's." As I have stated several times before: a printing date is not the publication date, and even more so when it comes to print-on-demand publications. It would be a good idea to place this message in the note field. (But don't change the publication date field.) Mhhutchins 03:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An Empire Unacquainted with Defeat
I'm holding a submission that wants to change this record into a record for the limited edition. I think you meant to clone it, not to edit it. If so, please cancel the submission and make a new one. Mhhutchins 16:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did. Not sure how I screwed it up. Bob 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. It was caught before the submission was accepted. The "Clone" and "Edit" buttons are so close that it happens with some frequency. One more thing: I changed the dates of two stories: "Finding Svale's Daughter" and "Hell's Forge" because this is supposedly their first appearance. I also changed the length of the first from novelette to short story.  Can you confirm the changes? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the changes. I sometimes have trouble judging length between short story and novelette and tend to cite the longer, probably too often. Looking back, Finding Svale's Daughter is certainly a short story. Bob 00:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Author/artist credits
Whatever name you place in the author or artist field becomes the name of the author or artist in the database. So the cover artist for this record is now a new person in the database named. There's already a. Could they be the same person? If so, please update this record. You can always describe his role in the pub record's note field. Mhhutchins 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks.  Bob 23:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Foreward"
Is the foreword spelled as "Foreward" in this book? Mhhutchins 03:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course not. My usual fine spelling. Bob 03:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for a submission to correct it, and when it didn't come I did it myself. I'm not sure how other moderators handle such situations, but I'd rather have the editor make the correction as it gives them practice. When it's a small error, such as an obvious typo, I usually correct it myself and not even involve the editor. In this case, I had to ask, because such misspelling actually happens. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I assumed you corrected it, but I should have known better.  Bob 03:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Severn House ed. of The High Crusade
According to the British Library website, the original price of this book was £6.50. Mhhutchins 03:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. My book is clipped, but there is a tag glued in near the cut with the £6.50 price.  I wonder if Severn had a lower price printed on the jacket, then decided to raise the price. Bob 17:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's happened on several of my books. It's the most likely scenario. Mhhutchins 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's only Aegypan, but we like it
I decided to change the publisher from Aegypan Press to (just) Aegypan for your verified publication. If you have another verified publication I'll do the same. The reason is that the majority of books from this publisher is listed with the shorter name and in general we do want to have only one name per publisher. Stonecreek 17:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K., I'll remember that. No problem.  Bob 17:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman numerals
ISFDB standard is to use the small-case roman numerals. I've corrected the usage in this record. Mhhutchins 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K., but the pub itself uses upper case, and I just copied it. Bob 18:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood, but this is just a matter of regularization. Sometimes I think we carry the "enter exactly as published" a little too far. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Seven Conquests
I have a submission to delete and then add back the same story ("Strange Bedfellows") in this collection. I'm not sure what your intentions are. Mhhutchins 19:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Problem was the date. I wanted to put in the month of publication. Did I screw that up? Bob 19:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You can update a title record's date just by clicking on the story and changing the date field. I'll accept the submission, but will have to delete the extraneous record that you created for the title. Mhhutchins 19:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't occur to me. Bob 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Anderson's Twilight Zone
I accepted the submission updating the two records of this title, but reverted the credit of "Prologue" back to Anderson alone. Even though you note that Waldrop isn't credited, you credited him in the content records that you added to the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like a judgement call, but I don't have a big problem either way. Bob 19:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, not a judgement call at all. It's ISFDB policy to record credits as given. Mhhutchins 22:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Twilight Zone"? How appropriate.  Bob 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My ISFDB "World" often feels like the "Twilight Zone." :-) Mhhutchins 22:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Interior art credit...
...should be the same as the title of the book, except for specialized interior art pieces which are appended with (frontispiece) or (map). So the interior art record in this book should just be titled "Homebrew". It's already typed as "interiorart" so you don't have to put that in the title of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Silly error. Sorry.  Fixed. Bob 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding unnumbered pages to a book
When a book has substantial content on a page which appears before the first numbered page, it is OK to add those pages to the page count field (in squared brackets), and then give the page of the content, such as a foreword, in brackets as well. So in this book, if the TOC numbers the pre-pages, use can use its numbering system as part of the record. Mhhutchins 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Bob 02:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Day the Sun Stood Still
I'm holding the submission to add a book club edition of this title to the db, as one already exists. The difference is that you've credited del Rey as the editor, even though there is no explicit editor credited in the book. Please look at the current record and see if it matches your copy. If it does, please cancel the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the same book. But to me it's clear that Del Rey is the editor since he submitted the original idea to the three contributors.  It seems unfair to me to see him relegated to the author on an introduction.  However, I won't quibble with that.  I'll withdraw the submission, but I will also edit yours without providing another note that I have done so. Bob 22:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dates of title records
Although it may not be stated in the rules and standards, and may actually contradict any earlier rules, it has become a de facto standard to date retitlings of books with the date in which they first appear. This is something that has happened gradually over the years, and has exploded since the adding of foreign language titles in which we allow editors to date the books the date of their first publication in the language. I find there is value in doing it this way, because when you give a date for a title record that is earlier than when the title first appeared it can be perceived as a flag that an earlier publication of that title is missing from the database. I'm holding the submission to change the date of the retitled title record for (The Night Face) from 1978 to 1963, when the work was first published as Let the Spaceman Beware!. Look at how the titles are displayed on Anderson's author summary page, and you'll see, I hope, the usefulness in keeping the dates as is. If you strongly believe it should be dated back to the original date, please begin a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. If not, you can cancel the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Michael has a good point there - I think the Help is out of date, as the original reasons for Variants not getting their own date were based on old software display problems that I think have been sorted. Sorry if you've been misled, we are lousy at updating help. :-/ BLongley 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I cancelled the submission. I know I wrote a long reply to this note earlier, and it seems to have disappeared.  I'll repeat.  I can understand the reason for assigning new dates when the name changes. But I have trouble with assigning dates to a title earlier than the first pub in the data base containing that title.  I became aware of that practice yesterday when entering information for "Call Me Joe", the collection of Anderson shorter works from NESFA.  There were several stories or poems that showed dates that preceded any of the pubs in the data base containing them.  I'm a little slow, so I went to the content titles and changed the dates.  After sleeping on it, this morning I went to the Locus Magazine data base to see if I could find earlier publications for these titles, but without the submission information, I found I couldn't proceed.  There was one such story where an explanation was given for the earlier date, and that one I didn't change.  It would be a good idea that some explanation be given in the notes for a title in cases where arbitrary pre-dating is used. Bob 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're forced to add a new content record for a title that's already in the database, don't worry about dating it. It has to merged anyway, so just leave the date field blank. After the submission adding the new record is accepted, go back and merge the titles, using the earlier of the dates when it comes to reconcile the records.  You're going to find that some may even then have the wrong date. If your research shows a publication date in an obscure periodical or publication, go back to the title record, change the date to the earlier date, and then record your source in the note field. The problem you're having is because when content records are added to the database, the system will automatically date them as the date of the publication in which they appear, which is not always the date that the piece was first published. This can't be helped unless you take the time to go through each content record and add the dates as you enter them. I personally feel this is a waste of time, and follow the procedure that I outline above. You really have the choice to do it either way, as long as you follow-up by merging the extraneous records that you create. Mhhutchins 22:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The content of "Call Me Joe" was already entered, taken from the NESFA website. When I was editing, some of the stories and poems had dates and were greyed so they couldn't be changed, but about half of them were still white.  A bunch of those were poems in "Staves", which was still unapproved.  But there were still stories with dates given that had not been greyed out.  When I checked the dates in both grey and white items against the citations in the book, there were some differences.  In a handful of cases, the dates in the data base were different because they were artificially early.  If there were earlier pubs with that content, neither our editors nor those of the book were aware of them.  These are the ones I changed in the story title.  For another handful, the story dates in the data base were earlier than those in the book and substantiated by entered pubs.  Those I flagged in the notes.  A lot of work, and maybe overly anal. Bob 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You forget you're talking to the King of Anal. :-) The reason you can't update a content record that's greyed out during a pub edit is because the record appears in more than just this pub. As you recently learned, you can always update the individual title records...it just takes more time.  But there's a method to this madness.  We don't want to make it easy to update title records unless the editor knows that he's affecting all of the publications in which the piece was published. As I messaged below, the poems in both Call Me Joe and Staves have been merged, so please proceed to update the dates of those that may be incorrect. If the dates are earlier than the source you have, leave them be or feel free to do some research to determine if there had been earlier publications that the editor of the current books may have missed. This happens...often, especially in the sf field when a piece could appear in a fanzine before any professional publication. And especially something so low-paying, if at all, like poems. Mhhutchins 04:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

West by One and by One
I have your submission to add an anthology by this name. Its contents appear to be more mystery-related than speculative fiction. If it was edited by Anderson, it's OK to create a pub record, because his status in the sf field is above the threshold that allows non-genre work to be entered the database. But any non-spec contents should not be added to the record, because their entry in the db would contradict the main purpose of the db and its policies.

Also, the record itself should reflect exactly how the book was published. If there is no stated editor, you should enter "uncredited" in the author field, and once it's in the database, you can make its title record into a variant giving Anderson credit, while noting a reliable source for that information. And if the submission is accepted as it is currently given, a new publisher will be created named "Privately Printed". If no publisher is actually stated in the book, then leave the field blank and record that fact in the note field. I can accept the submission and then you can update the record, including removing and deleting all non-spec-fic content records, or you can cancel the submission and resubmit a new one. Unless the majority of the content pieces are spec-fic, I believe the latter choice would take less time. Mhhutchins 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought I left a reply to this earlier, but I must have forgotten to save the page. I do consider this a non-genre anthology, of course, although a case could be made for Sherlock Holmes to be SciFi, particularly when it was written.  I had no idea that non-Genre content should be avoided, but it makes sense.  But I don't understand where the book would end up in the data base without Anderson as the editor,and I don't understand your comment about making its title record into a variant giving Anderson credit.  As for the publisher, it really should be "The Scowrers and Molly Maguires of San Francisco and The Trained Cormorants of Los Angeles County", since these two associations put up the money for the printing.  I pulled the submission, but don't know how to submit a new one without Anderson as the editor. Bob 22:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Create a new pub record giving "uncredited" in the author field, and while you're at it, give that horrendously long name in the publisher's field. Once it's in the database go back to the pub, click on the title reference link, then click on "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work". On the next page replace "uncredited" with "Poul Anderson".  That's how you make a variant title record. Mhhutchins 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tales of the Flying Mountains
Your submission to update this record wants to remove the interludes and then add them back with the book title in parentheses. It would be easier just to update the title records of each pieces with the new name. The problem with this route is that the six works appear in three more verified pubs. I suggest that you get together with the two active editors (Bluesman and Hauck) and discuss whether or not these works should be disambiguated. If you three decide to do so, then changing the title records would be the best procedure. I'm going to reject your submission, but update the record with the new data you gave in the submission. Mhhutchins 18:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll have to fix one more thing. Two of the stories, although originally published as by "Winston P. Sanders", was still credited with that pseudonym in the record for this collection. I'm assuming Anderson should be credited with all the stories. Mhhutchins 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And there's one more active editor who verified a pb record of this title: Willem. Mhhutchins 18:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it would have been easier. But this submission sat around for a long time: it was made before the issue of modifying the pub contents or the title record first came up between us.  Today I would have updated the title data. When I made the changes, I notified the primary that I was doing so, and I felt that was sufficient.  I still do.  Since you reject the changes, I'll just drop it -- it's not worth the effort to pursue the course of action you suggest for such a minor matter.  It will get fixed if a conflict of titles develops one day; if no conflict develops, then it makes no difference.


 * The submission sat in the queue because no other moderator would touch it. :-( I felt perhaps that you were getting tired of my picking at your submissions (you had stopped responding to my comments), and was hoping that another moderator would handle it. After a day or so, I saw no one else had worked it, so I stepped in. There are other moderators but it seems I'm the one who has to play "bad cop," and I'm getting a little weary of the role. Mhhutchins 22:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, I guess I better slow down. I've obviously been submitting things too fast, so when I make a mistake, I'm liable to make it repeatedly before anyone corrects me.  Michael, I appreciate your efforts to keep me in line. I don't resent the corrections, although I don't always agree with you.  I'll continue to contribute, but less at one time.  Just as well, demands by my business are picking up and I'm not getting much time to read right now. Bob 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not intend to mean that I'm getting weary of handling submissions, only of handling those with issues which other moderators let stand, and surely not just those comparatively few of yours. Please don't let my statement discourage you from submitting. Your errors are common among new editors and your communication has been extraordinary when compared to most editors, many of whom never respond to messages. It's been a pleasure to deal with submissions from an editor who has the books-in-hand and is willing to do primary verifications of the records he's updating. You won't believe the number of people who won't even take that simple step. Your progress has been remarkable and I'd hate to think what I said would slow you down from submitting. I apologize if anything that I've done has made you feel this way. Mhhutchins 23:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I really do need to slow down. It's embarrassing that I have so many books yet unread.  And after months of very slow activity, work has recently picked up and hopefully will stay that way the rest of the year.  I have no intention of stopping submissions, just slowing down.  I want to finish up Poul Anderson this week, and those big NESFA collections will take a lot of time.  I may start on Amra next; I haven't done any magazines yet.  Please understand I feel nothing but gratitude for your help and instruction.  Bob 03:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Star Prince Charlie
In your submission updating this record, you ask in the note to moderator: "The more I consider it, the more I lean to believing that the two editions are identical. Why else put both ISBNs on the copyright page?" ISFDB rules allow the creation of a new record for library bindings. Yes, they're the same edition, but there is a difference in the binding. Just as many specialty publishers create "deluxe editions" in a different binding, while most of the time using the same interior (the actual "edition"), and many times with the same ISBN! If two ISBNs are stated in this edition, there's a good chance that a library binding copy is available somewhere, and that another user may have that copy. Mhhutchins 19:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot to ask: what was the reason that you state that your copy is signed by both authors. If that's not the case with all copies, this should not be part of the record. And by mentioning the "Currey A" cover, it would help to note what makes this cover different from the other one.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I mentioned the signatures for the same reason I mentioned the Currey A jacket -- both seem to me to be evidence that this is a trade edition. Without someone telling me how the trade edition differs from the library edition, I have no other way to decide which I have.  If someone comes along and says the library edition has no jacket, but pictorial covers, then the information on the signatures and jacket would be superfluous.  Right now I don't see how to claim one or the other without that evidence. I did mention that a Currey A cover had a very light dash between the author's names on the spine.


 * Sorry, I missed the description of the Currey A cover, but I don't feel that an author's signature is evidence that the book is a trade edition. Libraries often discard books that wind up in collectors' libraries. (I have several myself, and at least one of them is signed by the author.) You don't have to prove which of the bindings you have or even state which one you have. All you have to do is describe your copy. This description might later lead to further evidence about which binding it is. Mhhutchins 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no stamps or other evidence of this having ever been a library book, but of course that doesn't prove anything either. I have more than one "library edition" that has never seen a library. It's a puzzle. Bob 03:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A "library binding" (not "edition") is one specifically published for libraries. Regardless, most library books are the same as the trade edition. Harper & Row is one of the few publishers who did this and gave each binding a separate ISBN. Look at this record and this one, and you'll see why we created two records for this one edition of the title. Mhhutchins 04:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Anderson's Poems
I've merged the poems that appeared in both Staves and Call Me Joe. Please feel free to update each one with the original publication date and source, if they appeared earlier than 1993. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Beat me to it. Thank you, much appreciated.  This will likely have to be done again with the other NESFA volumes on Anderson.  Bob 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Staves and "Upon the Occasion..."
Hi. A couple of things. I have your proposed edit that would change the publication date of this "Upon the Occasion..." from 1972 to 1993. I don't believe 1993 is correct. I think it should be 1972 or 1973 (looks like it first appeared in The Queen of Air and Darkness in book form, that first published in 1973, but I think it may have made a magazine appearance in 1972. Also, while taking a look at this, I noticed that both this title and this one spell "Occasion" wrong (should have 1 "s", not 2).  Would you double-check?  If so, they can and should be merged with the existing entries of those respective titles.  Thanks.  --MartyD 11:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for catching these. I'm definitely in the running for the title of "World's Worst Speller".  I withdrew the change and I corrected the spellings.  Bob 16:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Anderson's "The First Love"
I'm holding a submission to merge two records of this poem. The notes from the first record ("First published in the magazine Amra #12, September 1960.") will be lost in the merge. I'll accept the submission to merge the records, and then you'll have to update the record to add that note back. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I figured that's why you were holding it. When I merged the records, the software wouldn't let me retain both notes.  It's a lot easier to reenter the Amra reference than the other.  But on second thought, since I'm now entering the Amras, I will merge in the poem from that reference and the missing note will be moot anyhow.  Right now I'm struggling with how to organize the Amras.  I notice that the pulps are listed by year.  I may do that as well, but the Amras, especially later on, aren't published with any regularity.  I'll start out using "Amra V2n1, January 1959" as a pattern to start. Bob 01:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Amra, V2 #1
Can you check the dates for this issue? The title is January 1949, the record is dated January 1959, and the contents are titled September 1959. Mhhutchins 03:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct date is January 1959. There was a typo in the title.  I didn't see the content errors you refer to; I presume you fixed them? I hope I would have caught the errors when I went back to upload the scan, but maybe not. Next step is to go back and clone this sucker for the second printing. Bob 14:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a limerick and two interiorart pieces which are titled September 1959. Mhhutchins 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Amra, V2#2
We don't create content records for advertisements. They'll have to be removed from this record and then deleted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Same for this other record. The record for the ad should be removed and deleted. Mhhutchins 19:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Letters and periodical titles
The format used to title letters is: "Letter (title of periodical)". Any description of the letter and its contents are added to the record's note field. The letters in this record should be titled "Letter (Amra V2n1, January 1959)". The parenthetical appendix should match the title in the record's title field. If an author has more than one letter in an issue you title the second letter as "Letter (Amra V2n1, January 1959) [2]".

On another matter, the title used in the title field of periodical records should include the date as stated in the periodical. So, if the issue is dated January 1959, it should be "Amra, January 1959". If it's not month dated, but seasonally dated, it should be "Amra, Winter 1959". If it's not dated at all, using only a number and/or volume, it should be "Amra, Volume 2, Number 1". The only time we use both is when a periodical gives the issue number on the cover, and is dated either on the cover or the interior masthead, as in the case of Locus and Interzone. Are the issues of Amra month dated inside? Mhhutchins 16:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't recall a case where the month is on the cover, almost always it's inside. The only case I remember where it doesn't appear at all is V2n2, where March is likely.  The volume and issue number (all are volume 2, except the first) usually appear on the cover, although occasionally neither date nor number appear there (V2n13, 14 and 15 for example).  I personally get very upset when somebody tells me the date of a fanzine without also telling me the issue number.  My mind doesn't organize them that way, it tracks volume and issue number.  Fanzines frequently publish irregularly, unlike other magazines.  What about "Crypt of Cthulhu" where the "dates" are terms like "Eastertide" or "Lammas" or "St. John's Eve"?  I really, really prefer to use both, date as a sop to magazine freaks like you and issue number for fans of fanzines. Bob 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Crypt of Cthulhu wasn't monthly dated, so those "seasonal" dates were used. And a I said above, there is no problem giving the volume numbering in the title, if that is prominently given, such as on the cover. When neither date nor numbering are stated, you can extrapolate, e.g. "Amra, [December 1955]" and record your evidence for the date in the note field. But you should not give both when the volume numbering is only displayed on the issue's content page or masthead. There are exceptions and if you feel strongly enough about how any particular title should be handled, you can bring the issue before the community.  It helps your case, if you take responsibility over the complete run of a title, and make sure there's consistency in how it's handled. Mhhutchins 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * About the letters. When the letter is titled, either by the letter writer or by the editor, it makes sense to include that title in the citation like "Letter:  Title".  In fact, I thought that was the policy I saw in the help notes on how letters should be entered.  I have no big objection to dropping the explanation, although if I were looking for letters in the data base, I would appreciate the information.  It could tell me if the citation contained information I wanted or needed, and determine whether or not I should chase the publication down to read the letter.  You don't seem to have a problem with the explanations included with the articles.  One reason I have been going slow on these entries is to get feedback on what I'm doing wrong before I do it wrong a bunch of times. So I'll leave explanations off letters, but use them on the articles where the title may be misleading or incomprehensible.  Bob 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If a letter is titled, there's no problem with entering it as stated. And there is a problem with explanations in other essay title fields as well. By recording this additional information in the title field, you're overburdening it beyond its intended purpose. Happily, a user has the ability to search note fields.  If you want to say that an essay (letter or otherwise) is about John W. Campbell, for example, add it to the title record's note field, and anyone will be able to locate that essay using the advanced search function. Mhhutchins 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have your submission to update the letters in this issue. You want to change "Letter: On a Bibliography and Some Pennames (of Howard)" to "Letter: On a Bibliography and Some Pennames (Amra V2n1, January 1959) (of Howard)". If the letter is actually titled "Letter: On a Bibliography and Some Pennames (of Howard)" then it can stand that way. It doesn't have to be issue titled.  The reason we add the issue to the title is to disambiguate it from other letters by the same author that may appear in different issues of different publications. If it has a unique title, that's sufficient enough to disambiguate it. Sorry, if what I said at the start of the message about adding the issue name.  That wouldn't apply if the letters are titled. No need to do both. BTW, is "...(of Howard)" part of the title?  Mhhutchins 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I thought I took that out. I'll do it now.  You keep telling me to put everything in the notes.  I don't see that it's useful to move the material from the title of the content to the notes.  I'll be glad to take out the information, but I really see no purpose to adding it back in the notes of the pub.  It makes some sense to add it to the notes for the title, although that means more entries. Bob 22:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm failing to make myself clear. Add the information to the note field of the title record not the pub record. I'm going to approve the submission as is, and let you see how it looks. Once you've done that click on the title record and choose to edit it. Change the title field, and then add everything you feel a user needs to know about the title in its note field. Mhhutchins 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just accepted a submission that removed everything but, I think, the titles of the letters. Now click on the titles in order to add notes to the records concerning their contents. I hope this make sense. With few exceptions (for disambiguating generic titles, separating excerpts, and certain types of interiorart records, like maps or frontispieces), you should use the title field only to record the stated title. Other than the exceptions as given, the field should not be used as a descriptor of contents. Mhhutchins 23:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

ISBNs of trade editions retained in SFBC printings
Please read this message. I've removed the ISBN you added to this record, returned the SFBC ID# to the field, and then noted that the book retained the trade edition's ISBN. Mhhutchins 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did the same thing with this record. Mhhutchins 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Collection type
This type is only used for book-length work that contains fiction pieces by one author (or collaborations by the same set of authors). The type of this record should be changed to ESSAY. Mhhutchins 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised there isn't a letters category. I've got whole books that are collections of letters. Bob 00:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been discussed in the past, but hasn't come up lately. They're other types I wish we had as well, but either there wasn't much demand, or the few software developers have had to prioritize their work. Mhhutchins 02:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We have indeed had to prioritise work, but I'd support a "Letter" type. BLongley 03:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

George H. Schithers?
Hello, Bob. In your last submission of the Scithers fanzine you gave the cover artist as noted above. I assume it is a typo, but it could also be a misprinting. In this latter case you could choose to make Schithers into a pseudonym of Scithers (at least we try to archive what is printed), but you could also choose to acknowledge it in the notes of the pub. Stonecreek 18:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, Hell, my bad habits keep catching up with me. Every time I type Scithers I try to put the h in, and I have to go back and take it out.  This one I missed.  It's just a typo. Bob 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Amra reprints
I don't think the title of this record is correct. If it's a reprint of the 1959 issue, that should be its title. The publication date is 1974, not the publication title. Mhhutchins 21:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K., I fixed this one and V2n2. Bob 01:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Contents
You've made a submission to add an essay titled "Contents" to this record. Is this just a list or table of contents, or is it an essay about the contents? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the table of contents, headed by just "Contents". The page also lists the artists and a paragraph of information about the publication itself.  Typical table of contents page.  Bob 01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * According to ISFDB standards, table of contents should not be included (see this oft-linked to page). I'll reject the submissions. Mhhutchins 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unnumbered pages
The page count of unnumbered pages (as in this record) should be entered in brackets: [197]. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I should have known that. Bob 17:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

NONFICTION or CHAPTERBOOK
I have the submission to change the type of this title record from NONFICTION to CHAPTERBOOK. If this is a work of fiction that's less than 40,000 words, you'll also have to change the type of the pub record, and add a shortfiction content record to it. Otherwise, the title record and the pub record will generate a mismatch error, and the pub record becomes a "stray" (with no linking title reference) and a malformed CHAPTERBOOK record. Mhhutchins 16:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The only readable text is the Preface, so I think this qualifies as a CHAPTERBOOK. I did hesitate over what to call it, but nonfiction it clearly is not. Bob 17:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding a pub to the proper title record
I have a submission to add the 1999 Wildside reprint of Al Azif to this title record which credits the five pseudonymous authors, and not to the title record of the 1973 edition which credited "Abdul Alhazred ". Does the 1999 reprint credit the names of the true authors on its title page? Mhhutchins 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. In fact, I just went back to the original to try to resurrect the note about where the information came from, but you had already replaced the original.  Nowhere in either book are the true authors credited.  I had always thought that de Camp was the author because he did the Preface. Bob 17:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what happened. When I went to Add a New Publication to This Title, the authors were automatically put in.  Should have been more alert. Bob 17:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When that happens, it's a good sign that you've entered the book under the wrong title record. I can accept the submission for the reprint, then you can unmerge it from its title record, and then merge it with the correct one. Or you can cancel the submission and clone the 1973 record (always the better choice when it's a reprint). But don't do that until you've added a shortfiction record to the original pub record. This will need to be done because I accepted your submissions changing the title and pub to a CHAPTERBOOK. Mhhutchins 17:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's the wrong title record. I changed the original pub to CHAPTERBOOK before I wrote this reply, so that's no longer a problem.  The submission is characterized as NONFICTION though, so I'll close that submission and clone the original pub.  But the title record shows the full list of authors, not just the pseudonym.  The new submission will fall under the same title record. Bob 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it didn't. (I just accepted it.  Look at the record.) If you clone a pub record, it will retain the original's title record. Though I wish you had followed my direction to add a shortfiction content record to the original pub record.  Now you'll have to add one to each of the two pub records and then merge the two. Mhhutchins 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Michael, I don't know where you're looking. Please go to George H. Scithers, page down to Chapterbooks.  Under that you will find only one entry, Al Azif.  When you click on it, you will see the title record with the authors listed.  It will contain two pubs plus reviews.  Both pubs have CHAPTERBOOK as the type of pub, just like the title.  So the new submission did go under the same title record. Bob 19:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Both pub records are under the variant title record that credits "Abdul Alhazred". Of course, all pubs will appear (are visible) on the title record page of the parent title record, regardless of how the books are actually credited, but they are under the record that credits the stated author. Go to this title record (the one that credits Alhazred) and you'll see both books are listed there.  Better yet, go to each of the pub records and click on the link labeled "Title Reference" and you're led back to each one's title record. Mhhutchins 19:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As for adding a shortfiction content, the only way to do that is to change the ESSAY on the Preface to shortfiction. That can be done, of course, but it bothers me.  Bob 19:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is telling you to change an essay to shortfiction. I'm asking you to ADD a content record, just like you would add a story to any publication record: click on the button that says "Add Title", fill in the blanks, and submit. Mhhutchins 19:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose it could be considered a parody of an essay and therefor fiction. This goes back to the CHAPTERBOOK classification.  The whole book is a parody; should the classification be NOVEL even though you can't read it? Bob 19:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If it were a novel you would have typed it as NOVEL instead of CHAPTERBOOK which according to the page of instructions (which I'm always referring you to) is "primarily used for separate publications of a single work of short fiction". That's why I asked you in the previous message to confirm that it's a chapterbook, a work of short fiction (meaning less than 40,000 words). Mhhutchins 19:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The only part you can read is the Preface. There are 197 pages of unreadable text.  The Preface is certainly a farce.  So the pub does not share the usual the usual size (number of pages) of a CHAPTERBOOK, nor does it have the number of words of a novel.  There is no way to ADD a shortstory, it's either change the Preface to a shortstory or reclassify the whole pub as a novel.  The latter is easier to do, although more misleading about the nature of the pub.  I'm going to change to a novel. Bob 20:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I explained above it is quite easy to ADD a shortstory to the contents of the pub while retaining the essay. You've added content to pub records many times, so I'm not sure why you're misunderstanding what I'm asking you to do.


 * Go to the pub record.
 * Click on the link "Edit This Pub" under the Editing Tools menu on the left side of the page.
 * On the pub edit page, scroll down to the Contents section. Click the button labeled "Add Title".
 * Fill in the blanks and submit.


 * Mhhutchins 21:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I see you've made submissions to change the title to a NOVEL. If you don't feel this is a novel ("more misleading about the nature of the pub"), then use the following to make a decision. If it's nonfiction, change the type to NONFICTION. If it's fiction, how long is it? If it's less than 40,000 words (regardless of the language), make it into a CHAPTERBOOK with a shortfiction content record. If it's more than 40,000 words, change it to a NOVEL.  I'll leave the decision to you, as the primary verifier of the book. The title record has to be one of those three choices. I will accept all submissions you make, once you've made a decision. When you've finished let me know, and I'll go back and clean it up, based on your choice. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll stick with NOVEL. Anything I pick will fail to make the nature of the pub obvious.  I think this pub was designed to make things difficult for bibliographers. Bob 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah, the Necrotelicomnicon was the nightmare. Although this needs looking at too. Roll D100 for a sanity check. BLongley 02:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

When a review is an essay
Do not add reviews for anything other than books or short stories in the Review section of the pub entry form. Reviews of films, recordings, comics, graphic novels, etc. should be entered in the form "Review of XXX by XXX". So the review in this record should be removed from the record and then a content record of the essay type should be added that gives the title as "Review of the film "The Beast" by Alexander Ptushko", the date should be the same as the publication in which the review appears (not the date of the film), and the author should be that of the reviewer. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The content item just above the present "Review" has the actual title of the article ("The Beast"). Should I change that to "Review of the film "The Beast" by Alexander Ptushko"?  Or should I put that info in the notes?  I was confused by the other review (of a book) I entered.  There I have a content entry of the article as an ESSAY as well as an entry as a REVIEW.  Is that the right way to handle a book review? Bob 23:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If a book review is part of a column, you create an ESSAY record for the column name and separate REVIEW records for each book being reviewed.
 * If it's an article, not a column, that contains a book review, you create an ESSAY record giving the name of the article, and a REVIEW record for the book.
 * If an article is a review of a film (or other non-book items) and is titled, then create an ESSAY record using the name of the article. Don't create a REVIEW record.
 * If an article is a review of a film (or other non-book items) and is not titled, then create an ESSAY record in the format I suggested. Don't create a REVIEW record.
 * In this pub you need to remove the review, then delete the record of the review, then adjust the name of the essay to reflect how it is titled. You can always add an explanation in the note field of the ESSAY record about the contents of the essay. Mhhutchins 00:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that clarifies things for me. Bob 03:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Two issues of Amra with the same publication date
V2n10 and V2n11. Did the second one appear later in the same month? Mhhutchins 06:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging editor records to create an annual listing
I've merged the editor records for the year 1959 for the fanzine Amra, so that all of them appear under the same editor record. We do this when there are multiple issues within the same calendar year. It helps to organize the issues, and declutters the editor's summary page. Let me know when you've entered the last 1960 issue and I can give you instructions on how to do this. Mhhutchins 06:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been waiting to do that until I decided how to group them. 1959 seems like a convenient group.  But we may want to put 1960 and 1961 in a single group.  V2n13 doesn't have a month on it, but it was issued close to the time V2n12 was.  There's a comment on the contents page not to panic if you received this issue before number 12.  And you probably noticed that two issues carry the date of April 1960 (one is given as "early April" and the other as "late April").  V2n14 is dated January 1961.  There are 5 issues in 1961 altogether (V2n18 is dated December 29, 1961).  That rate of about 5 per year (average) seems to hold through the 1960s, but there will be a lot more variation and leaner years as the publication rolls on.  Groups of about 10 issues makes sense to me.  I might have decided to group them by issue number instead of year.  As I've said before, fanzines are not like professional magazines. Bob 21:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to group them as you wish. And I did notice the two issues dated April 1960.  See the previous message. Mhhutchins 22:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Should I enter "early April 1960" and "late April 1960" in the titles? Bob 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You really should only be entering the date stated in the publication in its title field. If a month is not stated, but you're certain of the month of publication, you can give the date in the date field, and record the source of your date in the note field. But it shouldn't be in the title field unless you need to disambiguate titles, and in cases like this, the date should be bracketed to indicated that it's not stated, e. g. "Amra, [February] 1960". In other words, we try as much as possible to record exactly what is stated in the publication, and everything that's not stated should be clearly indicated, and sourced. If both of these issues give the month as April without designating a day, it's fine to leave them as is. The volume numbering is sufficient to disambiguate the records. Mhhutchins 00:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Amra V2N13
Can you check the review on page 13 of this issue to see if the book being reviewed is given as "...Yando" or "...Yondo". I've manually linked it to the correct title record, but want to note in the review's title record if it mistakenly titles the book. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 20:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My spelling problem again. It's Yondo, of course.  I am not a fan of CAS, so the misspelling wasn't immediately obvious to me.  Bob 23:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Amra V2N14
I'm assuming the interiorart credit for "Ray arcia Capella" in this issue is a typo. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's Garcia. Bob 00:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A few questions
I have begun creating variants for the pieces in Amra that are credited to "pseudonyms" (more often than not just an informal form of the name, considering the context in which they were published.) A few questions have arose.

Can you confirm that the author of this piece is credited as "Robert F. Briney"? We have a "Robert E. Briney" in the db.

Is the co-author of this piece credited as "Chuck Hanson" or "Chuck Hansen"? We have a record by the latter already in the db.

Could the "Roger Gilbert" of this piece also be the "Robert Gilbert" of this piece? And could they both be, author and illustrator?

I want to regularize the author given as for. Is the "ö" character ever used in his credit in the pages of Amra.

Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good questions. Nyberg:  Yes, it's always shown with the diacritical mark over the "o", but I don't know how to produce that.  I'm sure you do.  There have been other places in content titles with that mark as well.  Maybe less important than names, but I'd like to fix them.


 * The others are all as you suspected; I've corrected them all. I always have trouble with Roger/Robert for some reason.  It goes both ways, incidentally.  The others there is even less excuse for. Glad you caught them. There is a lot of variation in the way the names are used, frequently one way in the table of contents, then another way on the article.  I've been careful to use the article heading.  But since the artists are credited in the T of C, the artists are more likely to vary than the authors.  The illustrations are sometimes "signed" but usually only with the last name or with initials. Bob 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Using the TOC for art credits is fine. Which brings up another question: most of the art credit you give are for one record per artist per issue. If you believe that a certain piece of art illustrates an essay or story, you can create a separate content record for that artwork, using the title of the essay or story for the title of the art record. If it's just "filler" and not specific to illustrate a work, then it's OK to title it the same as the issue. BTW, holding down the ALT key and at the same time entering 0246 on the numerical keypad (right side of keyboard) will produce ö (For a capital Ö, enter 0214). There's no rush to get make the changes. Just when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the last word of this title a typo for "Career"? Mhhutchins 04:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the author of this piece credited as "Hoffman" or "Hoffmann"? Mhhutchins 04:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Single "n", both over the essay and in the T of C. Proof I'm not the only bad speller! Bob 15:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll make it into a variant. And about "Career" in this title? Mhhutchins 20:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good eyesight! Fixed.  Bob 21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the blessing (or curse) of being an editor. Mhhutchins 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you any more thoughts about the question of being more specific about the interiorart credits? I ask this so that there can be a better correspondence between the works that originally appeared in Amra and were reprinted in various essay collections by Mirage Press and later by Ace Books. I've been merging some of the reprinted essays but have hit a road block when it comes to the interior art records.


 * Difficult. Most often, each article has one (sometimes two) illustrators.  I could assign a page number to the interiorart for each such case.  Of course, one artist may contribute to more than one article, so there might be multiple interiorart citations per artist per issue.  The artwork may or may not be related to the article, though.  Some illustrations are titled.  They seldom are related to the essay they accompany.  I could cite these by title instead of by Amra issue.  I'm willing to go back and do this if you think it's useful. The Amra artwork is frequently spectacular.  Bob 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have any of the Mirage collections, it would be nice to compare the art they reprinted and try to do a one-to-one correspondence with the work in Amra. Even if you have to variant a record because it was retitled. I'm just trying to source individual work instead of creating content records that don't really add much value to the database. Just knowing Jim Cawthorn illustrated "Who Was Crom?" in the January 1960 issue adds a lot more value than a single record indicating that he was one of the illustrators in this particular issue. You don't have to create records for every single illustration, but if it's clear that a work (credited to the artist) illustrates a specific work, the record would be more complete. Take a look at any number of the thousands of records for magazine issues in the db and you'll see how most of them credit illustrations to the individual stories (and sometimes 2 or more interior art records for the same story). Imagine someone looking at Roy G. Krenkel's or James Cawthorn's summary page and seeing just lists of issues of Amra in which their work appeared and how much better it would be if the works they illustrate are listed instead. Of course, all of this is up to you, and nothing requires that you do more than what you have been doing, and for which many users would be quite pleased, and appreciative of the effort that went into it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice that many of the interiorart citations I changed in issues V2n4 through V2n13 now have "aka AmraV2nX, date" as well as the new citation -- but not all. Why is that?  My next step was going to be finding the deleted citations in the V2n1, 2 and 3 and delete them from the data base.  Should I do that?


 * It's probably because you changed the title of the piece and it had already been varianted to the pseudonym under it's old title. Changing a title record doesn't change the varianted title record. They'll all have to be repaired manually. As I've learned, almost every other piece published in this fanzine used the "familiar" form of a person's name, and I've spent quite a lot of time varianting them to the canonical name. Mhhutchins 18:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In V2n5 there appears to be an error in the interiorart on page 13. Where there should be [as by Ray Capella], instead the close parens are after the name of Capella's co-illustrator.  I can't fix this; I presume you can.  Bob 18:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably the same reason as I give above. I'll go back and repair all of the art credit records in which this has happened. Mhhutchins 18:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Title updates for the editor records of Amra
I rejected the submissions to change the series of the 1960-1961 editor records from "Amra" to a new series titled "Amra 1960 - 1961". You should first merge the editor records and then retitle the new editor record.


 * 1) Go to the editor's summary page:
 * 2) Click on "Show All Titles" under the Editing Tools menu.
 * 3) Check the boxes of each editor record which you want to merge into one record.
 * 4) Click "Merge Selected Records" (at the bottom of the page).
 * 5) Reconcile the merged records. The date chosen should be the earliest one. It doesn't matter what title you choose, because you're going to change it later.
 * 6) Click "Complete Merge" and wait for this submission to be accepted.
 * 7) Go back to the editor's page and find the editor record you merged and click it.
 * 8) Click "Edit Title Data" under the Editing Tools Menu.
 * 9) Change the title field to whatever name you want to give it. Ordinarily, this would be the name of the periodical and the time period that the merged issues cover, in the format "TITLE - DATE PERIOD", e.g. "Amra - 1960-1961". If it doesn't already have it, give the name of the series in the series field, in this case the series is the name of the periodical, "Amra". (That's not always the case.)
 * 10) Submit.

Mhhutchins 04:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Thank you for the guidance.  Bob 15:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Double entry
Your submission updating this record added a second record for the essay "John Carter and His Electric Barsoom" by "Thomas Stratton". Mhhutchins 04:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The same mistake I originally made. Note one is John Carter (wrong) and the other is John Carper (right).  Bob 13:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Scrolls and Stuff"
There are two essays with the same title by de Camp in two different issues of Amra (November 1959 and October 1960). If they're not the same essay, you should disambiguate them to prevent another editor from inadvertently merging them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Scrolls is the Amra term (sometimes) for book reviews. I'll start putting in the issue on all Scrolls items. Bob 13:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Titles of Amra editor records
I believe that the spacing in the title "Amra - 1960 - 1961" may cause confusion, when "Amra - 1960-1961" is more clear. We usually don't group more than a year's worth of issues, but when we do, we don't leave spaces around the dash in the year range. Mhhutchins 00:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've tried to clone V2n1, 2 and 3 to regenerate the second printings, but can't.  A message comes up that the identity of the parent can't be determined.  I suspect this is because Amra - 1959 is an EDITOR type, while the 'zine of course is FANZINE.  Do I need to unmerge the 'zines, clone them, then remerge? Bob 16:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your suspicions are partially correct. In order to clone a publication record, the system must find the record's title record. But due to the software design differences between book records and magazine records, only the former has title records, while the latter has editor records. So magazine publication records can't be cloned, but...you can import their contents. Create a new magazine record (fanzine in this case), completing the meta-data (the header information before the contents section), and once it's in the system, choose the "Import" function and use the record number of the issue that you're importing contents from. Once the "reprint" issue is in the system, you can merge its editor record with the corresponding editor record of the original printing. Mhhutchins 19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Placing editor records in series "Amra"
It's not necessary to make individual submissions to enter each editor record into the series. That can be done with one submission after all of them are merged into one record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Forest Scent -- Oligocene Period
Should there be a closing quotation mark and are there two dashes or one emdash in this title? Mhhutchins 01:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I put in the quotation mark. The actual mark in the illustration is like a tilde ~ rather than a dash or emdash. I put that in, but it seemed to go to the top of the line instead of in the middle of it. Bob 17:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It displays in the center, so it seems to be OK. Mhhutchins 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Dreams from R'Lyeh"
Is this poem the same as this one? Mhhutchins 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I put in the Amra citation for each, but when I went back to the second one, there was a very small Part 2 under the title. So I went back and removed the Amra citations, and put Part 2 after the second.  I'm fairly sure there will be other parts.  Somewhere I have a pub by this title by Lin Carter that includes more than 14 poems. Bob 17:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Trouble responding to your talk page
It looks like you're not logged in to the wiki side. Even though you use the same user id and password, you have to be logged in to each side (the db and the wiki) before you can edit either. This happens to me occasionally, even though I check the box to remain logged in. Hope this is the problem. Mhhutchins 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I couldn't figure out how to do this, so after fumbling around a while, I logged out, then logged back in. That seemed to solve the problem. Bob 17:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Amra, Sep 1965
Is the piece by REH in this issue shortfiction? Also, could the art on page 18 be by Arthur Thomson, the fanzine artist aka ATom? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed the REH letter citation. I'm not really familiar with ATom's work.  The illo is a cartoon, fitting for the review, which would fit I suppose.  And ATom apparently was often credited as Arthur Thomson, so I would guess this illo artist was ATom. Bob 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Amra, February 1966
Unless the book under review on page 3 of this issue is an omnibus of the three titles, each of the three titles should be given separate review records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They are three books in a series, and are reviewed as a series. Of course, the other book being reviewed IS an omnibus of three books.  Leiber is reviewing the two series, not the individual books.  It seems to me that the present configuration makes that clear, or as clear as possible.  I've actually avoided the REVIEW classification when the review is about an author's entire oeuvre. Bob 18:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the record you created for a book titled The Sword in the Stone, The Witch in the Wood, The Ill-Made Knight. There is no record for an omnibus publication of the three titles in the database, nor anywhere else that I could find.  The omnibus The Once and Future King includes the three titles for which you created a separate review record. My question then is, does the review mention an omnibus publication of those three books under the title The Sword in the Stone, The Witch in the Wood, The Ill-Made Knight? And forgive me, but I don't see any other record for a review by Leiber of a second series, unless you believe The Once and Future King and The Sword in the Stone, The Witch in the Wood, The Ill-Made Knight are two different series. As for reviews of series, we don't have that ability. You have to create review records for each separate title, which brings me back to the original purpose of this inquiry. Mhhutchins 18:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, I guess I wasn't very clear before.  No, there is no omnibus for the three books listed.  Leiber reviews, not the individual books, but the series of three books.  If they are listed separately, anyone who expects to find a review of a single book or individual books will be disappointed.  If you insist that the three books can't be listed together, then I believe it would be clearer to delete that review altogether and mention in the notes that Leiber also considers that three-book series in his review. Bob 19:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're correct. You weren't making yourself clear when you started talking about "Leiber is reviewing the two series, not the individual books." in your first response. In the future when a piece reviews several titles in a series, please create a record for each book being reviewed. If it's a general essay about a series, not a review of the individual books, create an essay record. Review records are automatically linked to title records if the system can find a match. And it will never find a match for the title of a book that doesn't exist. I'll remove the review record from the publication record, and delete it. Mhhutchins 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

George Heap = George Scithers
So if there really was such a person as George Heap, we need to correct the notes in issues of Amra, and remove the pseudonym making him George Scithers. Mhhutchins 19:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Second was done before I wrote the bio. I'll follow up on first. I admit I was surprised.  Why I didn't recall the obit I don't know.  Must not have made much of an impression at the time. Bob 19:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

De Campq?
I'm sure this was a typo. The name as above appears in a review from [this]. My typos usually involve letters adjacent on the keyboard!! ;-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blush! Hit the tab a little off. Bob 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

More "E. Hoffman Price"
There are three more Amra records crediting. Can you confirm that these are recorded correctly, and if so, make them into variant records for E. Hoffmann Price? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, even letters from Price are single "n". They may be wrong, but they are consistent!  I thought you only had to make the Hoffman name a variant once. Bob 00:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't make a name into variant. The pseudonym existed even before you started adding the Amra records. But each and every time a pseudonym is used, you have to create a variant record. You may have noticed that I've stopped doing this (I think the last issue I worked on was in 1966.) When you get a chance you'll have to go back to each issue and create variant records for every record that is credited to a pseudonym. Along with Price, that includes:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . (There may be others that I'm not familiar with.)


 * Also, can you determine if "Gary Morrow" is Gray Morrow? If so, a pseudonym will have to be created, and then the records varianted.
 * Check on the credits on pages 13 and 20 of this issue: "Lon Carter" and "Jom Cawthorn".
 * Page 3 of this issue credit for "Georg Barr" appears to be a typo.
 * The limerick on page 18 of this issue credited to "Johh Boardman" may be another typo.
 * Are the artists on page 2 and 3 of this issue the same?
 * Do you know if "G. C. Mitchell, III" in this issue is the same author "Griffin Mitchell, III" in this issue?
 * Is the author of this piece actually credited as "Lin(wood) Carter"? If so, a pseudonym will have to be created and the record will have to be varianted.
 * The credit for this record appears to be a typo.


 * Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All of the Gary Morrows I entered should have been Gray Morrow. I typed what I thought I saw, not what appeared.  I strongly suspect all other Gary Morrow entries are also incorrect.  I looked at one - The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.  That's an If magazine, the cover of which is credited to Gray Morrow, the interior art to Gary Morrow for the same story. Bob 20:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll leave messages on the verifiers' talk pages. It's always possible that the credit is for "Gary Morrow" and a pseudonym and variants would have to be created. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Linking unlinked reviews in Amra
Next step to cleaning up Amra: you need to link the reviews for those that the system was unable to match with current title records. There are several reasons why it wasn't able to do this:
 * 1) The title wasn't an exact match with the one in the db. Either the review gave the wrong title, or one that was either incomplete, or a full title with series name, etc. Or you may have made a typo. If either case, look for the correct title record, copy its record number (the number that follows cgi? in the URL of the record), go back to the review record, click on "Link Review to Title", and then enter the number of the title record and submit. It's not necessary to correct the title as given in the review record unless it's a typo. Otherwise, leave it as given in the publication.
 * 2) The author credit wasn't an exact match with the one in the db. Same process as above, but one big difference. You have to correct the author credit in the review record to match the spelling of the author's name (whether it's a canonical name or pseudonym). For example: the reviews in this issue credited to "Thomas Burnett Swan". You'll have to correct it even if that's the way it appears in the publication. In the note field explain that the publication gave the wrong spelling of the author's name.
 * 3) There is not a record of the book in the database, and should be. If it's a genre work, you have the option of creating a record for the pub, or just leave the review unlinked. It's better to create a new record if the work being reviewed is a spec-fic or spec-fic related work.
 * 4) The book is not in the database, and doesn't belong here. If the work is neither spec-fic nor spec-fic related, you can leave the review record unlinked, or you can create an essay record and then remove and delete the review record.

Please ask if you need assistance with any specific title. Mhhutchins 23:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephen F. Schultheis
You want to change the author credit of this record from Steve Schultheis to Stephen F. Schultheis. It's already a variant of a record by Stephen F. Schultheis. This record should match the way it was actually published. How was it credited in this issue? Mhhutchins 02:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's given as Steve. Bob 13:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So it's in the database under the correct name. Look at how it's displayed in the pub record. Mhhutchins 14:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This title http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1035360 has itself as a variant. How do you remove the variant?  As near as I can tell the two are exactly the same, not variants. Bob 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The records are different. The variant record gives the author as "Jim Cawthorn". The parent record gives it as "James Cawthorn. There were two records as by "Jim Cawthorn" (it was reprinted in a Mirage Press collection) so I merged the two. The proper variant relationship remains the same. Mhhutchins 14:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Both appearances of the essay give the artist as Jim Cawthorn.  Both have been made variant titles, putting James Cawthorn as the "author" of the INTERIORART.  It seems to me that the records are identical.  If one was to be the parent I would expect the parent to be the original publication, not the copy. Bob 14:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The parent title record is the one with the canonical author credited. That doesn't mean it was ever published credited to that specific name. In this case both publications of the piece were credited to Jim Cawthorn, and the publication records of both publications give him credit. Then the credited title record was varianted so that it would appear on the canonical author's summary page. The publication records will now give both the true author (James Cawthorn) and the credited author (Jim Cawthorn in the [as by..] credit). I don't see two identical records. Each record has a different author. Please look at each of the title records that I linked to above, and then go to the second line labeled Author and you'll see that each has a different author. Mhhutchins 17:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't need to point out that Author is the same as Artist in the ISFDB. And "parent" doesn't mean the first publication, as I state above, the parent title record is the one credited to the author's real name, or the one that the ISFDB recognizes as the canonical name. We have to choose one when an author (or artist) is credited under different names. In this case, we chose "James Cawthorn" as the canonical name, so the record credited to him is the parent record, even though the piece has never been published with a credit to "James Cawthorn". This is a fundamental ISFDB relational function. Mhhutchins 17:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The situation that was bothering me went away, I think when the variant title was created for the Amra entry. What was bothering me was that instead of James Cawthorn [as by Jim Cawthorn] appearing as I expected it to, what appeared was James Cawthorn [the whole variant title].  That seemed strange, but I now think it was because the Jim Cawthorn original title in Amra had not had the variant title with James created yet.  Anyhow, the situation is now resolved as far as I'm concerned. Bob 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Any variant record whose title is not exactly the same as the title of the parent record will display the record in the manner you describe. In this case, it seems there was an extra space after the colon in one of them. That happened when I merged it with the record as it was published in the Mirage Press publication and failed to see there was a difference. I'm glad it's been resolved. Mhhutchins 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry Bob, variants are one of the most over-stretched features here - we use them for variant titles, variant authors, serialisations, and now translations - and the displays haven't caught up with all these uses yet. We should probably address those problems before we expand them to other relationships. I think Michael's final goal will require one-to-many relationships that are a nightmare: but the many-to-one or one-to-one we already have need fixing first. "Same title, different language" looks like a priority for me, but that's probably only because I'm currently working outside my native language. BLongley 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note in Amra's editor records
In the note field you say "Amra uses three unusual names for common fanzine sections. All four were derived ..." Isn't that one too many? Mhhutchins 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Four is correct. I'll fix it. Bob 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cabell's The Cream of the Jest
There is already a record of this title, including the 1917 edition by McBride. If you were intending to add a new publication of this title, you should have used the "Add Publication to This Title" function, not "Add New Novel". Either way, I think the edition you want to add is already in the db. Mhhutchins 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And I believe the 1923 printing you want to add may actually be the December 1922 printing here. Does the Amra review mention this being the first revised printing? Mhhutchins 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For some reason, I couldn't find the existing record. No, the review doesn't mention that this is the first revised edition, and it doesn't give the number of pages, either.  I got that info from Bookfinder.com.  My submission should be dropped. Bob 17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Search for "cream of the jest" under "Fiction Titles" and it pulls up every record using that exact phrase. There's two: one for a collection and one for a novel. Mhhutchins 18:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried tying the review to the pub, but I am told that the number on the pub (321788) doesn't exist. What's the problem? Bob 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reviews are linked to title records, not pub records. The title record for The Cream of the Jest is 4744. When you link the review, that is the number you enter into the Parent # field under "Enter the record number of the title this review refers to." Mhhutchins 18:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess the others I did there was only one pub for the title. Thanks!  Bob 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Linking review records
Just a note to let you know, in case you're not aware, that correcting a review record's title or author field doesn't automatically link it to the proper title record. Automatic linking only happens once: at the time of creation. Once the record's in the database, you have to manually link it to the right title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I found that out with the first one I corrected (Jason by Henry Treece). Bob 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tales of [the] Maghrebinia
According to OCLC and other sources, there is no "the" in the title of this publication. Mhhutchins 00:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, you added a content record for the novel. This isn't done. One will have to be removed, and then the title records will have to be merged. Mhhutchins 00:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You did it again in creating a record for this pub. You should NOT create a content record for the novel. That's done automatically. The same thing when you create records for anthologies, magazines, collections, etc. You only create records for the contents. The system will create a title record. I thought you'd created pub records before and didn't have this problem. You will have to remove the extra title record from this pub. Click on "Remove Titles from This Pub". On the next screen, check the box next to the Regular Title, NOT the Container Title. AFTER the submission is accepted go to the author's summary page and click on "Check for Duplicate Titles" and then merge the two title records that were created at the time of your original submission. Mhhutchins 01:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know I did it twice. I wanted to be sure to enter the interiorart, didn't realize that I should not also enter the novel.  Bob 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Linking review records to variant titles
It is acceptable to link reviews to the variant title of a work. So this review should be linked to the variant record 2095 instead of the parent record 1137995. That way it will appear under the display page of both the parent record and the variant record. When you're looking for the correct title record to link a review to, first look for the title that more closely resembles the publication that was being reviewed. Sorry for this being so complicated. It's become second-nature for me now, when I'm entering review records, to make sure that there are already titles in the database and to make sure that the review records are correctly spelled and properly author-credited so that the system does it automatically when the record is created. Having to do it manually sucks big time. Especially when you're creating a record for a publication that has 50 or more reviews. Mhhutchins 04:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How to handle the credits for reviews
Please read this help page. I've linked this page to your talk page so many times, it should be the first page you go to when you're working on a function you've never performed. I rejected several submissions in your attempts to link reviews and this help section should tell you why. If after reading this section you have any specific questions about why your submissions were rejected, just ask. (Especially read the subsections on how to handle Title and Author.)Mhhutchins 04:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Creating a pseudonym...
...should not be done until a pub record credited to that name is in the database. If ever someone enters a pub credited to "Hans Heinz Ewers" a pseudonym can be created. BTW, I would not use Bookfinders or Abebooks.com as a source for anything without a reliable secondary source for corroboration. Book dealers generally want to sell you the book, not provide you with bibliographic data. There are a few exceptions, but I've seen enough bad data in those listings to make me wary of most them. Try to find the specific publications that are mentioned in the Amra reviews and see how they're credited. OCLC is a good source. Mhhutchins 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought it was in the database. I entered those books into the data base with a single n, not aware of the double n spelling. But I see that those entries never made it.  Now we have the name with the single n hanging loose in the database because of the reviews. Bob 19:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you'll read the previous message, it will explain how to handle such situations. I rejected the submissions to add records with the bad spelling of the name. Go to the link "My Rejected Edits" to see the messages I left you. Mhhutchins 20:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're assuming a bad spelling of the name. I don't believe that, I think it's a variation used for at least some copies of the publications in the U.S. Can't see how to prove it either way short of buying copies of the book. Bob 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not assuming anything. The submissions you made that I rejected had a bad spelling of the author's name. I looked up the editions that you attempted to create and saw that each of them were published as by "Hanns Heinz Ewers", and that they were already in the database as such. So I repeat, try to find the specific publications that are mentioned in the Amra reviews to determine how those publications are credited. And I repeat again, once you've found a reliable secondary source that credits the books as by "Hans", you can create a record for those publications and then we will create a pseudonym. You don't have to buy copies of the books, just find a reliable secondary source and note that source in the submission. I'm not saying that there never was a book published by "Hans", just that we cannot create a pseudonym until there's a record in the database. Why is that so difficult to understand? Mhhutchins 05:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The database attributes the books to Hanns, true. But none of these books is verified.  I've run across too many unverified books in the database with incorrect information (or example, Virgil Finlay) to trust unverified information.  Even verified pubs sometimes contain incorrect information, although much, much less often (in my admittedly limited experience).  I've asked a couple of booksellers what the spelling is on the books they have for sale.  Maybe they'll reply, maybe not. I really don't much care about what's in the database at this point, but I'm curious.  Bob 14:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think editor Rtrace would be quite upset to find that you think the three books he verified to Hanns aren't verified. Look at the sources that he used to verify them. All three of these John Day editions (The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Alraune, and Vampire) were the ones for which you wanted to create new records attributing the author as "Hans". Mhhutchins 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * About your last remark, my problem is that I care too much about what's in the database. And if I come across too strong at times, I apologize. Mhhutchins 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello to both of you. Regarding the spelling of Hanns or Hans Heinz Ewers: the thing Michael is trying to say is that it is better to have one canonical name to stick to until we have a verified publication with a variant spelling (that verification may be done via a reliable source, though). That's because it can become a real pain to take the steps backwards to the canonical name (and I know, because I had to do it once). Stonecreek 14:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K. guys, I got a reply from one of the sellers who advertised "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", Day edition, with "Hans" who admitted the spelling on the book is actually "Hanns". So obviously, Leiber in his reviews and these sellers all repeated what they thought they saw instead of what was actually there!  Now I'm convinced (and without having to buy a book). Let me make one thing clear.  I was never upset by the rejection of the pubs I entered with "Hans"; I wouldn't have submitted them if I had any idea the "Hanns" pubs already existed.  But I had no idea that the name might be spelled incorrectly, or that "Hanns" was a name.  I'm glad I was able to confirm where the error was. Bob 19:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Virgil Finlay
I'm holding a submission to change the title field of this pub from Virgil Finlay: Selected Illustrations to Virgil Finlay, but change the title record's title field from Virgil Finlay: Selected Illustrations to Selected Illustrations. Only one can be correct. Which one is it? Mhhutchins 03:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was gunshy about entering a title for the pub in the contents. The title of the pub is just Virgil Finlay.  The title of a section of the pub is Selected Illustrations.  Nowhere are the two used in combination. Bob 03:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You were changing the title record when you changed the field to Selected Illustrations. I'll accept the submission and change the title record back to match the pub record's title field. You can always add a content record (of the ESSAY or INTERIORART type), but don't change the NONFICTION content record, which is visible (and editable) on the edits for a NONFICTION publication record. Mhhutchins 04:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of Nils Holgersson
Can you check to see if the review in thie issue is of a Swedish language publication or an English translation? Your submission linked it to the Swedish title. And the only English title in the db is The Wonderful Adventures of Nil. Mhhutchins 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The review doesn't really say: it's an examination of the character who is said to be in a book of the same name. I took this to mean it's the Swedish edition, which is the only one with the character's name in the title.  The date, cost, publisher, etc are not given. However, the reviewer says he was rereading the book that he had read in his childhood while sitting on an airplane (2 airplanes, really).  It could be that he read the Swedish version as a child and was then reading an English version on the plane. I did struggle with even citing the essay as a review, but concluded it was too useful to anyone interested in the pub not to cite it. Bob 22:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Map entry format
I changed the title of the interiorart record in this record based on the ISFDB standards of titling map records. Mhhutchins 23:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And the one in this record too. Mhhutchins 23:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And this one. Mhhutchins 23:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why I get everything backwards, but it seems I do. I was relieved to finally finish Amra entry.  There are around 1-1/2 to 2 dozen reviewed books that are NOT entered, but all are non-genre and not closely related to the genre.  All are knightly warfare things that the members of the writing staff found interesting, so I felt no need to put them in.  I'm going to do David Weber, then go do another fanzine, likely Whispers or Weirdbook.  These look less daunting that Amra, since they are in the database, if not verified.  I'll alternate for a while, author, fanzine, author, fanzine.  Beside the above fanzines, I want to enter The Howard Collector, The Fantasy Fan, REH:  Two-Gun Raconteur, The Robert E. Howard Foundation Newsletter, Etchings & Odysseys, The Cimmerian, Fantasy Newsletter/Review, Dark Fantasy, Crypt of Cthulhu, Trumpet, Fantasy Tales and a bunch of shorter-lived ones.  Plenty to keep me going for a long while. Bob 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You were correct in not creating records for the nongenre books that were not closely related to sf. About other fanzines, you'll find that someone has made a pretty good start on entering Crypt of Cthulhu. It's mostly the Necronomicon Press issues that are stub records. Mhhutchins 00:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Makes it easier for me, to be sure.  I thought Hallowmas was October rather than November by the way. Bob 00:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hallowmas is November 1. Halloween (the "e'en" before the "mass") is on October 31. Mhhutchins 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Isler's drawings for Weber
There are two records for work by for Echoes of Honor, and the may be the same work. Can you look to see if perhaps the two should be merged? Mhhutchins 01:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I merged them; I kept the name "schematics" which is more to the point, and the earlier date, since the paperback was published later than the hardcover. Bob 01:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Crown of Slaves cover image
You've uploaded three times what appears to be the same image. What seems to be the problem? Mhhutchins 01:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It keeps reverting to the old image.  The new image is obviously very similar, but the new one contains a banner missing from the old.  I had this problems before, but it went away when I deleted the original image from the pub.  Not this time.  I went to the instructions, but no help. Is there some way to delete the original image from the database? Bob 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The new image is in the system (now five times). The old image is in your cache. You have to clear it out. Press "F5" on your keyboard. Do this anytime you replace an old image with a new one. It's not an ISFDB problem. That's the way your computer works. Until you refresh your cache it keeps the image of the file when you first loaded it to your computer. Mhhutchins 01:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This was explained back on February 15. Mhhutchins 02:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Number six and counting. I'm going to delete all but one file. Mhhutchins 02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's that f5 that makes it work. That's counterintuitive for me. Bob 02:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll have to complain to the people who invented the computer cache. Once a URL has been visited, your computer automatically stores the data so that it can more quickly retrieve it without going back to the server and pull everything a second time. I'm not even sure if any website can force your computer to refresh its cache, but I'm not a software designer. Mhhutchins 02:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In Fury Born
You entered the URL of the publication record into the Image URL field of this record. Mhhutchins 20:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, fixed. Bob 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)