User talk:Bluesman/Archive2

Roger MacBride Allen's The Depths of Time
I'm holding your submission updating this pub, questioning the inclusion of "short fiction" in a novel. As it's currently designed, the system frowns the situation where short fiction is part of a novel and would consider the work a collection or omnibus. In this case, do you feel the two pieces (especially the Dramatis Personae) actually warrant a separate record in the database? There must be hundreds of novels where the author lists characters, place names, acknowledgments, notes, etc. as an appendix to the main body of the work. In other words convince me that there's something different about these pieces that require that they have individual records and should be typed as fiction and not essay. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just didn't know what else to call them. You're probably right about the Dramatis Personae, but the Timeshaft Wormhole Transport System really should be mentioned. Both are in the Table of Contents. The Timeshaft was almost just an interior art piece but only 1/2 the page is a drawing and the other half is a detailed account of how it works. Since such a thing doesn't exist (as far as we know) it is definitely fictional. I put them in hoping for some clarification on how to deal with these types of content. I'll leave it to you to decide the fate(s) if you'll let me know whether I should just ignore them in the future. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I accepted the submission, but deleted the Dramatis Personae. I would suggest that you update the title record of the Timeshaft piece explaining its nature and relationship to the main text. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! And thanks for the direction. I always appreciate how patient you guys are. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have no idea how patient we can be, especially when we have so few editors who are as communicative as you. It's easy to help someone who answers our questions about their submissions, asks questions of their own, and responds to our suggestions.  You're on the track to becoming a moderator which requires less of a thorough knowledge of the database's intricacies than a full set of communication skills.  Thank you for making this less of a chore than it could be. MHHutchins 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Always figured, since it took me so long to even find my talk page, that there would need to be an atonement for the massacres I made before that time. And this is fun! My skills, such as they are, need honing/fleshing out, but as long as you guys talk, I'll listen. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Horn of Time
You submitted an update to that changes the note from "5th printing" to "Stated 3rd printing. Artist not credited; there is a signature on the cover, extremely faint." I believe it would be better to clone the record rather than overwriting it. In scanning AbeBooks for Q5480 I see listings for As you added Contents I approved your update and then cloned it to create for the 5th printing. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Q5480, 1968 5th Printing
 * Signet. [0-451-05480-6 Q5480] 1973, 3rd printing


 * But it doesn't make sense to have a 5th printing with an earlier date than a 3rd. Especially when Signet was very good at putting in the printing dates for each one. I realize what you did is the better way, and will do that in the future. Thanks! On a different note, there is one ancient edit still in my list that was kept there until someone could figure out if it was a software issue (two separate edits got combined somehow - not by me, this time! ;-) ), is this still an issue? There is a second one that doesn't even have a title reference (the software wouldn't handle two page #s in the same field (for a map) but has since been re-entered and accepted) with a corresponding "parse error" note that could just be eliminated. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the dating for the 5th printing to 0000-00-00. I thought I'd fixed that last night. As for old edits in the queue I see
 * {| border=1


 * 1056926||DESiegel60||PubUpdate||2008-11-14 15:07:02||The Weapon Shops of Isher / Gateway to E
 * 1076744||BLongley||VariantTitle||2008-12-29 12:00:32||The Dark Light Years
 * 1076788||BLongley||PubUpdate||2008-12-29 13:09:58||Neanderthal Planet
 * 1076943||Mhhutchins||PubUpdate||2008-12-29 18:23:35||The Depths of Time
 * 1077528||Mhhutchins||PubUpdate||2008-12-31 00:22:35||The Blind Geometer / The New Atlantis
 * }
 * The first # is a submission record #. Do any of these ring a bell? There's also 1073817 which says "XML PARSE ERROR" and is a pub-update for Hunter's Run. I'm pretty sure we are leaving that in the queue so that Al can take a look. There are three faults in the XML which the one I suspect causing the explosion being a page number of "9 & 10". --Marc Kupper|talk 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 1056926 edit is quite old and I think was still there for Al as well. Okay, will ignore them both as they are for him. Thanks for checking! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1077528||Mhhutchins||PubUpdate||2008-12-31 00:22:35||The Blind Geometer / The New Atlantis
 * }
 * The first # is a submission record #. Do any of these ring a bell? There's also 1073817 which says "XML PARSE ERROR" and is a pub-update for Hunter's Run. I'm pretty sure we are leaving that in the queue so that Al can take a look. There are three faults in the XML which the one I suspect causing the explosion being a page number of "9 & 10". --Marc Kupper|talk 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 1056926 edit is quite old and I think was still there for Al as well. Okay, will ignore them both as they are for him. Thanks for checking! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first # is a submission record #. Do any of these ring a bell? There's also 1073817 which says "XML PARSE ERROR" and is a pub-update for Hunter's Run. I'm pretty sure we are leaving that in the queue so that Al can take a look. There are three faults in the XML which the one I suspect causing the explosion being a page number of "9 & 10". --Marc Kupper|talk 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 1056926 edit is quite old and I think was still there for Al as well. Okay, will ignore them both as they are for him. Thanks for checking! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Satan's World
You want to update
 * Add price of $4.95
 * Add note "Price taken from the cover of the first Lancer edition."

The puzzle is this is a Doubleday edition. How can you take a price from a Lancer edition and apply it to a Doubleday publication? Maybe it would help to cite what's stated on the Lancer edition which I assume is. I'm guessing there's a something that says "Originally sold at $4.95." --Marc Kupper|talk 06:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Close! "Originally published in hardcover by Doubleday & Company at $4.95" First time I've seen this crossover between publishers, too, at least on the cover. Sometimes on the copyright page, but never with the original price. I can amend the note...? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was common practice back in the 1950s, when paperbacks were still new and hardcovers cost much more than paperbacks, so it was worth reminding potential customers that they would have to pay $2.00 instead of $0.25 if they opted for the hardcover version of the book. Of course, paperbacks were often abridged, but that's a whole different can of worms :) Ahasuerus 21:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I approved the update and then edited it to add the citation quote from the Lancer cover. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Weapon Shops of Isher (reprised)
I'm picking up an old on-hold submission which is an update to. The discussion above was about the seemingly spurious addition of "/ Gateway to Elsewhere." I don't think there's much for Al to look into at this point and so I
 * Approved the update
 * Edited the publication to remove " / Gateway to Elsewhere"
 * Edited the Pocket publication to add a leading "The " to the title. (AbeBook seller listings and cover images seem consistent with this).
 * Merge the variant title record for "Weapon Shops of Isher" into its parent that has the leading "The " as the two pocket editions were the only two publications. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncharted Territory
User:BLongley verified as a collection and included contents. You entered your as a novel with no contents. Should the contents be imported?

I'm going to ask Bill to comment here too as the Amazon reviews and Look Inside make it sound/look like a novel.

It's possible that because Uncharted Territory itself is rather short that the edition Bill has got padded out with a couple of extra stories. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, mine has 3 stories: I don't think Fire Watch got a UK paperback release so there's plenty of short fiction to pad out her shorter novels with. Time for Bluesman to learn the Unmerge and create a separate Novel. BLongley 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no indication in any way that the Bantam edition is a collection. The copyright page usually mentions if portions of a book have appeared elsewhere. This does not. There is no table of contents. The eight chapters have titles but virtually all the same: Expedition 183: Day 19; Interim: Al King's X; Expedition 184 Day 1,2,3,4,5,6. "Learn the Unmerge"??? Sounds diabolical!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The publication that Bluesman submitted already has a pub record in the database here. Uncharted Territory is a novella, so it's listed under shortfiction.  His pub was a stand-alone reprint of just the novella itself.  So you don't have to learn the unmerge yet.  Just update and verify the current record. MHHutchins 16:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 149 page novella/chapterbook..... now that's funny! I would never have looked for it under short fiction, but have updated the pub, which had not previously shown up under the collection title record, as suggested. Do chapterbooks kind of get ignored? Can't recall seeing any under the novel/collection titles. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd personally recommend learning the unmerge dance to create separate titles records for Uncharted Territory COLLECTION vs. NOVEL with the NOVEL publications containing Uncharted Territory the SHORTFICTION/novella. The reason this came up is that Fixer found a 176 page large-print hardcover which we'll leave classified as a novel for now.


 * Bluesman, I added a cover image for your edition - is it correct? --Marc Kupper|talk 17:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is! --Bluesman 18:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]Chapterbooks is an area of the database that needs to be improved. I believe that when a piece of short fiction is published stand-alone there should be a separate section on the author's summary page so that it doesn't get lost in the short fiction listing. There have been several publishers who specialize in publishing novellas (PS Publishing, Wildside, Axolotl, Century Legend and Pulphouse among them), and those works seem to have less significance than they should when it comes to how they're presented on the author's summary page. But at the moment there's no better way to handle them. Maybe someday... And by the way "Uncharted Territory" is only 100 pages long in my verified publication. So you can never judge a story by its page count, especially large-print editions. (Sound familiar?) Thanks. MHHutchins 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed! If Dozois got hold of it, it might only be 20 pages!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the annoyances is that Chapterbooks USED to work, and in fact you can still get them to IF you enter them all in one go: see my Test Author for an example. Chapterbooks get their own little section. However, the CHAPTERBOOK publication type has since been banned on the edit screens (only the title type is allowed), and any edit to one of these publications will silently change it to an ANTHOLOGY (the first type available in the still-allowed list). So if you see one looking OK, don't mess with it even if you want to improve it, you almost certainly WILL break it. BLongley 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a big philosophical split here on whether Books can be called NOVELs if they're not long enough to win an award as a NOVEL - personally I'd always leave stand-alone novella publications as Novels however short they are unless we need to link them to an award, others insist on changing them anyway. It sometimes works, especially if the novella is the same name as the Chapterbook, but often it breaks the link from Publication to Title, and it certainly hides books in Short Fiction (one of my pet peeves). There's an uneasy truce at present where we all agree the software is currently broken so we don't usually mess with such, we're waiting for Al. What we haven't really agreed on is a workaround: to keep it looking like a book you can put a single Novella inside a Book-type publication such as OMNIBUS or ANTHOLOGY or COLLECTION (or even as Marc suggests, a NOVEL, but that seems to annoy the lengthists most as it creates a NOVEL title as well as the SHORTFICTION one). In this case, as we want to distinguish a stand-alone Novella from a Collection I wouldn't put the single title in another Collection or they'll probably just get merged back. "Lots of Notes" is a usually acceptable workaround in the meantime though, although that doesn't help us use this as a database, just as a web-site. BLongley 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the beginning of a schism: the Lengthists against the Bookists! Only Al in heaven can bring us together. MHHutchins 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's funny! --Bluesman 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, the schism started long ago and keeps resurfacing - see the current first entry on the Community Portal for instance, about "The Trouble With Tycho". Whatever Al comes up with, I (as Bookist) can at least rest assured that even if the Lengthists get their way and get to (unnecessarily and unhelpfully, IMNSHO) reclassify loads of Children's Novels, older Novels published before the Awards rules even existed, et cetera, they've got 4,765 "Novels" (as of last backup I loaded) under 100 pages to "fix". And I for one will not lift a finger to help them do so unless they still end up looking like Books. Inertia can be a wonderful thing. ;-) BLongley 22:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's how schisms become abysses. Maybe I should change the title of this thread to "All Too Familiar Territory"? ;-) --Bluesman 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Shield of Time
Please see User_talk:Mhhutchins. You and Mhhutchins have wildly different page counts for a couple of the stories. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw that and just left a note to correct the discrepancies. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Asimov's The Stars Like Dust
When I was checking your submission of this new pub, I realized that the most common title for this is The Stars, Like Dust (note the comma). Most of the pubs without the comma are listed under the comma-ed title. Can you verify that your copy has no comma on the title page (not the cover or spine)? If so, we need to create a variant title for this work. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does have the comma, but where in Asimov's titles page does it show up? Found it and there is an 11th printing there. Since everything else is the same, I see no point in adding a 10th printing to the record as the only point of interest would be that there are at least 11 printings. ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sometimes it's hard to find titles when there's series and subseries. I have to resort to doing a page search occasionally.  I'll move your pub over to the correct title record.  As for adding a tenth when there's an eleventh already listed, we try to be complete as possible.  Sometimes I think it makes for a cluttered page, but it can help to place other printings when the pubs aren't dated. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Destinies, Nov-Dec 1978
I accepted your submission for this pub, with only one minor hiccup and a burp. The artwork on page 309 isn't from The Magic Goes Away. It appears to be a space-filler, as it doesn't accompany a story, but it is the same work (only larger and slightly lighter in print) of the piece on page 238 by Stephen Fabian. Another oddity: The title page of "Very Proper Charlies" (which has a wildy different style than the interior pieces), is the work of Stephen Fabian. If you look just above the character's right shoe (our left) you can see Fabian's distinctive "SF" signature. Look at the bottom left side of the work on page 160, you can see a half-cropped signature. If you'd like to make the suggested changes, go ahead and I'll approve them. Or I can do them if you're sick of Destinies by now! MHHutchins 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done the changes. Question: to change/ add to the second printing contents, if I import these will they overwrite the existing contents (which would be good in this case), merge with the existing contents (same thing) or will I have to delete the duplicate titles? ~BIll, --Bluesman 21:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They'll add to rather than replace, which causes big problems as removing the duplicate contents tends to remove both. You'd better decide whether it's easier to remove all the duplicated titles and have to re-add page numbers after the import, or just add the extra titles and merge afterwards. Or just leave it till Al returns with better software. Or - and I recommend this - just delete the second printing and CLONE the first, which should preserve the page numbers. There's few extra notes to consider. BLongley 22:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is much simpler! I'll do that, then you can verify it. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll probably skip the reverifying part. Or just say I'm verifying the Fiction content, printing number, maybe cover artist credit and such. I'm gradually moving from a "this is The Internet Speculative Fiction Database" attitude to recognition of some useful factual articles and publications and some great covers and artists, but checking a signature credit on a sketch on page xyz still doesn't feel that important to me when I could be more usefully adding Fiction appearances in titles we haven't yet heard of. I feel more satisfaction in finding a new SF author, a new SF title, a new SF publication (in that order), than getting everything absolutely perfect about one particular publication. BLongley 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Neanderthal Planet
Marc seems to be having a clean-up of held edits, so I'm going to reject your change to notes and let you do the edit properly, or do it for you if you prefer. The original discussion got archived here it seems. BLongley 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I was following your directions??? Change the author first, then delete the contents, then import the right contents. What did I do wrong?  ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that would work as I said, but still seems to have With-W contents in a No-W publication? Who approved your changes? BLongley 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The no-W pub didn't get approved, so I haven't been able to go to step 2... --Bluesman 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your no-W is there already, Step 1b: "add No-W versions of each content title" is OK, OR delete all contents is OK. I guess some moderators don't see the thinking ahead multi-step edits sometimes take. I know I get confused when doing my edits and moderating others as well - I've been telling you No-A when I mean no-W, fixing no-Lady to with-Lady, and am going to have troubles as Terry Pratchett is now Sir Terry. I haven't fixed all the Sir or No-Sir Arthur C. Clarkes yet! :-( BLongley 22:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's done, and I don't even remember verifying it! The blur seems to be constant these days. Just too much time on my hands after the operation. Will add the contents with the no-W and then it's done? Or will there be title merges as well? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, remove approved. Adding the others first might confuse other moderators less. There will be title merges needed, sorry. Sometimes I think we should have a real-time chat-room for ISFDB so non-mod editors can explain things to mods better, then I realise I would stand even less chance of sleeping. BLongley 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sleep??? Wuss..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Light Years
I thought I'd left a note about this before, but it seems I must have missed a "This is only a preview" message or it got deleted while archiving or something. Sorry! You're right in that we want a "Brian Aldiss" variant of the "Brian W. Aldiss" title, but just creating the variant title doesn't move the edition to the right title. What you want to do is unmerge that publication from all the other "The Dark Light Years" editions. This gives you a new title and publication to play with as you will - so you can adjust the unmerged publication to the No-W author version. And maybe check the title hyphenation. When that's done to your satisfaction, then you can make yours a variant of the With-W version. Clearer now? Or would you like a full walk-through? (You're going to learn the Unmerge Dance someday!) BLongley 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one just sat there, wasn't sure what was happening. Just did the unmerge (and there is definitely a hyphen) and will follow from there! Thanks for the input and directions. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, approved. You now have a separate title and pub to fix as you will then we'll do the Merge/Variant dance. BLongley 22:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging vs. Creating a Variant
I rejected your submission to merge these two title records: The Dark Light Years and The Dark Light-Years. Instead make the second title a variant of the first. (That is, if the title page of your copy gives the title a dash in "Light-Years"). Thanks. MHHutchins 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The two titles I picked both had the hyphen. ?? I'll try the variant. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Went and got the right page but there is no "submit" 'button'.... ?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the page for title record 955348 select "Make This Title a Variant Title..." from the editing tools menu. On the page that comes up enter "117" (not the quotes, just the numbers) in the first field (Parent #) and click Link to Existing Parent which will create a submission for the moderator to check. MHHutchins 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Where do you find this "parent" #? For future reference. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "parent" is the title record which you believe to the canonical title of the work, in most cases the first edition (but not always.) Click (or hover if you browser allows you to see the intended link before your click) the title record which you wish to make the parent (the author's summary page is the best place to look).  You'll see a URL looking something like "http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?" followed by a series of numbers.  Those numbers are the title record number, or "parent" title record. Either record or remember those numbers when you're asked which record you wish to make the parent.  Voila! MHHutchins 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Asimovs
I approved this edition of Alternate Asimovs and massaged the contents a few days ago, but I am not 100% that everything is kosher with "Belief". Is the version printed on pp. 262-297 the same as what was printed in 1953 as is indicated by the year and by the fact that it uses the standard "Belief" Title record? Or, as appears more likely, is it the first draft of the novelette? And should we change "Belief (Published Version)" to "Belief (Second Half of the Originally Published Version)"? Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought this oddity would generate something later on. Asimov wrote "Belief" and submitted it to John Campbell. He didn't like the ending and persuaded Asimov to create an entirely new second half for the story, and published that. In the table of contents the original version is called "Belif (first version)" but is just called "Belief" in the book. Up to the point of the *, as mentioned in the notes, this is the same as the version published in 1953. Everything after that has never seen the light of day until this publication. This story runs from page 255 to 297. On page 298, the rest of the original story, from after the * is printed under the title "Belief (published version)", though technically it is only the second half. In the notes preceding the 'second half' Asimov pointed out that re-printing the first half wasn't necessary as it was right 'next door' and would just take up space. So, the 'second half' definitely gets the 1953 publishing date while only 1/2 of the first version qualifies. The fields just aren't set up for this as it is probably the only time it has ever been done. I honestly don't know what the 'fix' should be. Maybe copy/paste this thread onto the help or standards page and see what everyone thinks? This is a good one and might get some interesting suggestions. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have finally found one of my copies (the first printing of the same Signet edition that you have) and made some adjustments based on what the forewords/afterwords say. Take a look at the final result when you get a chance, I think we are getting pretty close... Ahasuerus 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Asimov's Murder at the ABA
Locus #202 (July 1977) gives the date of publication for this pub as June 1977. Fawcett Crest hardly ever gave the actual printing date, only the copyright year, which many editors assume to be the printing date. Looking at the dates of the first edition, I think it's a pretty safe bet to assume that Locus is correct about the first paperback edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Know what you mean. I was surprised there was a number line! Want me to change it? (And cite the source, of course). ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, change it and cite Locus as the source in the notes field. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ring
Bill, you may want to see/comment User talk:Kraang --Marc Kupper|talk 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Artifact
I have approved the fifth printing of Artifact, but I wonder about "Prologue Greece [ca. 1425 B.C.]" since we generally do not list in-universe prologues and epilogues separately. Ahasuerus 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then I'll take it out. And remember, too!! ;-) I submitted a Baxter edit the other day that had an Author's note ostensibly written by the alleged 'finder' of a manuscript. Same deal? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as Help:Screen:NewPub explains, "Forewords, introductions, prefaces, afterwords, endnotes, etc. These should all be included; enter them as ESSAYs. Occasionally something like an endnote will be set in the fictional world of the novel; these do not get indexed separately as they are regarded as part of the novel's text.", so I think the answer is "same deal". I guess a lengthy essay about the novel phrased as if the events in the novel were real might deserve a separate entry, especially if it was misleadingly signed or otherwise not obviously in-universe, but most in-universe essays do not rise to that level of mischief :) Ahasuerus 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

UK prices
Just a reminder that we use "£0.60" rather than "60p" for post-decimilization UK prices. And if you ever want to find out about the decimilization project and how it greatly benefited the UK, just ask our other Bill :) Ahasuerus 04:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did I miss one? I thought I was changing them as I went? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was some 1977 Sphere reprint, as I recall. No biggie, I have a script that finds all "XXX.YYYp" prices and changes them to their decimalized equivalent, so we can fix them all easily. Ahasuerus 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this program catch the secondary pricing in the notes as well, or just the Primary price? I've seen lots where once you click on a specific pub the price is shown in £ but if you have to edit then the price is often still as "L". On a few recent edits there have been 'p' prices but for other countries than Great Britain and I hesitate to put them in £ as i don't know if that country (Gibraltar comes to mind) uses the same denominations as Gr. Br. right through. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some display logic that shows "L" as "£" on certain views and not on others. So I (and this is my personal preference) do correct prices with "L" to "£" so it displays right. For notes, I'd always recommend recording exactly as stated - UK pubs often have got a LOT of alternative prices that are not officially formatted in any way - Malta prices are some of the worst, with Prefixes and Suffixes, and Eire/Republic of Ireland ones often end with a ha'penny (1/2) price. And South Africa usually gets a "RO" prefix that I think MAY be a "R0" one. And East Africa prices are completely beyond me. BLongley 01:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I've been doing. Figured if all the secondary prices got 'fixed' there would end up being more duplicate pubs, and there are enough of those already. Though it's hard to leave something as 1.10¢ instead of fixing it to $1.10. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen $1.10¢ on the back of a book for one country (can't remember which) & the same book has $1.10 for the Australian price. I jsut assumed it was some "in country" convention. --j_clark 02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Father of Lies / Mirror Image
You asked in your submission: "since this is the only publication of this as a double, why would there be a variant title?" Variant titles have nothing to do with the number of publications, only that there exists a variation from the canonical title. Variants are created when either the title of the work changes or the credited author changes. In this case Mirror Image was written by Irving A. Greenfield, but published as by "Bruce Duncan", thus creating a variant. The canonical title is here and the variant title is here. Hope this helps. MHHutchins 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! But the title of the variant had been Father of Lies/Nearer Image, which I changed to Mirror Image. Did the Greenfield work have that title? If so then that title data submission should be reversed/rejected. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look again. I changed the canonical title to Mirror Image when your submission changed the published title.  I assumed Nearer Image was an error. MHHutchins 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You da man!!! I did see that, that's why I mentioned it. And I assumed the same thing.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Brunner's Polymath
DAW Books' second printings are usually printed in Canada. Is that true for this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 04:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cover printed in the US. Book printed in Canada. Do we work cheaper???? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Must be some Canadian protective policy. Please add a note about this being "Printed in Canada".  Thanks. MHHutchins 05:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, it was a Canadian protective policy with a tariff for importing books. Also, those books are priced C$1.25.  Eventually the policy changed and we started seeing (USA/Canada) dual priced books that can be printed in either USA or Canada and sold on either side of the border.


 * DAW started doing stated USA 2nd printings 2000. Prior to that they used 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... skipping 2. The Canadian printings use 1, 2, 3, 4, ... I have no idea why the USA printings skip 2.


 * A couple of times DAW has done a USA 2nd but for those no one has ever spotted a 1st meaning the numbering is 2, 3, 4, ... --Marc Kupper|talk 23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill - what's the number line on your copy? I'm guessing it's 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.  Thank you very much for the "The cover is credited to Vincent DiFate, but Kirby's signature is plainly visible." note. It's been pretty common for DAW to forget to change the copyright page when they changed covers. In this case the 1st is a Vincent DiFate cover and the 2nd is Josh Kirby. However, people have also reported Attila Hejja and Oliviero Berni as cover artists which I assume are people realizing the cover is not the DiFate version and are guessing at the signature or art style. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a cover image for your . --Marc Kupper|talk 00:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The number line is as you thought, and the cover image is also correct. I wouldn't totally dismiss the other artist accreditations. This wouldn't be the first DAW that had more than two covers, and don't forget that virtually all, if not all, the DAW covers were printed in the US and glued to the books which were printed here and no publisher is going to scrap a run because a batch of covers don't match the copyright page. Kirby's signature here can't be missed and is easily readable. I think this is at least the third like this in a week, but the other two were just transients where the original submitter caught the difference. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I changed the price to C$1.25 so that a later db scan can pick out the Canadian editions. It's a non-standard thing but I've been entering my own books using a publisher of DAW Books (Canada) as they had distinct printings and prices from the USA editions. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Tarzans
I approved those submissions which changed the US editions to Canadian ones, but had to go back and clone them to re-create the US editions. I think you meant to clone them to make the Canadian printings, but you updated them instead. Or perhaps you believed the 2nd editions were all Canadian, like DAW Books used to do (see Brunner's Polymath above). These Ballantine editions from 1963-1954 had US printings as well, according to Carl Bennett's index (which doesn't go into Canadian printings). MHHutchins 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had intended to clone them. With so many in a row all the same, must have missed that step. If you hadn't caught that I probably would have this morning with a fresh brain (that's my story and I'm sticking to it!) ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Space Beyond
I have approved the deletion of the $1.25 version, but the $1.75 one looks strange: based on the page count, surely the three fictions pieces are novellas and not novelettes unless there is something very unusual about the pub? Ahasuerus 18:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have no idea how leery I am about changing designations these days!!! ;-) I concur that all three should be novellas, but my wrists are sore..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, fixed! Ahasuerus 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unmerge of Campbell's The Mightiest Machine
You may have tried to unmerge from the wrong title record page, as the submission to unmerge The Mightiest Machine came up blank. Unfortunately, moderators aren't able to determine which title records your submission is trying to unmerge. It's especially difficult if you're trying to unmerge from a variant title record. (This usually doesn't matter, if you're approving your own edits as a moderator would.) Was it this record, this one, or this one? The easier way to find out is to go the pub record and click on the "Title Reference" link, which leads you back to the title record associated with this particular pub. I'll reject the current submission and you can try again. MHHutchins 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also see a title record for the non-Jr. pubs which appears to be empty at the moment. Was the pub you wish to enter published as by "John W. Campbell"?  If so enter it under this title. MHHutchins 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that worked - here's the new title record. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It turns out you got hit by a bug that's been reported before but not fixed yet. Unmerge works fine if you are on the immediate parent title of the target publication(s) with the only confusing aspect being that the new title record(s) has/have the title of the publication and the author(s) are from the title record.


 * However, if you are at a parent title, and the publication(s) selected for unmerge are in child variant titles then things really fall apart. The moderator sees the empty merge request and once approved the publication will have two title records, one to the existing VT and the new one. The author gets taken from the parent title record. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Invaders From the Infinite
You want to merge titles 1707 and 958259 and if approved would change the name on the long standing 1707 from Jr. to undecorated. We have the following titles:
 * 791717 SERIAL version by John W. Campbell, Jr. - has the magazine publication.
 * 1707 by John W. Campbell, Jr. - has one Gnome pub by John W. Campbell, Jr. Two other pubs John W. Campbell are listed because they are from VTs.
 * 939767 by John W. Campbell - a VT of 1707 and has one Tutis pub by John W. Campbell.
 * 958259 by John W. Campbell - a VT of 1707 and has one Ace M-154 pub by John W. Campbell.
 * 958426 by John W. Campbell, Jr. - has one Ace M-154 pub by John W. Campbell, Jr.

The merge you want to do is unsafe and so I've rejected it. 939767 and 958259 are an obvious merge candidate but let's look further. I'm most interested in the Ace M-154. If it says John W. Campbell then we merge all of 939767, 958259, and 958426 keeping the name John W. Campbell and the VT link to 1707. If Ace M-154 says John W. Campbell Jr. then we should merge 1707, 958259, and 958426 keeping the name John W. Campbell, Jr. and disregarding the link to 1707. Either way, we also have two two Ace M-154 records.


 * The Ace M-154 has no "Jr." anywhere. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The two are identical except for the author and that NVDRSFRMFN1966 has a Clute/Nicholls N/A verification. 16 of the 17 sellers of M-154 on AbeBooks use John W. Campbell and one added the Jr. The front cover has John W. Campbell. I suspect you own a copy and as you were trying to get things to John W. Campbell I've done the first merge of 939767, 958259, and 958426. That gives us 939767.

I deleted NVDRSFRMTH1966 and edited NVDRSFRMFN1966 to change the name to John W. Campbell. It's an extra step but I did it that way as NVDRSFRMFN1966 is a long standing record created from the original import into ISFDB2 from ISFDB1.

If it should turn out that Ace M-154 says John W. Campbell, Jr. on the title page then the steps are:
 * Edit the pub record to change the author name at the top
 * From 939767 you unmerge M-154 and wait for the mod-approvals.
 * Merge the newly created title record with 1707.

One thing I've wished for that's not easy is that from 1707 you should be able to see just the pubs that link directly to 1707. Unfortunately, the only way to do that from the ISFDB UI is to look at the title reference for all of the publications to see which ones go to 1707. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that there are a number of Campbell titles that were apparently messed up early last year and lost/acquired the "Jr." suffix. At some point we'll need to go back to the archives, re-verify and clean up the mess. Ahasuerus 14:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was definitely trying just to change the author for the one pub. Somewhere in the various suggestions I got about this process there was something about the parent record and the lowest number. I have been uncomfortable with this from the start but anything has to go through hands that know better. Think I would rather have a root canal with no freezing. I read & re-read & re-re-read the Help/suggestions/instructions from all of you and it remains clear as mud. My mind simply rejects what seems like such a convoluted process for what should be so simple. Heavy sigh..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Clement's From Outer Space
You added a note to this verified pub, which appears to be incomplete:'''©1949, 1950 is the only data on the copyright page. NEEDLE by Doubleday & Co., Inc>" Did you mean to add the same note that you added to the 1963 reissue: "Complete & Unabridged" and "Originally published as NEEDLE by Doubleday & Co., Inc>" on the cover.''' I also see that these two variant-titled pubs have the wrong title reference.  They're under this title record, instead of this one which is currently empty.  Would you like to perform an unmerge/merge, or would you like me to do it? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Most strange. I added the note to the 1957 pub first and it had way more than what's indicated. It was almost the same as what I put for the 1963 pub, except noting that the '63 was identical to the '57 other than the Avon data. Why does this need an 'unmerge/merge' when it was originally published as Needle? Seems to me these two are right where they belong? But then I don't get all this Variant stuff. Since I can't see the note for the '63, I can't tell if it was 'complete' either. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (After edit conflict] Here's the link to the 1963 reissue with the note that you added. The situation with titles and pubs can become confusing.  The first thing to keep in mind is that TITLE records and PUBLICATION records are two entirely different records.  When you add a new pub, two records are created: the TITLE record and the PUBLICATION record.  The title record is listed on the author's summary page, from which you can go to the list of pubs for that title, each of which has its own publication record.  If you entered a new publication of From Outer Space, two new records would be created.  If there already exists a TITLE record of a publication with the same exact name, you would have to merge those two TITLE records. (You can't merge PUBLICATION records because each record stands for one distinct publication.)  If a WORK is published with a new TITLE (as in this case), we determine the canonical TITLE (in this case Needle) and create a variant so that those pubs published with this new TITLE will be listed under the canonical title.  Someone entered From Outer Space under Needle ("Add Publication" tool) instead of a creating a new title record ("New Novel" tool).  Someone created (either before or after) a TITLE record for From Outer Space, but the PUBLICATION record will remain tied to the Needle TITLE record until someone unmerges it from that TITLE record, then merges it with the TITLE record for From Outer Space.  That's why it's important to enter new publications which already have TITLE records in the database under the correct TITLE record.  In this case, both pubs for From Outer Space were entered under Needle.  If you were going to enter, let's say, a 2007 reprint of this work which has the title From Outer Space, you'd have to go to this TITLE record to enter it.  IF it were a 2009 reprint of the same work titled Needle, you'd enter it under this TITLE record.  I hope this makes things a little clearer. Of course, you didn't have anything to do with how these pubs were entered. You were only updating them, but while checking your submission I noticed the errors that a previous editor had made, and thought you might want a little practice in how to straighten out this kind of mistake if you come across it again.  (And you will!) MHHutchins 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The note for the 1963 is complete. Don't know what happened to the one for 1957. Maybe reject that one and I'll do it again? ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stranger, still. Went to re-do the note and after clicking "Edit this pub" the note I had submitted was there!!! I had missed the second > after <br and somehow it blanked part of what I submitted. And Needle was supposed to be NEEDLE. Weird! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I can draw the diagrams. Considering just the verified publications for now, here's what we have: [[Image:Current_Setup.jpg]].
 * But here's what we should have:

Each publication should be under the title it actually has. So if you look at the variant title, you get just the publications with exactly that title. If you go look at the Canonical title, ISFDB will show you all the publications under any title that's set up as a variant - we don't manually group all the publications under that title, which is what's currently happening. BLongley 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll let you absorb the above (I should have added "is a variant title of" on the arrow between titles, and "has this publication" on the arrow between titles and pubs, but I don't have any proper diagramming software at home.) If and when you understand what we're saying, you can try and unmerge the two that are under the wrong title. When that edit is approved we'll actually have FOUR titles and three publications: the two extra titles will have one of the unmerged pubs each. I can't say what the Title IDs generated will be until it happens so I've called them Title xxxxxx and Title yyyyyy in this diagram. But when you've got the unmerged titles looking like that, we can merge Titles xxxxxx and yyyyyy with 519417 and all will be well. BLongley 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good visualization, Bill Longley, which my long-winded written explanation needed. Thanks! MHHutchins 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that  is cool, and since I do visualize (Can't build a box at work without a picture) I can see the relationship. Would it not be easier to just enter the two pubs under their own title, delete the two from where they are now, and then merge? I truly get lost in this Variant/unmerge/merge thing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It would actually be easier to unmerge then re-merge. Only two submissions are necessary. Step-by-step:
 * Go to the TITLE record for Needle
 * From the Editing Tools menu choose "Unmerge Titles" and check the boxes for the two pubs titled From Outer Space. Click "Submit Unmerge"
 * After this submission has been accepted by a moderator, go back to Hal Clement's summary page.
 * From the Editing Tools menu choose "Titles". There should be three title records for From Outer Space. Check the boxes for each, and at the bottom, click "Merge Selected Records".
 * Resolve any conflicts between the three title records, being sure to choose the one that has already been established as the variant. Then click "Complete Merge".
 * After that submission has been accepted by the moderator, the problem has been corrected. Don't feel compelled to try this if you feel uncomfortable. Just let me know and I'll do it. MHHutchins 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did it to follow the diagram and don't feel the sword of Damocles any closer, soooooo.... and every time you guys do it for me I learn nothing. Another couple of thousand and I might catch on... and there's always that little padded room under the stairs..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. Well done, next time you can do it without the diagrams! BLongley 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is recognizing it needs to be done at all. Well, and that bottomless can of worms....... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, the only clue that something is wrong after they've been entered is that the publication links back to a different title, or the right title but with a different author name. And so long as the right variant exists, people will often get to the right publication in the end so it doesn't seem too bad. But I for one like to get the data right as there's no guarantee that anyone else using our data will display it as "helpfully" as our system does: e.g. there's no way to get ONLY the "Needle" publications to display from a plain title search here, someone else might present it better. BLongley 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarke's Encounter at / in the Dawn
You submitted a merge of the following TITLE RECORDS: 958543 and 88789. You will notice that they have two different names. Remember, if you merge two TITLE RECORDS with different names you will make all the publications associated with those titles to be exactly the same. I believed you wanted to merge the first title record [958543] with 506111 which has been created as a variant of 88789. MHHutchins 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I give up! Didn't even know about the existing variant. Just saw that the variant title "Encounter in the Dawn" did not show up as an AKA in the contents of Nine Billion.... and thought this was how you got that to show. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another short cut in finding titles to merge (because variant titles do not show up when using the "Dup Candidates" tool.) Go to Advance Search. In the first field enter "encounter at dawn" (but without the apostrophes, capitalization doesn't matter). You'll see three TITLE RECORDS (I emphasize that because these are not pubs) all with the same name and by the same author.  You can safely assume that they're all the same work (at least 99.999999% of the time, there has to be an author somewhere who wrote two different stories but gave them the same title!) Check the box for all three, then resolve the conflicts, again keeping the variant, choosing the earliest date and making sure to keep any pertinent title notes.  Voila!  All PUBLICATIONS under this title will now appear under this one TITLE RECORD (once a moderator has accepted the submission.) MHHutchins 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed there's an author that gave different stories the same name - this one! See "Expedition to Earth": one is another variant of "Encounter in the Dawn", the other is a variant of "History Lesson". I've seen several cases like this so I think there's a few too many 9s in Mike's guesstimate. It's always wise to put notes about that in both titles to avoid unwanted merges. BLongley 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if there's an instance to be found, you can be sure someone here on the ISFDB can find it. Take away two or three 9s from the percentage.  And, as Bill says, pay attention to those notes when you're merging titles! Thanks. MHHutchins 22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It gets worse (he said darkly). To quote this Title record, "Originally intended to be a trilogy, the third installment was never written. Publications can be confusing as both the first and second installment have been published as The World Below. They are typically paired as The Amphibians (part 1) and The World Below (part 2), or as The World Below (part 1) and The Dwellers (part 2)." (!!) Ahasuerus 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And Fowler has what to do with this Clarke title????? ;-) And I thought I was confused.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No connection, just another example of headaches yet to come. Or Ahasuerus sharing some of his headaches from the past. In the Fowler case it looks impossible to create variants meaningfully without adding suffixes. But I'd need to draw the diagrams to prove it to myself. BLongley 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's just an example that demonstrates that much of our complexity is simply a reflection of the complexities inherent in the data that we are trying to model. Back when we started in 1995 we too thought that the database design would be quite simple, but eventually we learned better :) We are nowhere as detailed as OCLC, but we are getting there.


 * Granted, some of the better applications (e.g. Google's search engine) hide most of the underlying complexity from their users, but that requires a lot of work and tens of thousands of man-hours that we simply don't have. Ahasuerus 01:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Crane's Hero's Walk
I'm going to reject your submission attempting to delete this pub. Back in its early days, Ballantine occasionally published simultaneous hardcover and paperback editions of their titles. The hardcovers were actually clothbound with dustcovers, the whole works (see this Wikipedia article). I think this practice ceased some time in the late 50s. (According to Carl Bennett's Ballantine index, the last one was their edition of Wyndham's The Midwich Cuckoos, 1959, which I've just discovered is missing from the ISFDB!) Look at this seller's photo on Abebooks.com. I'm going to update the record to show that the catalog number should be "H 71" and make a note about the simultaneous publication in soft and hard editions. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Never thought of a hardcover, but my understanding was they didn't have a catalog#?? Remember trying to add a number to one and finding that out. Currey never lists the number for the simultaneous Ballantines as for anything but the PB. The price seems too high, most of their early ones were $2. But the clarification is good! And so is that copy on ABEBOOKS!!!  ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Carl Bennett, with few exceptions, the hardcover editions had the same catalog number as the paperbacks with the addition of an "H". One notable exception: The Space Merchants paperback was "21", but the hardcover was "H 2".  Strange, but it took them almost 20 years to get back into hardcovers (1977's Star Wars by "George Lucas", I think.) MHHutchins 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Towers of Toron / Lunar Eye
Your notes of this pub appear to be truncated. Perhaps something to do with the HTML? MHHutchins 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, had a '.' after the < i . Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Home from the Shore
You found an oddity there. The reason you verified one copy and it showed you had verified two is because there were two copies of the NOVEL inside the Publication. (There were two copies of the INTERIORART as well, though that's not as disastrous.) This used to come about if people had merged despite big yellow warnings, or nowadays is more common if somebody imported contents from another publication that this publication already had. Did you import the extra notes for from another source publication? BLongley 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Anyway, I think I've fixed it now - you can't do it by deleting one publication though or that removes it entirely. I had to remove the duplicate contents (which takes both copies of the contents), add them back as new entries, then merge. Please check it still looks as intended. BLongley 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it? Heck, I created it, and have no idea how..... I did import the contents but I thought it was from a pub that indicated a 2nd printing, but then the notes don't get imported.... strange. Both were as I wanted them, so as long as the one ended up that way. Will have a look. Fine by me. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's generally unsafe to import contents to NOVELs, it's really intended for empty ANTHOLOGYs and COLLECTIONs. I think we reported the Dup contents problem as an undesirable feature, I'll see if I can find the report. BLongley 19:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reported to Al again, as we could do with some display improvements, or automatic Import Dup-Removals, or ability to remove individual contents when we have several copies of it, or all three. In the meantime we just have to be careful I guess. BLongley 19:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Another method to add and remove content
I've been meaning to bring this up for the past few weeks, but something comes up and it slips my mind. Whenever you come across a content entry that doesn't match the book-in-hand, I notice that you drop the story first, then go back and add the correct title. This works well if you keep good notes, but I've found just the opposite works better for me. And it also makes it clear for moderators exactly what you're doing. When you add the correct title first, the moderator is able to see the differences between the two titles. Then when the edit is approved you can go back to the pub record, drop the incorrect title, and again, the moderator knows what you're doing, because both title records appear on our screen with an indication of which one you're dropping. (I create a bogus page number [usually xxxx] for the title which I intend to drop, so that when I go back to the pub, it's obvious which one must go.) My concern with the method you're using is that there may be some time between the two submissions, with moderators coming in and out, and it increases the chances of your forgetting to add the correct title. When you add first and then forget, another editor or just casual viewer of the page, can see the obvious error. When you drop first and then forget to add the correct title, there's no way a future viewer of the pub record can know it's missing a title. This is just a recommendation of course. You may be a copious note-taker (which I, alas, am not) and this method works for you. Just something to think about. And in the future, when you're approving your own submissions, it's easier and smoother to make changes in content. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now this I like! I do take notes and then cross off something that is complete, but this way makes it easier for everyone. The first time I did a content change I just corrected it without knowing the repercussions, and was informed of the 'proper' way, so have just done it that way. I will definitely do it this way from now on. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockabilly / Spider Kiss
You want to add a publication of "Spider Kiss" to Rockabilly - it should go under Spider Kiss. Do you want to resubmit under the right title, or shall I let it through for Unmerge/Merge practice? Or shall I just correct it for you? BLongley 18:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are already "Spider Kiss" entries under "Rockabilly". If I enter this under SK does it then need to be merged? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, all the Spider Kisses are under Spider Kiss. Check them out by looking at each pub's details and seeing which Title Reference link they have. They link to "Spider Kiss", whereas the Rockabilly publication links to "Rockabilly". Remember, when you look at the Canonical Title (the one which all other titles are variants of), ISFDB will display all publications under any variation - but that doesn't mean they're all directly under it. If you look at a non-canonical variant title then it will only show the publications with that variation of the title. Note that the Rockabilly publication doesn't appear under the Spider Kiss title, although all the Spider Kisses show under the Rockabilly title. BLongley 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, re-did the submission under SK. Now what? Practice, practice, practice. ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Author's Note (Spider Kiss)" would normally need to be manually merged now, but nobody else seems to have entered that so nothing more needs doing. See? It pays to get it right first time! BLongley 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And have patient Mods! Thanks. --Bluesman 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloch / Ellison's "collaboration"
I accepted your submission to change this pub to credit both writers for the two stories "A Toy for Juliette" and "The Prowler in the City...". Both stories appeared in Dangerous Visions (1967) with Ellison explaining how Bloch's story ("Juliette") inspired his story ("Prowler"). Each story is credited to only one of the writers. To get to the point, in all instances I've seen these stories are credited individually. I just wanted to make sure that they're credited as collaborations in this pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wooh! I just discovered that someone has changed every pub of Bloch's story ("Juliette") to credit both Bloch and Ellison, which is wrong, wrong, wrong. This is an example how a single edit of one content entry can change every pub with that record.  Time to go to work! MHHutchins 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a universal change for "Juliette" deleting Ellison's credit. This changed your pub as well.  So if Ellison is credited in your pub, do the add/drop method. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The table of contents has Robert Bloch and Harlan Ellison and then lists the two stories. The acknowledgements page lists them together for Dangerous Visions ©1967, Ellison, with the codicil :"All rights to the former [A Toy for Juliette] reverted to Robert Bloch, 1969." In the book they are onlt credited to single authors but have afterword/foreword about their collaboration. Bloch does call "Prowler" a sequel, but makes no mention of co-authoring. This would seem to demand that both stories have only one author credited. No Ellison with Bloch on "Juliette" and no Bloch with Ellison on Prowler. --Bluesman 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the TOC was set up that way to justify the publication of these two stories in what's marketed as a collection of Ellison collaborations. I'll change "Prowler" to the single Ellison credit.  Thanks. MHHutchins 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Man with a Thousand Names
Found cover art for your. (While looking for the 1975 S&J pb edition - I don't suppose you've seen that one anywhere?) BLongley 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the one! "S&J"?? British "S&M"?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sidgwick & Jackson. A far more reputable name, although they seem to be stealing NEL branding at times. BLongley 19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind - found the one I wanted now. BLongley 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Green Hills of Earth
I approved your but then added additional notes about the original ISBN and price that you are removing from the record. I also added a cover image. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but the info I deleted seemed so out of whack, which your notes addressed. There should be this giant flashing red flag "Beware!!! AMAZON entry!!", that or a gallon of white-out! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Extract vs. Excerpt
I'm holding your submission to add a new pub to this Frank Herbert collection. Was there any particular reason for not updating the existing pub, which appears to be the same as the one you're adding. I also see that you're adding new content which renames each of the excerpts as "(extract)", and I suppose, with the intention of dropping the titles that are labeled as "(Excerpt)". I understand there's no real distinction between the two words but "(Excerpt)" is the preferred usage. MHHutchins 19:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the way the TOC lists them, though that distinction is not on the title pages. Sooner or later some aspiring editor was going to correct them....the British are always so 'proper'. As to the other pub, I honestly didn't look at it as the one I updated had the correct price and just went from there. I suppose merging them would lose the notes? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember pub records can not be merged, only title records. Pubs are distinct, physical objects (even if they're electronic), and merging two of them can make quite a mess. Titles arise from the imaginations of writers (or book marketers), making them more easily manipulated as far as the database is concerned.  If you have the actual book-in-hand you can change anything in the existing pub record, as long you're reasonably sure that this is the one and same publication.  The notes in the current record are there to explain how the fields were derived by someone who doesn't have the book-in-hand.  You can remove everything in the note that's contradictory or unnecessary. IN fact, there's nothing in the current notes that need to remain once you've updated and verified the pub. You'd be doing the database a favor by removing those notes!
 * As for what goes into the title records, remember always use the title as recorded on the first page of the story. If only "Dune" is on the title page, and you know it's incomplete, add "excerpt" in parentheses.  When we use parentheses in a title, we're telling the database user that this is not part of the title, it just better explains what we've got here (like adding the title of the pub as part of the introduction, or the magazine issue in which an otherwise untitled editorial appears.)  We usually don't merge excerpts because without textual comparison we can't be sure if one excerpt is the same as another excerpt.  This case is different, because we can safely assume that these excerpts are the same as the ones in the previous printings of the collection.  If you retitle them, we'd have to get messy with variants and the sort. I'll go ahead and reject this submission and ask you to update this record.  Thanks. MHHutchins 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Herbert's Destination: Void
I'm wondering whether the "Epilogue" that you wish to add to this pub is actually an epilogue to the novel (and thus, being part of the novel, not eligible for its own title record) or if it's an authorial afterword. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely the latter. Runs through the changes Herbert made when the new edition was being put together, even supplies some of the math. Explains 'shifts' in perspectives, mostly from the difference in how psychiatry was between the first edition and this one. A good read.~Bill, --Bluesman 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I'll approve the submission. MHHutchins 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Herbert's The Priests of Psi
Some strange doubling of content records happened here, which I can't explain. Try dropping the duplicate titles and see what happens. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh ye of short memory!! You suggested doing it this way so Mods could see the two versions side by side. Check above a few entries. I'll delete the duplicates. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The advice Mike gave to "create a bogus page number" is good - e.g. Harry usually marks the contents he intends to replace with "Del", Mike suggests "xxxx", I use "NA". I see two page 7s and two page 97s at the moment so find it hard to guess intentions. You can create the bogus numbers in the same submission as the Adding of replacement contents, so it doesn't require any more edits. And sometimes if the intention is clear the Mods will be nice and do the Remove titles for you, and clean up any strays this creates. (But not always - we need sleep occasionally!) BLongley 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Missed that bogus bit, will use it from now on. My computer is barely visible through all the sticky notes!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yikes, I didn't see that ! at the end of those titles. Now I see what you were doing.  Mea culpa. MHHutchins 22:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's OK - we can see WHY something is happening (when we have our specs on, anyway), but without the Bogus pages we can't see WHICH way it's going. Help our psychic abilities by following the suggestions, or suggesting better. We might save you a lot of sticky notes. ;-) BLongley 22:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And de-value my Post-It® stock?!?!?!? That's rough...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Silent Invaders
I've scanned/uploaded both a cover and signature for your verified, added a note about the Ace Image Library, and added a note to ISFDB:Verification requests that may result in someone IDing the sig. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I added more notes about the page numbers, advertising, the SBN. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the number on that ad is an expiry date for the offer, as if I sent it in now, the prices/availability have probably changed. Did I put in the extra page numbers? They really have no business being there. Every pub would have them. Re-checked the sig and don't see "Upshur". ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WDB
You say WDB is on the cover of - is this possibly Wayne D. Barlowe? Later to use something like this: BLongley 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at this one and it's not the same. This is W with what I think is a D with the left side of the D being the right edge of the W and then a B. No question of the first and last, while the D could be a really lopsided O, and it has two dots in it, sort of like a skewed smiley??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my psychic abilities are failing. More scans needed. Need input. Batteries failing. Bzztttt... BLongley 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first step to recovery is in admitting you have a problem....;-)......sleep?? Checked Amazon and the HC is the same cover as the PB and since we have a verified HC that does credit Barlowe is that enough to pt him in the field?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that Mr. Barlowe came up with a different sig in the midst of his career. I'll upload a scan from my hardcover copy of Adulthood Rites later this evening. MHHutchins


 * Here it is.
 * [[image:BarloweSig2.jpg]]
 * MHHutchins 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And indeed that is it! Love good detective work! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Laumer's The Breaking Earth
Is the Laumer novel in this pub titled The Breaking Earth or Catastrophe Planet? Or is The Breaking Earth the overarching title given to a book containing a novel (of another title) and two related (?) essays? Either way, we need to remove it from its current title record and place it under this title record. Is there any indication that this version has been revised from the 1966 version? At the moment there is another pub that appears to be the same as yours, but titles it Catastrophe Planet. There's also another pub which is a third printing of your edition. It's also under the wrong title record. Of course, none of this is your doing, but your answers to the above questions can help me determine how to straighten out the web that's binding these pubs together. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clute/Nicholls says:


 * Catastrophe Planet (1966; with added pieces to make coll, rev vt The Breaking Earth, 1981)


 * which isn't terribly clear. Ahasuerus 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The title page has "the Breaking Earth" with afterwords by Frederik Pohl and G. Harry Stine. Then a secondary page with "The Breaking Earth", then two pages later "Catastrophe Planet Chapter One". I did a quick comparison of the first paragraphs of the first six chapters (good thing I have one of each) and they are identical. Definitely not a collection, despite Clute/Nicholls, as the last two pieces are essays. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, it's not a collection, because there's three pieces by three different authors. That leaves us ANTHOLOGY or OMNIBUS.  It would have been nice if the novel inside was titled The Breaking Earth, then we could have called the two essays "Afterwords" and left it as a novel.  But because it retains the name (and text) of the 1966 publication, I opted for ANTHOLOGY, still not an optimal solution, as it credits Laumer as the "editor."  (I didn't like OMNIBUS, because it contains only one work of fiction.) In any case, it's been unmerged from the original title record, and placed into it's own title record.  But in the unmerging, the page number for the novel disappeared (a known bug when unmerging, which I'd forgotten about, and failed to record the page number.)  When you (Bluesman) and Ahasuerus get a chance, please record the page number for each of your editions (I assume they're the same so either of you can do both.)  If the solution doesn't satisfy either of you, we can discuss it further.  At least in its present state, as two publications under a single title record, it would be easier to change.  Thanks. MHHutchins 19:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Stated vs. first
You submitted an update to the notes for to change "Stated 1st printing of 1960 Berkley ed." to "1st printing of 1960 Berkley ed."

As far as I know, we have never discussed how to word notes meaning there's no "ISFDB standard" for documenting the printing, particularly when it comes to the pre-number-line publications. I'm not sure how your change to the wording improves the description, particularly in light of that it's most likely to be read by people who have no familiarity with the details of how books get described. I suspect this should be switched to Rules and standards discussions though won't for now as it's quite likely there will be lots of discussion and no consensus on "rules" about the notes.

I approved the update but then decided to revert it as it's a publication verified by Kraang on 2007-05-03 meaning the wording should follow whatever convention he was using at that time. If you feel the wording used is particularly deceptive or wrong then sure, update it and leave a note. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And there are more that I did the same thing to. In the early Berkleys there is no statement of printing at all for the first editions (later printings would state second or third). All you get is "Berkley Edition / year" and later ones ".../ year, month". We get picky about many things, some pretty minor, but if there is no printing data, how can anyone put "stated" in front?? There may not be any conventions about notes (other than making them factual) but shouldn't they also not be unduly 'extrapolated'?  I never use "stated" unless it actually is. But then I never use "accredited" or "unaccredited" as that basically says the artist is or isn't recognized as an artist. Probably worth a discussion, even if it's just to bring an awareness. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I only use "Stated" if it is stated. And use "Apparent" if it's a bit doubtful. Mostly I'm sure enough (given my knowledge of the publisher) to just say "1st printing". But if we can do a quick poll and see what people are using we may be closer than we think. I'm not sure what you mean about "accredited" / "unaccredited" though. BLongley 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what everyone means about the "feel" for a publisher, and agree I shouldn't just eliminate the "stated" and not put "assumed", which is what I use when there is no printing data, and by that I mean no number line for non-UK editions. Don't think I've seen more than a handful of those that have a number line, and then only in recent editions. As far as "accredited/unaccredited" they just don't mean the same as "credited/uncredited". The former are used when referring to someone's credentials, and not a correct usage when applied like we do for artists. That one I just laugh at. The "stated' misuse is just wrong information. Especially when other publishers (Avon, Dell come to mind) do state a first printing. The there's DAW that always listed a First Printing but followed it with a number line, and regardless what printing the book actually was that statement is still there. The Ballantines will say "An original - not a reprint", and I've seen pub records of those with an incorrect "Stated 1st printing" as well. My overwhelming feeling since starting editing is that the more accurate the information, the better. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've placed this submission on hold (only moderators can actually view to the submission). You're attempting to change the note of this pub record from "Stated 1st printing of 1960 Berkley ed." to "1st printing of 1960 Berkley ed."   Are we to then interpret this to mean that there is no statement of first printing?  If not, then perhaps it should say "Assumed 1st printing" or "Currey states this is a first printing" or something similar.  I was puzzled by the changes and left them alone, then saw that Marc was asking as well.  You ask if there is no printing data, how can anyone put "stated".  I agree.  But then if there is no printing data, how can you put "1st printing of 1960 Berkley ed." without further citation to back up the statement? Like Bill Longley, I use the word "stated" to mean that there is a statement in the publication that this is followed by the statement. Instead of "apparent" I use "assumed" which is even more reticent in its authority. :) MHHutchins 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't put "1st printing of 1960 Berkley, ed." that's just what was left after deleting "Stated". Sloppy on my part. Won't leave one like that again. I don't feel that accuracy is a 'diminishing return'. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That wasn't me! (:-) (Kraang made the remark about "diminishing return".)  Regardless of who put what, you changed the notes to say just that.  And you did it for at least four pubs.  That was the reason for my question.  If you had removed the note entirely, it would have been just a matter of asking the original verifier what he meant by the note, and reading his response, I'm completely flummoxed.  It's my goal to be 100% accurate.  Yes, I fail occasionally, but that doesn't change my goal.  Why would anyone set out to be only 90% accurate? MHHutchins 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, just taking a good-natured swipe at Kraang. I don't get the less-than perfect goal, either. If there is no striving, there's no achieving. Knew when I deleted that first "stated" there would be discussion. Gets everyone on the same page, even if that's not where they end up! Cheers! ~BIll, --Bluesman 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I should probably clarify why I state "1st printing", with no qualifiers, based on publisher knowledge. After a few dozen books from the same publisher you just acquire a "feel" for their habits. E.g. Corgi always listed their prior printings, so if they didn't list any others then this is the first printing. That is a "feel" acquired from 1970s and 1980s publications and I couldn't be so sure they still did so in the 1990s. It's impractical to explain this acquired knowledge on every single publication though, and it should probably be recorded at the "Publisher" level to share the knowledge. But due to the breakdown in Publisher Regularisation attempts it's often pointless to attempt recording such knowledge. (I could update "Corgi" and someone else would update "Corgi Books" and people might never stumble across our collected wisdom.) There's a lot of information that just won't be recorded at all as it's cross-publisher as well - or same publisher, different imprint. For instance, I recently usefully checked a load of Bantam books to see if they had a Corgi version: and found several missing publications. Bantam and Corgi were (are?) both "Transworld" imprints and were quite tightly coupled on a lot of books - Star Trek novelisations mostly, but plenty of other examples abound. We could really do with some place to share our knowledge, but I don't think we can demand justification for each publication, and am at a bit of a loss as to where we CAN share knowledge. Updating help-pages is fine (I attempted "British Pricing" recently and that seems to have been well-received) but we can't go down to the level of detail for each publisher and/or imprint. I wish we could, but where the heck could it go and still be found when needed? BLongley 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of the word "Stated" may not be a 100% accurate for all the pubs I entered. I was using a general formula for all the books. The one thing that is correct is the printing be it a first or second etc. If the goal is a 100% accuracy then I would advise all concerned with this project to give up and find something else to fill their spare time. I generally only set my goals at 90-95%, the last 5-10% require to much time and effort with diminishing returns.Kraang 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the statement is not in the publication then it is 100% inaccurate to use the word "stated". Using a "general formula for all books" just doesn't work when each book has an individual record.  I'm frankly surprised by the above remarks. MHHutchins 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems nearly all of us are on the same page. I use "states 'exactly what is stated'." If a publication does not have a number line, printing, date, or other data we are interested in then I note this so that people know I looked for it and it's not there.


 * I try to not use my own feelings or other knowledge when it comes to publication records. The goal is that it should be a mindless task that does not need special knowledge. When I do use my own knowledge, non-obvious sources, or secondary sources, then I try to document the sources or methods used in the notes.


 * The main reason I do this on ISFDB is that if someone else comes along with a publication I'll want them to be able to determine if their publication matches a particular publication record or if they should add a new one. If I start adding statements based on my knowledge and don't make it absolutely clear "this is what the book states or does not state" vs. "here is what I have been able to determine" then a new editor can get confused as the publication record won't match what they can see. A secondary reason for doing this is that it makes easier for others to spot my mistakes. If I say "this is what the book states" or write "such and such is not stated" and make an error in my observations, or my interpretation of the observations, then it should be easy for someone else to spot this and to ask me about it. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "stated XYZ" generally means that "XYZ" is explicitly stated in the book. As far as the cases where it is "impractical to explain this acquired knowledge on every single publication" go, I think the best way to handle them would be to write something like "First printing assumed based on the publisher's history". When we don't state the source of our information, it makes our data considerably less valuable to our users and, in some cases, potentially misleading, so I have been trying (with some success) to make sure that all data is sourced in some way. Ahasuerus 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we're mostly all agreed on "Stated" - don't call it that if it isn't in the pub. BLongley 00:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On things we wish to add as useful data we're pretty sure of, we're a bit divided. Marc likes to explain all his reasoning: that tends to make me trust it less and makes me go look for a Primary Verified version. I prefer to add NO reasoning when I am pretty sure (but not 100% as I don't own a copy), and add reasoning when I'm UN-sure. Both should lead to more research and preferably a Primary verification, but if I state, for instance, that I've added contents from "Vault of Evil" threads then that should be an indication that the title and author names are definitely not to be trusted as being exactly that. If I added it from Locus I probably wouldn't add a note unless Locus was being inconsistent. (And it is, occasionally.) That's the state of a lot of ISFDB1 data here anyway. My adding a note that I copied it from Locus makes it look less reliable, I think - it's no longer a matter of whether Al typed it in from Locus or somewhere else correctly originally, it becomes a matter of whether I copied it in later correctly. If you (for instance) trust Locus 99% of the time, Al 95% of the time, me 90% of the time, the more details about how we got the data the less the confidence level is. If someone says Abe Books had 18 out of 24 books agreeing and Alibris had 14 out of 20, my confidence drops even more. So I do like iterative improvements - if Al has entered Bram Stoker award data for a publication we don't have yet, I might go find that publication on Amazon. I might only trust the ISBN (in fact, that's probably the only data from Amazon I'd trust unless it has "Look-Inside") but I'd add that as an improvement to our data, with source unnoted as I believe it to be accurate and don't want to add doubt, I want to add data. If I went to Worldcat for contents, I'd almost certainly note the source for contents as it's especially bad with dropping leading articles from content titles, among other bad practices (publisher names for instance). I don't think I could be happy stating something like "First printing assumed based on the publisher's history" - I will never know the publisher's entire history, and the amount I DO know isn't easily recordable here. I wish it was (and any suggestions for how to record such knowledge are really welcome still) but for the moment I'm happy to improve data from "vague" to "likely" at times, while realising that even "Primary Verified" is not 100%. BLongley 00:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncredited Interviewer
I see that you credited the interviewer in this record as "DR(Del Rey)". I don't think there's a stated (that word again!) policy in the ISFDB rules about how non-personal contributions should be recorded. Personally, I just credit it to "uncredited" if an actual human being isn't credited, but don't know how anyone else might handle it. After the above discussion has taken up so much space on your page, we might want to take this to the Rules & Standards discussion page! (Just kidding - well, at least a little.) Thanks. MHHutchins 00:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No kidding! A few more discussions like the above and I'll have to archive monthly. ;-) Still, a very good discussion that should have positive results. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've credited the publisher at times. In one case it was an introduction that read like an interview of the author with the interviewer clearly someone at the publisher from the remarks the author was making to him or her. This looks like a very similar case and also that interviewer's part of the conversation was prefixed with "DR" which Bluesman must have expanded to "DR (Del Rey)". --Marc Kupper|talk 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I did expand it, after searching for the elusive DR in the book then realizing it was the publisher. Again, just didn't know how else to credit it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-matching cover images
You note in your update of this pub that the image from Amazon doesn't match. The best thing to do then is to remove it from the record. Certain Amazon's links aren't stable (especially the ones with LZZZZZZZ in the file name) and the "Look Inside" images (like this one) are sometimes of earlier (or later) editions. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The note was there before the edit. Wasn't quite sure what to do with it. Now I do. Thanks ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! 2500 edits!
You've reached a threshold of sorts. It seems to be the point at which most editors are either "hooked" or have dropped out. There's only a few non-moderators who have reached that point, and at least five moderators that have disappeared in the last year or so [JVjr - 3964, Scott Latham - 3413, Unapersson - 3287, WimLewis - 2877 and Mike Christie - 2722]. And you're about to pass Alibrarian [2683] who burned out after about 6 months, which is about how long you've been here. Thanks for your past contributions and here's hoping for many future ones. MHHutchins 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers! :) Ahasuerus 04:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee, thanks! Nice to know somebody out there cares.... sniff.... and the only way I'll burn out is if I run out of Guinness!! Can't wait for this recuperation period to be done with (three more weeks) so I can have a couple. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't an active Mod nominated this editor for higher office yet?CoachPaul 20:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly can't criticise his activity level, communications, or knowledge of the books he's editing. Once he masters Variants then I think we can get the blackjack out again. In the meantime - is anyone else any good with diagrams? This other Bill (might be a little problem with two mods called Bill L, but so long as we can separate Longley from Luesman I'm fine ;-) ) does respond well to such, and our current mods aren't particularly good at pictures, or are hiding their talents. BLongley 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, the dreaded Variants... and Merges..... someday! And that's Blues Man, the B never meant to be Bill. That's what I listen to while editing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd only been a moderator a short time when I attempted to correct a variant situation with an unnamed author (well, let's just say his first name is the same as mine, and his last rhymes with Fesnick). I created such a mess that I crept away, leaving it in such disarray, that I stayed away from his page for weeks.  When I finally returned the mess had been fixed by a far more knowledgeable moderator (identity unknown).  I could fix it now without even blinking an eye, but back then...  So even after you become a moderator, this variant business will give you a headache, but it won't take long for it to fix itself in your brain (or what's left of it!) MHHutchins 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent for direct talk) Oh, and my congratulations too, Bill - welcome to "hooked" level, as Mike puts it. Have a couple of Virtual Guinesses on me in the meantime, and don't forget us when you can get back to Real-Life ones! BLongley 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are all invited for the first flat, then you'll have to bring your own. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Charles Wilson's A Hidden Place
Can you tell me if your edition of this title was the "Spectra Special Edition"? My first printing (1986) is packed away, but I don't think it was part of that series. Thanks. MHHutchins 07:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Spectra Special Editions" across the bottom of the front cover. Third printing if that makes a difference. ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've updated the pub record to indicate that it's part of this publication series. MHHutchins 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Memories
I approved your update to but reverted the cover artist change. We have two Frank Rileys and need the artist suffix to distinguish them. Sorry, this is one of the few cases where we don't go for "exactly as stated". BLongley 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why you are a Mod and I only aspire! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll get you there eventually... then you can do all the boring approvals of MY stuff! ;-) BLongley 21:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Boring"? I could make them much more interesting............. ;-) --Bluesman 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Odds are Murder
I approved but you may want to check the note - I've seen Bob Larkin miscredited as Bob Parkin before, but never Bob Karkin. BLongley 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fingers not move as brain instruct... Guinness shortage... fixed! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A Guinness shortage is a very serious thing...CoachPaul 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely... don't know if I can last another three weeks..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Walter [F.] Moudy's No Man on Earth
Your submission of a new pub for this titles is identical to another verified pub, except for the author credit. Can you verify there's no middle initial in the credit printed on the pub's title page? Thanks. MHHutchins 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No "F" anywhere. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now I'll ask the other verifier to double-check his copy. MHHutchins 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ace SF Special
I was holding your submission updating this pub in which you change the publisher to "Ace" from the current "New Ace SF Special". You're correct, in that the publisher is actually only Ace, but this was done to keep the Specials, shall we say, "special". The database is currently inflexible about having a pub in two different series at once, so we've chosen to make the Series field mean "author series" and not "publication series". So someone (before me) chose to designate these publication series in the publisher field, which doesn't always work out very well. The moment someone comes along and updates a pub with the actual publisher, the "series" is no longer in tact. I've began a project to record these publication series in the Wiki since the database doesn't handle it very well. I've accepted your submission because it updates the notes, but changed the publisher back to "New Ace SF Special". Once I've created a list of Ace SF Specials, I'll go back and correct this title. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're doing everything right, Bill, it's just that we have to do some things "wrong" in the meantime until we get the software changes. (And I think Series stuff is fairly far down the list of things we're asking Al to do.) Mike and I seem to be especially interested in "Publication Series" so are rescuing the data where we can - it's a bit of a vague concept in ISFDB terms at the moment - but if you look at what Mike's done so far (Mike - please insert link!) you might gather that some titles keep getting put into special series (usually a "Best of" of some sort, but I'd personally love to see a "Worst of" series too) and that's what we're trying to protect. I know - we're acting against all help information we provide, but it will get sorted eventually. I hope. BLongley 22:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like there should be a "Weird Stuff" page for aspiring editors. Of course one would have to spend weeks reading it..... I always know I'm in good hands. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If such a page ever existed, it would keep editors away in droves. Each moderator and editor has a virtual one in their own head.  It grows every day you work on the database. :) MHHutchins 23:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, here's the link to the page that Bill Longley is talking about. Once you've verified your pubs, feel free to start working on any of those series for which a list hasn't been worked up.  Right now, I'm in the middle of the Bantam Spectra Special Editions list. MHHutchins 00:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

McLeod's Engine City
Your submission to update this pub has been city in the queue for awhile. I think because it was a Marc Kupper verified pub, so the other mods just steered around it. I see you're changing the cover artist from "Stephan" to "Stephen". His real name is "Stephan", but does the book credit it to "Stephen". Also you're removing the cover art. Does the current link not match the actual pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The artist spelling on the back cover is "Stephen". As for the cover art, it shouldn't be deleted, and I can't think of why I would as it does match the book. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was looking at the wrong field. Your submission was not deleting the cover link.  I accepted the edit, and will create a variant for "Stephen". Thanks. MHHutchins 05:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken MacLeod's Newton's Wake
Can you verify that the cover artist is "Stephen" on your copy of this title? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Yes, he is. Think I see a pattern emerging: British pubs! Checked the DB under "Stephen" and all but two are British. Maybe His Lordship Longley can shed some light? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying there is such animosity between the British and the French that they would ignore how the man wants to spell his name? And I thought it was only Americans who don't like the French! :) I created a variant for the record. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see such a pattern - all 5 "Stephen Martiniere" entries are US-priced books? (Mostly Tor.) My US books all have "Stephan". I checked my UK editions of a couple of them and they've got different covers by Lee Gibbons. So no, I can't see a British conspiracy, unless it's to stop him doing art in Britain at all. BLongley 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As to British / French animosity - that's not been too bad recently: we've been pretty united in Anti-Bush animosity. It doesn't quite make up for them helping the US in their war of independence, or that small 1066 setback, but it's a start. I never understood how the US turned its back on France so fast - did they get as far as sending the Statue of Liberty back, or was it just a big fuss over "Freedom Fries" on menus and a fondness for the phrase "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys"? Still, now Obama's in, US popularity is going up and we might get back to normal "bash the frogs at every opportunity" levels. BLongley 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know he was French! And we Canadians have our own French/Francophone problems. Of course this only dates back to 1800, barely yesterday compared to the 1066 "setback". But then we only have a river separating, not a channel. ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see now he was referring to British authors (Ken MacLeod and Ian McDonald), not British publishers. Maybe it's just a case of bad proofing by the folks at Tor (as the people at Baen who can't figure out if it's Gary Ruddell, Garry Ruddell, Gary Ruddel, or Larry Ruddell who's doing their cover paintings.) MHHutchins 23:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Baen is basically a one-two person show and they live in the middle of nowhere (anything outside of NYC is the middle of nowhere as far as fiction publishers are concerned), so proofreading can be challenging. As far as US-French relations go, they have been up and down since the first time the French decided to have a revolution of their own. The current round of squabbles dates back to the early days of the Fifth Republic when de Gaulle built nukes, took France out of NATO's military organization, etc. Don Wollheim tried to bring the two countries together by translating, but wasn't particularly successful... Ahasuerus 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A Plague of Pythons / Demon in the Skull
Your note in confuses me: it refers to "Demon in the Skull" but you say the book is "A Plague of Pythons"? This sounds like another variant problem. BLongley 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The note was created under the "Demon in the Skull" title. I have no idea how it ended up under the "Plague of Pythons" title. As the note says the former is a revision of the latter, and when one goes to the latter's pubs record, two pubs under "Demon..." are there already. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Undersea Trilogy
The addition of 3 constituent novels to The Undersea Trilogy omnibus has been approved and the new novel Titles have been merged with their pre-existent brethren.

One caveat is that you also entered an Omnibus Title in the Contents section. Keep in mind that Ombibus, Collection and Anthology Titles are automatically created when corresponding Publications are created, but they are not displayed in the Contents section when viewing or editing these pubs. The idea was to make screens less crowded, but more often than not, it just confuses editors, so you are not alone in that predicament.

I have already gotten rid of the extra Omnibus title, so there is nothing else that needs to be done at this point, just something to remember when adding contents to the next Omnibus/Collection/Anthology :) Ahasuerus 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover image for Adam Robert's On
I noticed that you omitted the note about the cover image for this pub. I'll pulled this one from Amazon. Is it correct? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that is for the US release but the one for the hardcover is the correct one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Second try. Is this the right one?  If you're not familiar with how to link to Amazon "Look Inside" images, here's the trick.  After you right click on the image and copy the image location (not the link location), paste it into the Image URL field, then remove EVERYTHING between the two dots (periods), leaving just the one dot before the file extension (usually jpg). MHHutchins 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Just copied the URL (?) into the note above. I haven't a clue how to do images/transfers/ pasting/copying. I read the procedures but never get to practice them. Once I get a scanner..... And which "this one" do you mean? No link... ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to give the link which is here. When you've found the correct image on Amazon, right click on it. A menu will appear, from which you'll choose "Copy Image Location" (or something similar, I use Firefox, so your browser may have a different menu, but it should be similar).  This will copy the URL (address) of the image into your memory and will hold it there until you're ready to paste it.  When you're editing a pub record you'll see a field labeled "Image URL" below the artist field. Place your cursor into that field then hit CTRL+V (press the CTRL key and the letter "V" on your keyboard at the same time.)  This will paste the URL that you just copied.  If this image is from Amazon's "Look Inside" there's a lot of extraneous characters that add instructions that we don't need.  Just remove every character between the two dots (periods) in the URL, leaving the last dot just before the file extension.  Your record will now have a link to the cover image on Amazon. For example the URL that is copied from Amazon for the Roberts book is xhttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ED025YD1L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg and after removing all of the extraneous characters, the final URL would be xhttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ED025YD1L.jpg (I placed an "x" before the URLs so that you can read them, otherwise the Wiki automatically shows the image on the page.) Try it and see. MHHutchins 20:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No matter what I click on the only image that will come up is the PB one. Even with the correct HC image there as soon as I use the "Look Inside" it gives me the PB one. I just want to hit something...... --Bluesman 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't left click on the image which will take you "inside". You should right click so that the menu pops up. MHHutchins 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Think I got it right and submitted that cover image for the HC.... we'll see what happened. My head hurts from bashing against the wall, though! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It worked!!!!!!!!! Damn I'm hard to train........ ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Telepath
I approved your changes to the Ballantine edition of Arthur Sellings' Telepath and then removed the cover art attribution since the only indication that it was done by Richard Powers is the style. In cases like that, I believe we generally leave the cover art field blank and record the likely artist in Notes. However, things have changed quite a bit in the cover art area over the last year or two, so a question on the Standards board to check the current practice may be in order. Ahasuerus 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! Seen so many covers lately that some of the styles jump out unbidden. Maybe if I had noted "absolutely" it might have flown??? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For a title like Telepath the method used to derive the cover artist can be unusual by ISFDB standards. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bohr Maker--added cover image
Good Morning! This. . Added cover image and start page to your verification. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And another thing about linking to images....
...(that I forgot to mention) except for Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk, you can only link to servers for which the ISFDB has received explicit permission. Linking to Abebooks dealers is a no no. Another thing I forgot: an exception to the removal of characters between the dots in Amazon URLS. If there is an ".L.jpg" ending, leave the "L" (it means a large image) and both dots. I've corrected the few that you submitted earlier today. Sorry. MHHutchins 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. On the Amazon images you do get rid of the part at the end that looks like "_SS500_." For example, 51MSTmStbeL._SS500_.jpg would get changed to 51MSTmStbeL.jpg. You see this style of image URL for dealer uploaded images when they are adding a new Amazon record. If it's a customer upload image you'll see an ".L.jpg" at the end and you'd leave the L in place.


 * A scanned cover image is a "slavish copy" and the copyright for the item scanned remains with the original copyright holder. Thus someone can legally take and use a scanned image as long as they are using it within the context of fair-use (as part of a bibliographic listing for example or to show an item that you are selling). A photograph of a book is more complicated as then technically it's an artistic composition and the photographer gets the copyright. There has been a trend of dealers, particularly the ones on Abebooks, taking photos of their books or watermarking them. I suspect what's been happening is people (possibly other dealers) are taking the dealer scans from AbeBooks and posting them on Amazon. By taking a photo the dealer presumably gets some legal leverage. Thus, if you see a scan on AbeBooks then technically you can upload the image to ISFDB and ideally credit the original dealer for the scan. It still seems like a slimy practice and I'd only do it if the book shown is extremely rare and it's unlikely an ISFDB editor would ever get their hands on one to scan/upload. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys! Just a rookie with a new toy, here! Once I figure out how to use the scanning function of the printer I hooked up yesterday (it's been in the box for only 4-5 months now) is there a simple, with diagrams page here to learn how to upload the scans to the database? I am especially interested in getting cover/artists signatures into the db. Also, I have a ton of 50s stuff that no pics are in for as yet. And how does that affect the copyright issue??????? ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah - the "with diagrams" bit is a bit of a sticking point - apart from the ones I drew for you, I don't recall seeing any here. And Help:How_to_upload_images_to_the_ISFDB_wiki isn't as simple as I'd like it. My advice is to read the first section, "Step by Step Procedure" and try it out, ignoring the complex bits of Step 10 at first and just "leave a note". (Or if you want to avoid nagging from some other people that think the Licensing is worthwhile, start with cover images only and for step 10 just add "" where publication tag and name are from the publication this is the coverart for.) The Template usage is actually far harder than the uploading: and artist signatures demand rather more parameters in the template. But there's help for that as well if you want to try it. BLongley 19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall, once this current whirlwind second tour is done, and I'm back in the land of Guinness. That way, when it doesn't quite work the first 15 or 20 times, I can just have a second pint.... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Three Suns of Amara / Battle on Venus
I've held your change to as you want to change the artist from Bergman to Brigman. Surely we decided it was "Borgman" eventually? BLongley 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten that discussion. When I looked at the sig this time through it seemed that 'Brigman" was easier to see than 'Bergman". Good catch and memory, please reject the change. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, done. BLongley 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiptree's Brightness US & Canadian editions
I'm puzzled about these two printings: US and Canada. Are they two different printings or one printing that can be sold in either country? Also, your last few submissions that added cover links have been missing the "L" before the ".jpg". Are you removing them, or are you copying the URL from the smaller graphic without first clicking to go to the larger graphic (the one whose URL you should copy)? Thanks. MHHutchins 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion about this dual ISBN thing on the Moderator notice board (#100: The day the Martians Came) and Bill Longley thought each ISBN should have an entry as a search will not come up with the pub if the second ISBN is only mentioned in the notes. There aren't very many of these, so far I think only the Tor Doubles. Since the search function of the db is primary, it seemed like a good idea. And there is just the one printing. As for the images, I kind of wondered why there were no "L"s on some. Now I know. Did you fix them or have a list of the incomplete ones? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed them. I always look at the results of new submissions, submissions that add or change cover images, and those that add or change ISBNS. Just make sure when you look for images on Amazon that you link to the large ones (if they're available.) Thanks. MHHutchins 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Have been taking each one to its' highest/largest size before copying the image. What happens when that "L" is missing? No picture/ small picture/upside down/sideways??? Haven't seen the extra "L" though, on most of the largest pics, at least in the last hour or so, as I have been looking for them. It's kind of neat, too as I've come across several Van Vogt editions/printings I wasn't even aware of, even a '52 Harlequin book!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "L" isn't always there. I just pointed that out when I mistakenly told you to remove all the characters between the dots.  That's the one exception (that I know of, but I'm still learning too!).  Be sure to look for the "See larger image" link.  If it's small like this image that you added to this Van Vogt pub, it's almost useless (well at least for old eyes like mine!)  If you had clicked on "See 1 customer image" or the smaller thumbnails underneath [on this Amazon page] you would have seen this image, a much better cover. Then do your right click save URL on that image and pasting it into the pub record's URL field. MHHutchins 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, when I said Click on "See 1 customer image" I should have said "left click" on the link that leads to that image, then "right click" on the image to save it. MHHutchins 00:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Covers for Van Vogt's The Violent Man
The cover you submitted for the 1967 edition is the same that you submitted for the 1970 edition. Looking at the catalog number and price on the front, it matches the 1970 edition. Even if the cover art is identical to the 1967 edition, because the number and price doesn't match, I don't think we should have it on that pub record's page. Also the catalog number for the 1967 edition is higher than the 1970 record. Did Avon perhaps start over in its catalog numbering? MHHutchins 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong cover for the '67, thought I had reloaded the clipboard. Avon used the "S" in '64 and even up to '67. "V" was used in '67 as well. The "N" series are later. The ISFDB publisher data for AVON is consistent with this. ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the numbering explanation. It looked a little wonky, but I've seen worse numbering systems (someone should have shot the genius at Ace who came up with their numbers-only cataloging system in 1969.) I'll remove the cover on that 1967 edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold As Ice---Ironic?---Adds
This. . Added cover image as mine matches your ver and added novel start page. Have a loverlee Day! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I went, I saw.... no image? Just testing me, eh Harry??? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw mod approval. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 16:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover image for Vance's Big Planet / Slaves of the Klau
The URL you provided for the cover image of this pub was not a good one. I found this one on Amazon, which is probably the same pub, but instead of changing it, I thought I'd give you another chance at updating the pub. I was trying to figure out where you got the URL that you provided, but I wasn't able to find it on Amazon. MHHutchins 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't put that URL in the field. It was already there, and broken. Looked on AMAZON and couldn't fine another one. Do you have a 'special' set of parameters for a search? I just put in the title for the older pubs or the ISBN for the newer ones. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without an ISBN, I enter author and title. For "vance big planet slaves klau" four relevant pubs came up.  Three of the four didn't have a cover image.  The fourth one did.  I then left clicked on the "See 1 customer image" link, and another page came up with the large size graphic.  I then right clicked on the image, saved the URL, then copied it into the above message. MHHutchins 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Radon File
I have approved the changes to The Radon File, but the image link seems to be broken. A typo, perhaps? Ahasuerus 23:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto Manjinn Moon. Ahasuerus 23:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done so many that I missed these as .gif instead of .jpg. Fixed. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Denise Vitola's The Radon FIle
The cover submitted for this pub doesn't appear to match. MHHutchins 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Missed the above message, so I see what happened. You were working on two of Vitola's pubs, and the covers got reversed. No problem.  I'll fix them. MHHutchins 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just accepted your corrected submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Substituting cover images
I've noticed that you've submitted several edits to pubs in which you've substituted an alternate image than the one that actually applies to the pub record. I'm not as strict on this as other moderators might be, although I don't do it personally. In the cases where a hardcover image is substituted for the paperback record which is almost the same (though never "identical"), you might find some resistance. At least I see that you do admit in the pub notes that there has been a substitution. But... in this case you've substituted a later Timescape printing of an earlier Pocket edition, which I find to be unacceptable, even if the artwork is "identical". I see the advantage of at least giving the database user an "idea" of what the book looks like, but I'm not sure what the actual ISFDB policy of how broadly this can be interpreted. It's been my practice to only provide the image of the exact same edition and printing. I even look at the identifying catalog numbers and prices on the image to make sure it's not a later printing. If you feel strongly about adding these substitutions, don't hesitate to start a discussion on the rules and standards page. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, exact it will be. I do try and find the correct image, not just taking the first close one that comes along. As an avid haunter of old book stores, having an image to work with always helps. I can recognize covers a lot more readily than other aspects, so knowing the original Ballantine HC cover matches the PB is good info for that search, foe example. Live and learn! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said above, there are advantages to have a "near" copy, and if you feel strongly about it please bring it up on the rules page. MHHutchins 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm OK with "near" copies so long as the notes explain the differences. I did a few myself before we gained the ability to upload our own scans here, and when Amazon didn't have a reasonable version to add an image to. (I never want to add an image to Amazon that would be recorded against an ASIN and give it some legitimacy, when I know there should be an ISBN version. But the last time I looked Amazon don't let you add or correct ISBN information.) I have an advantage though, as most British books since the 1970s don't put the price(s) and/or ISBN on the front cover, they put it on the back, so the cover image can remain the same over dozens of printings. Although some publishers now put a single line from a review, or notification of an award that's been won, on an otherwise unchanged cover. Bastards. BLongley 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At some time, in the not too distant future, I do plan on scanning a lot of covers and will definitely replace some/all of the 'near misses' with the correct cover. We use 'placeholders' in other ways (every Dissembler addition, for example) that are there to be corrected if/when an actual book is in real hands. (Heaven help us if it ever gets AI leanings... it would then become the GodMod!!!) As long as the 'near' doesn't get stretched too far.....? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fortunately Dissembler isn't a Mod, and nor is Fixer. Data Thief isn't even a real bot yet, he still obeys my instructions totally. There's usually a Mod behind the bot though... Al does tend to check/approve Dissembler additions although I've done some checking myself, Ahasuerus usually lets us check Fixer submissions, and Data Thief doesn't do a lot of submissions (he's mostly to TAKE data, not submit it, hence the name). So long as the overall data keeps improving, I'm fine. I like additional titles, additional books, additional authors. Those go toward our ideal "complete coverage". But I like a human to go "finish off" a publication and verify it. BLongley 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, those goals keep moving - you'll see verified anthologies or collections with no contents from ages ago, some with contents but no page number, some with no coverart... I now like to have all fiction recorded and a cover on a pub before I verify, but that isn't an end if people want to add other prices for instance (I do, now, but don't intend to go back and add such to past verifications) or interiorart (I still don't, mostly) and if people want to add notes or essay entries about stuff I didn't think was significant that's fine too. I've rarely added "country of printing" to any of my books, and although detailed printer information is often available, I've rarely added that except when I've had two copies of the same book whose only distinguishing feature was that they were printed by different companies - in the same country, and even the same city! BLongley 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully expect everything I add to become just a "placeholder" eventually (and hopefully temporarily), as people "improve" the data. It may not look like an improvement in the short term as notes get messier, displays get more confused - but think 100 years ahead when OUR entries become the ones with full text and images added from Project Gutenberg, and all the movies are attached (including the good and the bad remakes). BLongley 01:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be worth an another attempt at a rules and standards discussion though for another reason: I don't know how often you use a simple title search, but by the time you have a significant number of cover artists recorded against a title's publications, the COVERART records outnumber the actual books. E.g. we have Six "Cover: Mort" titles. They're mostly all the same Art. But one is NOT by Josh Kirby, and one is a subsection of the others. (For the "Compact Discworld" edition. Love the pun.) But they're messing up the searches so it would be nice to merge the ones we ARE sure are identical. Or the ones that have the same art, with possibly different blurbs/prices/catalog numbers. (The ACTUAL exact cover art is recorded on the publication where we can, but there's not enough information on the COVERART record associated with the pub to justify keeping separate records with identical information.) But there's a resistance to approving merges of "COVER:" titles that should be overcome to some extent at least (IMNSHO). But as Title-Merges are boring, there's not much will to change. Feel like kicking up a fuss? BLongley 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardcover edition of Wilson's Memory Wire
I'm holding two submissions which appear to be identical for a 1987 hardcover edition of Robert Charles Wilson's Memory Wire. To the best of my knowledge and a little research there never was a hardcover edition of this title. The ISBNs on the submissions apply to the paperback edition. Do you have any other evidence to support the existence of this edition? I see you note the edition on sale at Amazon. If you look closer at the upside down picture you'll see that it's a paperback. I would suggest never creating a record for a book not in hand based solely on information supplied by Amazon, especially used books sold by its "partners". I always find at least two secondary sources other than Amazon, the most reliable ones being Locus and Worldcat. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any other record of a hardcover either, but when I looked at the upside down image, it looked like a library-style sticker remnant at the bottom of the spine and the tape over it was easy to see as well. In looking on ABEBOOKS for a HC there was one listing of an ex-lib but not specifically a HC one. There should only have been one submission, though, unless I did an accidental double-click. Reject! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Libraries also sticker paperbacks (when I was young libraries didn't even have paperbacks), so I don't assume "ex-library" to mean hardcover even if the intuitive side of my brain wants to jump there! I'll reject the submissions. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When I was very young libraries didn't have paperbacks either, and I'd carry home big yellow Gollancz hardback books (if they let me choose from the adult section) or slightly smaller hardbacks from the children's section. They'd always have a Rocket Symbol taped onto the spine though. It's only when they closed down the central library and we had to start using the smaller local libraries that I discovered that you COULD get paperbacks on loan as well. (Proper paperbacks, not the trade paperbacks you often get now.) By that time I was using my sister's library card as well to get past the "only 4 books at a time" limit, and my Dad's, and my Mum's at times (although she'd normally ask me to fetch her a couple for her to read too, if she didn't want to read what I was interested in at the time as well). But if it wasn't for paperback editions becoming available from libraries I'd probably have developed into a slightly more muscular kid than I eventually became. (16 hardbacks isn't really a large weightload for an adult, but when you have to walk 3 or 4 miles home with them as a kid it probably counts as some significant extra exercise.) I suppose paperbacks could be blamed for making me the physical wimp that I am now - I can ferry an armful[1] of paperbacks up and down stairs with no trouble still, but the same in hardbacks would be uncomfortable. And I have to empty a bookcase before I can move it. If I had been forced to carry on with big books I might be stronger and healthier now. BLongley 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] I'm presuming, but might as well ask - are all the significantly prolific editors familiar with the "armful"? Where you turn one hand into an end-stop, straighten the arm, and load it with books as if it was a shelf? It's great if your shelf-storage-use matches with your arm-length. It was easier with Dad's librarian-style stacking (leave 10% free for expansion) but I can mostly still do a three-foot-shelf, it's only when you have to consider the additional books stacked on top that I give up. BLongley 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Powers cover credit
I'd recommend removing the cover credit for Powers in this pub, if there's no evidence in the book. You can record in the notes that the credit was there, but as a verifier you removed it. The cover looks nothing like his work. The confusion may have been caused by his doing the cover for a later Ballantine printing of the same title. MHHutchins 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I did find the next three(?) Ballantine images, all of which are Powers' covers, which tempered my first instinct to remove this as well. It just doesn't look like his work. Will make the change. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding contents for unpaginated entries
Sorry, I placed a submission updating this pub on hold this morning and forgot to leave you a note (as you can see from the above notes there was plenty enough to distract me.) You wanted to change the page count from "10+149" to "x+149". The first is obviously incorrect, but I'm not sure if the second is entirely correct. Does the text of the book begin on page 1, and does it end 148 pages later (on page 149)? If so then the page count should be simply "[10]+149" and the map would be on pages "[8]" (note the brackets). Or is there ten unnumbered pages, and the text of the book begins on page 11 and ends on page 149? If this is the case, the page count should be simply "149" and the map would be on page "8" (even though it's not paginated, just count backwards from the first page on which a number does appear.) I could find nothing in the help pages that either supports or contradicts this method, so please feel free to start a discussion on the rules and standards page. If it appears that I'm saying that a lot lately, it's only to make it clear that this is not an aristocracy ran by a few mods. Everything is open to discussion. MHHutchins 05:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I had not thought to use brackets. I don't add the beginning pages if the book starts on page 11, as per your example. There are times when the first "x" number of pages are Roman numerated and then the text starts on page 11 and those I mention in the notes. Hard to be consistent when the publishers aren't. And when the 'excerpts/extracts' are unpaginated it seems to be a common if not standard practice to 'add' to the paginated total to cover them. At least the common purpose is to 'place' something in a book, even if the methods aren't consistent. As to the book at hand, it does start on page 1 after the first [10]. I like the brackets, works as well at the beginning as the end! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI - Some of this was previously discussed Rules_and_standards_discussions/Archive/Archive05. Kevin 06:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Strangers from Earth
Your notes and pub date in don't match, can you check please? BLongley 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All the data is correct except the date, which should be '87. Suspect a typo..... as in mine... ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, fixed. BLongley 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Danger From Vega/Clash of Star-Kinegs-Loverlie alies
This. . Added art (may last a day or two) and did Tuck ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That be the one! Was the title too long for you, Harry? You seemed to kind of peter out there at the end?? ;-) ~BIll, --Bluesman 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I claim bi-polar malfunction when fingering the keyboard. Think faster than move. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Through the Eye of a Needle
I've just verified as it looks like a Canadian printing of your. You might want to copy the cover, if it matches. It seems the Canadians were better at credits. BLongley 20:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is and I did and we do! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, approved. It took a bit of finding - the submission queue is a bit long at the moment. :-/ I've done my bit for today I feel (Fixer got rather active), so I'm going to have a bath and retire for the night rather than figure out why (for instance) Tpi is linking a review to a publication that came out 4 months later, or other such oddities. I can already see that I've got snow-scraping to do in the morning (as there's already snow falling on my car tonight) but unless it become impassable I still have to go to work. BLongley 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It snows on the Empire?? I am shocked and dismayed..... good digging! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mona Lisa Overdrive
FYI, the cover image for Mona Lisa Overdrive has been approved, but there is something wrong with the URL. Ahasuerus 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Missed the gif ending, had it as jpg. Only the third one I've seen so far. Have to pay more attention. Fixed. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Best of John Jakes-added cover image
This. . I added the cover image as per my copy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Abominable Earthman
I added the date and page numbers to your verified 2nd Ballantine printing of Pohl's The Abominable Earthman. 19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternating Currents
I added the date, page numbers and some notes to your verified Ballantine 2nd printing of Pohl's Alternating Currents.Don Erikson 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is, Bluesman had just done the same thing less than a half-hour before. You were both working on Pohl at the same time, and it was inevitable.  Can you both check to see if the record is in the condition you wish, and then decide what changes to make (and which one of you will make it?) :) (And I am honestly LOL.) Thanks. MHHutchins 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me, just the way I left it! I laughed when I saw the note from Mr. Erikson as well. Remember doing an edit a while back and by the time I had left a note on the verifier's page and come back to the pub, someone else had already done the transient! And some days you Mod types blow me away when the edits are accepted before I even finish leaving a note.... now that's efficient!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the same because I rejected Don's submission. Like the situation below, both submissions were made before the first one was accepted.  After accepting the first one (yours), Don's would have reverted everything back to the original state, and only those changes he made would have been accepted.  Don't give the Mods too much credit (it might go to our heads).  Even a stopped clock is correct twice each day. MHHutchins 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Too true, but considering the strange submissions you must get every day, I give as much credit as possible.... especially when some of them are likely mine!! :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Silverberg's Next Stop the Stars
An unusual submission to change this pub, so I think it may have escaped before you were finished, or there's something weird going on with the system. It changes the date from "1986-01-00" to "1986-00-00", the page count from 213 to 224, changes binding type from "pb" to "tp", changes cover from this to this, and removes all of the notes. See what I mean by unusual? The only thing of value that it adds is the contents (five story records.) What should I do with the submission? MHHutchins 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Submitted an edit to change almost all the fields and then forgot to add the contents. Only that part of the second edit should be used. If it can't be merged then I'll just add them in again to the previous, accepted edit. That sounds circular, but it's that kind of day... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Submissions can't be merged. I see what happened now.  You should wait until the first submission has been accepted before editing the same pub record.  Otherwise the second submission will revert the pub back to the original state with only its changes being accepted.  I'll accept this second submission because it added contents, but then go back and edit it back to the state it was in after the first submission. MHHutchins 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm holding a submission creating a new pub record for this title, a "Canadian" edition. Is this the same situation we had a few days ago, about creating a "Canadian" edition simply because both US and Canada ISBNs and prices are printed on the pub? I've placed a comment on the Rules and Standards page to see how the group feels about doing this.  Thanks. MHHutchins 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Same situation, yes. I'll check out that discussion. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

George H. Smith's The Unending Night
I think your guess of this publication's printing date may be a few years off. It's not listed in Tuck, and based on their strange catalog numbering system (42=$0.50, 43=$0.60, 44=$0.75), it looks like they had to start over in 1969. When they reached the numbers they had in 1965, they dropped the system entirely and came up with another one, which was still price-based ("T-price-#"). Thank God, soon afterward, SBNs became the industry standard. Based on this strange numbering system, I'd say "43-304" was published in 1969. MHHutchins 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't look that far, once I saw the progression from 66-67 assumed it fell in there. Really put all that in there to justify 0-ing the date. In the back of the book is one of those order sheets that lists books anywhere from 60-95¢ and the numbers are all over the place. Want me to change the guess-timate? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if you agree with mine. :) Just the fact that it's not in Tuck (who has so few errors that it's spooky), and that the numbering system changed in '69 should be enough to narrow it down. MHHutchins 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I bow to your experience! Plus I looked closely at that list and it had a Pel Torro title from '68... just to corroborate. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Leo Brett's The Alien Ones
Can you check on the catalog number for this Tower Book publication? Is there a dash after the "T" like in the other pubs around that period? (See what your guess-timating has started?) MHHutchins 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, no!!! Not the dreaded Fanthorpe back hole!!!! Do you have any idea how boring your days would be without me?? ;-) Oh, yes, speaking of "Alien Ones" - #T-060-1, yes, two dashes. If you don't re-surface for a few days we'll send a rescue party.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rena [M.] Vale's Beyond the Sealed World
Can you verify that this pub was published with the author's middle initial in the credits on the title page? The cover doesn't have an "M.", and the pub was entered under the "M." variant. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With only the picture to go on.... can't verify much. However the earlier PL edition definitely had no "M". When I entered this I did not even see the "m" in the author field. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were entering from the pub (I see now you verified the first printing). I'm going to change this as it's most likely just a reprint of the pub you verified.  Thanks. MHHutchins 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ace "Moon" Double - Wollheim & Leinster
Your submission for this pub didn't make any changes. Did it escape early? MHHutchins 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Slippery URL for the cover??? Re-submitted. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A Sea of Space
Can you please check your for "Lap of the Primitive"? My Corgi edition has no leading "The", and Bantam and Corgi books are usually almost identical. (To the extent that they'd just overprint a Bantam edition and sell it as a Corgi one at times.) BLongley 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No 'The', duhhhhh I don't miss stuff like that (at least not as often anymore....). Submitted a change. Did you have to scrape this morning? Learned a trick in New Zealand from those mornings when it's just around freezing: throw water on the windshield and use the wipers right away, nearly all of the ice comes right off. No scraping! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Baxter's The H-Bomb Girl
I'm holding your submission updating this pub, adding the afterword. You have it starting on page "[1]". Since it's an afterword can I assume you mean the first page or so after the novel, which would be "[265]" or "[266]"? (I'm assuming it's non-paginated based on your use of the brackets.) Thanks. MHHutchins 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same situation with this pub. Does the afterword start on page "[535]" or "[536]"? Or and don't forget to use a plus sign (+) instead of the ampersand to add unpaginated material. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I was using the format you suggested at http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Rules_and_standards_discussions/Archive/Archive05#Unpaginated_pages_in_page_count with the [7]+245 or 245+[7]. Changing the rules in midstream, Eh?? ;-) Actually I like the higher numbers for the 'after' pages better. In both cases I just put the brackets around what was already there. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No rules changes. Please read again.  I'm referring to the page number (not page count, which you correctly placed in the page count field).  What is the page number on which the afterword begins?  If it begins after the last numbered page just count forward and place that number in brackets in the page number field of the contents.  You say "In both cases I just put the brackets around what was already there."  Again, I'm not talking about the page count. Your submission has the afterwords starting on page [1], which most users will correctly assume to be at the beginning of the book.  I've already upset another editor who misunderstood what I was saying about page count. Please believe me when I say I don't want that to happen again. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it will make it clearer if I go ahead and approve the two submissions so you can see what I mean. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I get the difference. Edification at its' best! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke's The Sentinel
Can you check your edition of this title to see if the artwork by Lebbeus is published with each story, or was it bound and inserted on unpaginated pages like my book club edition? If they are paginated it would be nice to include them in your contents, and I can merge them with the records that I entered for the BC edition. Thanks. Also, "Masterworks of Science Fiction and Fantasy" is the name of a series, not the subtitle of the collection. I believe this was the first of five (?) collections which was a joint venture between Berkley trade paperbacks and Byron Preiss Visual Publications. MHHutchins 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The interior artworks are indeed with each story. Since there are only a dozen, I'll paginate them in the contents. Don't ask this of the 60+ that Moroto has done in a couple of pubs, though! After doing the DESTINIES........ ;-) lol!! Kind of wondered about the "Masterworks" designation. If any author would have that as a sub-title, Clarke would. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I forgot to mention that this is probably the first publication of the film proposal "The Songs of Distant Earth" (not to be confused with the 1958 story or the 1986 novel of the same name by the same author.) So I changed the date from 1979 (the date it was written) to November 1983 and merged it with the other record as The Songs of Distant Earth (outline).  Thanks. MHHutchins 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought it was a little short.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Di Filippo's Plumage from Pegasus
A few questions:
 * 1) Is the title of the essay "My Alphabet Starts Where Your Alphabet Begins" or "My Alphabet Starts Where Your Alphabet Ends"?
 * "... Ends"


 * 1) These pieces are listed as fiction in the db: "Falling Expectations", "Have Gun Will Edit", "And I Think to Myself, What a Wonderful World".  Can you determine if they're actually fiction or essays?
 * All fiction and quite satirical.


 * 1) Is the title of the essay "The Only Thing Worse Than One More Bad Trilogy" or "The Only Thing Worse Than Yet One More Bad Trilogy"?
 * With the "Yet"


 * 1) Is the title of the essay "Next Big Thing" or "The Next Big Thing"?
 * No "The"


 * 1) Is "Scissors Cut Paper, Paper Covers Schlock" essay or interior art?
 * No art evident, just text.

Thanks. MHHutchins 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And before you ask: Ultrasenator Versus... "has never been previously published" and is fiction, incredibly satirical! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've updated the pub, so please take a look at it when you get a chance. Also, there are several that are not currently listed as part of the F&SF series.  I wonder if perhaps some of the pieces were retitled for this collection.  Does the copyright page of this pub give specific information on the source of the original publication? Thanks. MHHutchins 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine! There is no specific publishing info ion the copyright page. However... there is a couple of pages in the back titled "Publication History" (had you going there, didn't I?) that might be of use. To save space and typing, I'm just going to number the titles and only give those that DON'T appear in TMOFASF; 1 -Unearth, 1977; 2 -Nebula Awards 24, 1990; 3 - Nebula Awards 25, 1990; 14 - Interzone, 1998; 25, 26 & 27 - The Bulletin of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, 2000; 31 - Locus Online, 2001; 37 & 38 - Locus Online, 2002; 40 & 41 The Bulletin of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, 2002. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional info. There are two entries that don't match their F&SF titles: F&SF has "The Magazine Chums..." and you list it as "The Magazine Chumps...", and it has "Adventures in Mishmosh..." while you have "Adventures in Mishmash...".  If they're not the same, I'm going to create variants.  MHHutchins 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Chums" is correct, not "Chumps" (the places the mind goes.....) and the other is "Mishmish" in the TOC and "Mishmosh" in the text (guess I just picked the middle road???). Can I please put this away now??? Pretty please????? I'll even throw in a Guinness????????? :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can put it away. And keep the Guinness.  I'm not much of a beer drinker.  (A nice bottle of wine, perhaps?)  MHHutchins 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cover art links
I wanted to thank you for your efforts in adding links to cover art, and for notifying me when you place one on my verified pubs. Please continue to leave notes on my talk page, but if I don't respond it's only because I've checked the image and it's a good one. Don't worry, if it's wrong I'll let you know. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the only time I expect to hear anything. If I don't have the book in hand I will try and mention that, so the verifier CAN check. And it's not a lot of effort, and fun! I keep several tabs open, at least three just for images, and it only takes a few seconds to jump back and forth. Really like the fantasticfiction.co.uk site as it will have the entirety of an author's career in covers. Unfortunately they only keep the most current edition's pics, but what they do have is interesting. That's where I found the two Lawson covers. Wish I had known of all these 'tools' at the beginning, then I wouldn't be going through the collection for the second/third time...... sigh.... ! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gates of Eden
You updated and noted it's a second printing. Can you check to see if it's printed in Canada?
 * Yes, it is.

If it's a Canadian printing then it should say something about North American Library at the bottom of the title page (probably stamped on a little crooked) and "Printed in Canada" at the bottom of the copyright page.
 * Yes to both, though the DAW address is also slightly crooked

Is there anything about Penguin on the copyright page?
 * No, though there is a very unusual thing I had not noticed before: DAW TRADEMARK REGISTERED U.S. PAT. OFF. MARCA REGISTRADA. HECHO EN WINNIPEG, CANADA. I didn't know Spanish was the official language up here?!?!?

Is the DAW address on the title page
 * Donald A. Wollheim, publisher
 * 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019
 * Yes. it is.

Thanks! --Marc Kupper|talk 07:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --Bluesman 18:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bill. I updated your publication record to change the price to C$2.95 and added a note about Printed in Canada. As a heads up; from 1972 to 2000 DAW seemed to have a pattern of never doing 2nd printings in the USA (they skip from 1 to 3) but the Canadian editions go 1, 2, 3, ... Thus when you reported a 2nd printing the odds were pretty high it was a Canadian edition. re: MARCA REGISTRADA. HECHO EN WINNIPEG, CANADA. I have not been keeping an eye out to spot when DAW added that block of Spanish. A quick check finds that it showed up after September 1978 and before March 1980 implying that Spanish has been the official language of Canada (and the United States) for nearly 30 years. El español es la lengua oficial en las Américas a excepción del Brasil en donde se utiliza el Portugués. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bound placeholder
I know exactly what you mean by "bound placeholder" in the note of this pub. (PS Publishing bound a ribbon into the deluxe edition of the collection I edited of Michael Bishop's nonfiction). But here in the db world, a placeholder is a record created in anticipation of a more complete record sometime in the future. I learned this term only after coming to the ISFDB. Would it be OK to change it to ribbon for the more literal-minded (or should I say "database-focused") users among us? Or just be slightly more descriptive of the placeholder. (Yeah, I know. Why would they bind a database record into a book?) Thanks. MHHutchins 19:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! I seldom remember to note them, and they really are insignificant to the pub record. Nice for the collector, though. Have to get something for the extra money! They should be leather or gold-embossed like last century. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Leather, you say? Gold-embossed?  Try Easton Press. Even ribbons!  MHHutchins 21:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Next Stop the Stars
Could you please check if your verified Next Stop the Stars contains "the first three chapters of Master of Life and Death, coming soon from Tor" as per the Locus Index? It does seem likely since the story "Warm Man" is pretty short (10-15pp) and shouldn't take up the 50 pages that the pub record currently allocates to it. TIA! Ahasuerus 03:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, from page 183-213. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Approved, thanks! Ahasuerus 04:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. And I take it that you will add the same excerpt to the sibling pub and then merge them? Ahasuerus 04:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Approved and merged, thanks! Ahasuerus 05:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All the Weyrs of Pern
I see that you would like to change the note in the hardcover edition of All the Weyrs of Pern from "C$26.00 in Canada.[month of publication from copyright page]" to "• "First Edition: December 1991". I wonder if perhaps you meant to add a line to the Note rather than replace the pre-existing Canadian price? Ahasuerus 06:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely an html typo on my part, have a bad habit of putting < br . instead of (which blanks everything following), and don't always catch it. Just reject it and I'll redo the submission. --Bluesman 13:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done - submit away! Ahasuerus 18:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I see that you use "LCCCN" in your Notes. I have been changing the spelling to "LCCN" since it stands for "Library of Congress Control Number" :) Ahasuerus 07:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it stood for "Library of Congress Catalogue Control Number". Learn something new every day! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And I thought "Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number". I remember catalogue cards. My Dad brought home hundreds of them when the library he worked at computerised. The family have been using them for decades since - although in my case it's just been for "divider" cards in my singles collection. I'm not sure if the US ones would have been big enough for that. BLongley 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Library of Congress kept its card catalogs for many years after it computerized. There were mainframe terminals (and dot matrix printers) in one room and walls and walls of paper based catalogs in other rooms. It was a pleasant and relaxing place, although in retrospect having to go to downtown DC just to do bibliographic research was enormously wasteful. I remember telneting to LOCIS (their catalog) for the first time after they went online and thinking "Wow, this is amazing!" :) Now I am not even sure if they still keep their card catalogs in the main complex... Ahasuerus 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My Dad only brought home the unused cards, how long the used cards have remained is uncertain. As the cards were big enough to write a short story on, the used cards might be worth recording as well. Somewhere. Or just let them be their own records. I know I bought my ASR-33 teletype terminal for mere printer use from that library, so it couldn't possibly have been silent and relaxful at times. But every time I look at an ISFDB submission with non-ASCII characters I remember the olden days... BLongley 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephan Martiniere / Stephan Martinière
I see you tried to put Stephan's accent back on one of his covers. I'm afraid ISFDB won't allow that, they're considered practically identical. We could change the author everywhere by editing the author record but for the moment I think the fact that the accent remains intact in notes will have to do. BLongley 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the first cover I've seen with the accent. Didn't know it was a 'virus' too! Duly noted. ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"I Recommend the Voice"
Could you please check whether it's "I Recommend the Voice" or "I Recognised the Voice" in your verified [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?SFRMTCLCKS1961 Stories From The Clock Strikes Twelve? TIA! Ahasuerus 16:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Recognized". One day my brain and fingers will be in unison, really! I can see it coming... or is that just a train.....? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I had been in Derleth's shoes, I wouldn't have Americanized the titles of British horror stories. They look so much more... eldritch in their native habitat. Oh well, we do what we can -- fixed! Ahasuerus 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

B.E.A.S.T.---cover image
This. . I added cover image and did a Tuck ck. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the one! --Bluesman 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tide Went Out- added cover/notation
This. . I added cover and notation to your ver from my copy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Zebrowski's Sunspacer Trilogy
Can you check the cover link submitted for this pub? This was the same cover for the submission which immediately preceded this one. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Found an image that may be too small and thought I had still put it on the clipboard.... tried it again. If it's too small just reject it. AMAZON has nothing and I don't know any other image sources. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of The Day of Their Return
I have some reservations about the dating you gave for this printing. The gutter code "Q40" could indicate a printing in October 1974 or 1975, just as easily as the date you gave (October 1986). The 1975 seems more likely because the Q codes I've found for 1974 titles are at the end of the code ("40Q" and "49Q"). It's not impossible that the book club would be reprinting a title 12 years later, but it would have to be a perennial seller (a la, the Hugo Award and Dangerous Visions anthologies, or an award-winner.) This title is obscure even for Anderson fans. The extra digit in the catalog number may give us some clue. Is this number on the back of the dustjacket or at the bottom of the inside back flap? Does Currey mention this code? (I know he only goes up to 1978) This brings up the issue that we'd discussed before about the dating of SFBC editions. The only date we can be absolutely sure about is the date of its selection of the month. Otherwise most other dating is guesswork. I've said it before, and here I go again, but I personally prefer that gutter codes be recorded in the notes of the one SFBC edition record that we can be fairly sure about, the first one, (unless there's more than one SFBC edition, which is another kettle of fish!) The only ISFDB standard that applies in this situation is that if the pub is undated, and if there is no secondary source of a date, then it should be zeroed out. Because of the ambiguity of the gutter code, we really can't be sure of this pub's date. I've accepted the record as submitted, and will let it stand, even though I admit some unease about it. MHHutchins 00:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same situation with this pub as well. It's hard to believe such an obscure anthology would have been reprinted 13 years later.  Why not June 1974? (And, god help me, I'm going to have to upload a better scan than the one you found, even if I have to scan my own copy!) MHHutchins 01:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The SFBC reprinted a whole lot of titles in the mid-80s and just added a zero to the existing number. I was a member at that time, bought all these new, and have an even harder time imagining they had stock left over from 12 years before. One of the submissions I made tonight had the extra zero and it was originally an '82 release. The only reason I enter these is because of the 'catalogue' number change. If there was a price on them, the 'legitimacy' of the entry wouldn't be in question. We enter printings from all different publishers, in fact every other publisher, regardless if the only change is the printing number. I agree that any SFBC edition that retains a number should only get one entry, even though around the time the numbers were moved to the back cover from the back flap that was one way of spotting a later printing. I wouldn't enter those at this time, but can see when that information might be useful. Even Currey notes separate gutter code printings, though he doesn't note later printings of other publishers without textual or country of printing differences, and then only in the hardcovers. As usual with anything SFBCish, the debate will continue! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So are these catalog numbers on the back or the flap? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the back. All the five digit codes were on the back. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Printing date =/= publication date
You added this new pub basing the publication date on the gutter code. There's an identical pub already in the database dated 1966 and Tuck-verified. I strongly suspect that they're the same publication. Remember a printing date is not the publication date. Industry standard seems to be about six weeks for hardcovers. Most of the time these will slip into distribution before the official publication date, sometimes almost immediately, and depending upon where you live in the country. And lately the whole idea of a "publication date" for hardcovers has become somewhat of a joke. I'm sure you've seen "2nd printing before publication" on some copyright pages. The best proof of printing vs. publication dates is the SFBC listings. A book printed in May will be released to club members in July (that is published). More evidence that gutter codes shouldn't be used to date pubs. MHHutchins 06:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not see this one. I am well aware of how the gutter codes don't reflect the publication date on first printings, though once they become a catalogue item, they don't really get 'published' again unless there is an edition change. We take printing dates all the time for later ones. I'll delete the entry and do a primary on the existing pub. Usually I catch these, especially with the artists the same. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The New Hugo Winners
I accepted your submission adding this pub, then wondered why such an important anthology had not ever been entered into the db. Well, it was, here. Do you think these are the same pubs? The only difference I can see is the title of Butler's story. Yours is "Blood Child" and the other record has "Bloodchild" (the canonical title,) MHHutchins 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm holding the next submission adding Volume II of The New Hugo Winners. It appears to be identical to this pub. MHHutchins 19:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I even did a title search on this one and it came up blank! Where did you find them? That was a lot of typing to do. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Found them... forest for the trees.... sheesh, though I still can't figure why a title search missed them. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucky Starr and the Pirates of the Asteroids
Your submission removes the note that this is a photographic reprint of the Doubleday first edition. Is that not noted on the pub's copyright page? Almost all Gregg Press pubs are photographic reprints, and it will usually state which edition it reprints on the copyright page. You might also notice the white space framing the cover image. That's because you didn't remove the "_AA240_" from the URL. MHHutchins 05:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The copy just says "Reprint" nothing about photographic. I thought that had to do with the cover and am fairly sure Barlowe wasn't around, or at least not doing covers, in 1953. That means it was printed from photographic plates? I'll fix the image. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A photographic reprint means that photographs were taken of each page of the original edition and reprinted to create this new publication. New plates were created from these photographs, so they're not really new editions.  When many people hear or see the word "reprint" they assume a new edition was created.  For instance when Ace reprints a Doubleday hardcover, it's actually creating a new edition. It's possible, and is true in many cases, that reprints use the same plates of the first edition, making them true reprints, not new editions.  Every Gregg Press publication (except for one original first edition) that I own states "a complete photographic reprint".  You can usually tell photographic reprints because they're exactly the same number of pages.  (Look at the page counts for the Doubleday and the Gregg Press editions of the Lucky Starr novels.)  There were several publishers in the 70s who made photographic reprints of out-of-print works, mainly for libraries.  In addition to Gregg, there was Garland and Hyperion.  Today there are many print-on-demand publishers who specialize in photographic reprints of out-of-print and, even more important, out-of-copyright works.  With today's technology, they just copy an old edition and print it in a matter of minutes. MHHutchins 06:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cover images for Green Shadow White Whale
Congratulations on your first cover image upload! Both attempts at uploading the image came through. It's slightly over the limit for size so the system was unable to create a thumbnail for the image file page. Here's the link for the first, and here's the one for the second. You can also reach them by clicking on the "full resolution" link just below the blank attempt at a thumbnail. Once you've reached the file, just copy the URL from your browser's address window, and place this into the pub record's cover image field. You can also reset your scanner so it scans at 500 pixels in height which I believe is about the limit for which the system can create a thumbnail. MHHutchins 18:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You just made my day!!!! A case of your favorite wine! I'll even help you drink it, as long as it's red... the Scanning process is way easier than I thought, though the HELP isn't (see my plaintive note on the HELP page). If the images are too big for a thumbnail, will they display properly in the pub record? I'm at nearly the lowest setting now, and the software isn't giving a manual adjust, just pre-selected resolutions. The whole process is maybe three minutes from scan to in the URL. Cheers!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the thumbnail limit is 600 pixels, so that's what I always resize to. They'll display properly on the pub record though, even if they're bigger. DES used to try and frighten us with stories about how too detailed a scan might attract the lawyers, but after a few hundred uploads I've still not got a writ. It might be nice to have a standard size so we can rapidly create pages like this - which probably took a bit more effort than this, but the point remains the same - a nice standard size does make it easy to produce galleries. BLongley 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So far it has just been single images, but how does one get ACE/TOR doubles to work. I haven't played with the scanning software too much yet so not sure if it can be rotated before uploading and I don't see any way to play with it after it's uploaded. There are also some extremely good covers that are wraparounds and this rotation would work for them as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It took me the better part of a whole day to create the Avon SF Rediscovery page. Not only the scanning of the books (had to do some work with Paint Shop Pro on some of the more beaten-up covers), but writing the page in Wiki when I'm so much better at HTML.  I had to create two sizes for each book - one for the db and a thumbnail size for the wiki.  I wish we had the same software as Wikipedia, then we could simply designate the display size regardless of the actual size. MHHutchins 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Late 80s SFBC edition of The Martian Chronicles
According to Locus1 this edition was published in March 1987 at $4.50. But the artwork isn't new. It's the same as the March 1978 printing. When you uploaded your scan I recognized it from the 1978 announcement flyer and changed the artist credit for the 1978 edition of Gary Viskupic. It had been credited to John Lisco, who is actually the designer of the covers, but not the artist. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Lisco credit threw me. I was looking for Viskupic. Good memory! Adjusted the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Planet by Clement
The cover image for this record is the same for Noise. MHHutchins 18:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another mismatch here. MHHutchins 18:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both fixed. One step out of sync today.... but the last one brings up a question. Have figured out how to rotate the scan so did a full cover of Daniel's "Robot". Since we do 'double-wides' for the ACE Dbls, that part is okay. However, the scan does show the barcode. Is that pushing the licensing envelope too far? ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with the barcodes. It actually helps because it proves that we copied the book and not the artwork (which would be bursting through the envelope!) MHHutchins 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whew! Wouldn't want to get DES into a lather! ;-) If there is no barcode is the presence of the title/author sufficient? And there is always the imprint logo on the spine. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick's Divine Invasion
Another pub with Tony Daniel's Earthling cover image. MHHutchins 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I have been scanning every book as I go through them so I have the whole collection stored and seem to miss that vital little step of getting them onto the site as well. Less coffee, more Guinness!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured you were either one step behind with the covers, or one step ahead with the pubs! MHHutchins 19:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of Dickson's The Final Encyclopedia
Looking at the cover image, it appears that the SFBC edition was published by Ace Books. It's rare that the SFBC would credit the paperback publisher instead of the hardcover publisher, but it's even rarer that Tor didn't publish the paperback since it published the hardcover (perhaps something in the contract with Dickson?) Also, you might want to make a note on the record for Tor hardcover that the cover image is for the SFBC edition. Someone looking at it might want to edit the record to give Ace publisher credit. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch!. I didn't even notice TOR in the publisher field.... three letters is three letters (?) Fixed up both. Can't figure the publisher connection, either, as the same month this one came out on ACE TOR published a pb of Outposter. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Ace had contracted with Dickson for the pb rights to all Dorsai novels? MHHutchins 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Between Planets
We'd need to dig through other early 1950s Scribner books to verify this but do you think the code A-8.62 for also indicates it's a first printing? --Marc Kupper|talk 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of this particular edition, probably. Scribners seems to have used the letter to indicate the printing and the rest to indicate the date. Just put in an edit for a library binding of Have Space Suit Will Travel and it had J—1.67 which would read as a tenth printing, or tenth edition, in January '67 and Currey indicates the first edition had the code A.8-58 on its copyright page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

SFBC edition of The Nonborn King & The Adversary
I added the month of publication and the price according to Locus1 with a note for. I left the note about the series, but it appears that the pub has already been entered in the series. MHHutchins 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't in the series when I made the edit, some enterprising MOD no doubt! I'll remove the note. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kress's The Aliens of Earth
I created a content entry for the interior art by Jane Walker for so there would be a record on her summary page. If each work is for individual pieces in the collection, you can add if you choose separate records for each work. If you decide to do so, remove the record I created and delete it from the database. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are only 9 pieces, but 18 stories, and because I haven't read the book yet I can't say that the illustrations are specific to the stories. Have put the book aside as next in line and will do something with them then. If they are specific, then they will be entered differently than if just random and I don't want to do them twice! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hawksbill Station
Hi. Added a cover image to HWKSBLLSTT1968. Also tweaked the notes (forgot it was verified -- I would have left them alone). MartyD 02:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From This Day Forward
Hi. My copy of FRMTHSDFRW1972 matches your verified info (including copyright page note and gutter code), but mine has a catalogue #5258 on the back flap. I also found this image, which matches my cover. Would you see if your copy agrees? Thanks. --MartyD 11:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine is jacketless which is why there is no code and no image. Add away! Neat cover! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

SFBC Best of Kuttner
Does your copy have gutter code "01R" or "R01"? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "01 R" to be precise! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-checking. I'll accept the submission and then correct the notes. MHHutchins 17:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did my intermittent dyslexia kick in? That and the multiple personalities conflict do 'us' in sometimes.... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wrong End of Time
My copy of THWRNGNDFT1972 has a gutter code of C11 on p. 184, not C12 as indicated in the notes. Not that it really matters, but what say you? --MartyD 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! A typo or late night edit on my part. Sometimes you have to almost pry the pages open to see the code, which I hate doing. Have adjusted the note and the entry in the ISFDB SFBC listing. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A Specter is Haunting Texas
FYI, my copy of SPCTRSHNTB1969 has the 11K gutter code. I added that fact to the notes and did a transient verification (guess I did learn something...). --MartyD 21:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly why that option is there! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

McCaffrey's The Dolphin Bell
You changed this story in this collection to a short story. Is it heavily illustrated? MHHutchins 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, "The Ford Red Hanrahan" was changed from novella to novelette. It's forty pages in this pub, and more than fifty in the pb.  Were your changes based on a word count? MHHutchins 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one is only 14 pages, hardly a novella. The second, by the time you eliminate the title page, one blank after that and the last page (has three lines) it's just 37 pages. The type isn't particularly small. If it's a novella it's marginal at best. Even Locus1 lists it as a novelette. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If "The Dolphin's Bell" is only 14 pages long, there must be a title missing in your contents. That story begins on page 15 and the next story begins on page 63. MHHutchins 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked with Locus1, and it has "The Dolphin's Bell" as a novella. MHHutchins 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I could just scream!!! Have been looking at the wrong story. Thought I had changed the first story "Survey" from a novella to short story. After eight hours the lines tend to blur. Time for a break! Apologies. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know exactly how you feel. It just turned on my alarms when I saw a short story beginning on page 15 and ending close to fifty pages later.  Either it's in VERY LARGE print or    v e r y    s  p  r  e  a  d     o u t, or very heavily illustrated.  :-) MHHutchins 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the record for large print is in "Reaper Man" by Terry Pratchett, where one page is simply the word "YES" in such large print that it takes up the whole width of the page and is the only word on that page. (Actually, there might be another page where "NO" is in even bigger letters, it's been a long time since I read it.) BLongley 20:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would be a quick read! :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if you sit there wondering why the heck the author/publisher wasted an entire page for one word. :-) The blank pages, as found at the end of a book, are a fast read (unless the story ends abruptly). --Marc Kupper|talk 02:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Price for the SFBC ed. of King David's Spaceship
I looked up the price for this. Of course, the original price ($11.95) was way off. It was only $2.98. The record has been corrected. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Pulling images from PS Publishing
I removed the link you placed for the cover image of this pub. There's notes on most of the images on their site exhorting others to use their images in any way they like, but they ask that you to copy it on to your own website, and not link directly to theirs. I'll copy the image and then upload it to the ISFDB. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Their image is rather small so I decided to find a bigger one. Then I saw that you've already uploaded one.  Now I'm wondering how that link to the PS Publishing got on the hc edition.  Is it different from the one you uploaded for the tp edition? MHHutchins 04:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The back cover is different, ISBN and price. I can reload only the front cover, if my image is a better one? ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, yours is much better than theirs. I don't think it would hurt to have the link to the same image.  Just place a note about the source and any notable differences. MHHutchins 05:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Before the Universe-- added cover image
This. . I added the cover image. You must have done the notation, fine job! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Silverberg's Revolt on Alpha C
Please re-check the image for this pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops! Fixed. I almost changed this one to a shortfiction/chapterbook, hardly qualifies as a novel. It's very large print and might take up 60 pages in any anthology/collection......?? Plus, it's illustrated with 8 half-pagers (by the elusive Mr. Meyerriecks). Is there a law somewhere that says artists have to have strange names....... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That bloody title again: can you shed any further light on this discussion please? (And please don't change anything to "chapterbook", they're fundamentally broken and will be till Al gets back. You can still get one shot at entering a chapterbook and it will work, but changing them will ALWAYS break them.) BLongley 23:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Added my two cents worth. Thanks for the heads up on the chapterbook issue. Something needs to be done with them, and not from a software point of view. Seems not right to equate a limited edition hardcover to the same fate as a four page mimeographed and stapled quickie for conventions or lay-ins on other pubs. When there is a discussion on this I will definitely chime in, after Al's 'fix', of course! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's always "ph" (pamphlet) for the really small stuff. The main problem is that although a CHAPBOOK title type with a CHAPTERBOOK Publication type does mostly work, any edit silently changes it to an Anthology. The workaround of SHORTFICTION content with CHAPTERBOOK publication type only works for single content titles, preferably with the same name for content and publication - but that doesn't allow for Introductions, essays, Interiorart, chapterbook anthologies or collections, etc. So I just leave them alone for now. The other thing that will need to be sorted (after the fix) is whether to reclassify thousands of children's books, for instance, as Chapterbooks rather than novels just because they're not long enough to win an award they'd never actually be entered for. Or older, shorter, books which were published as novels before the awards where even invented. I'm not a fan of such a change, but fortunately the loudest lengthist seems to be on hiatus. BLongley 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hobbit
I'm wondering about the reasoning behind the three submissions for 1974 printings of The Hobbit. Two of them are identical, and the third adds printing data. Do you plan on adding further info on the other two? Thanks. MHHutchins 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three? I thought I only submitted one...? Whichever one looks the most complete should be the one I intended (includes all the 'impressions' dates in the notes), anything else may have been a double-click or an errant 'return'...? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe's There Are Doors
I've uploaded a new scan for the Tor hardcover edition of this title. The cover for the Orb edition that you added to it is the same artwork but the graphics are so different that I thought it warranted its own scan. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess one can't trust even multiple sources. Looked this one up before adding the scan in two places and they showed what I loaded as the HC. At least the art was the same. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Dune Encyclopedia
So if this edition predates the hc, can we give it an actual date and document the source?--swfritter 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Source is Locus1. Think I put that in the notes for the HC.... but not for the TP?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and approved it but the date in the pub is 0000-00-00. Perhaps we can put a real date in?--swfritter 21:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really weird, when you first questioned this I went back and it was displaying an '87 date so I changed it to 84-06 and now it was at 0000-00? Changed it back to '84-06 again and hopefully this time it will stay there. Gremlins!?!?!? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Try using 1984-06 rather than 85-06. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did put in the '19', just left it off the notes here. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if Bill used the "YYYY-MM" format rather than the standard "YYYY-MM-00"? Ahasuerus 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do that often, but have not seen that it makes a difference. Does that format sometimes not 'read' properly, or not 'take' in the db? ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gold at the Starbow's End
You only did a transient verification, but FYI, I added a cover image to MLO233. --MartyD 02:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine! Thanks.~Bill, --Bluesman 15:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reefs of Space
I added a cover to your transient verified pub which matches my copy of the same edition. Kevin 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the one. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Siege of Eternity
I added cover art to you verified pub that matches my copy of the same edition. Kevin 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

McCaffrey's Get Off the Unicorn
Can you double-check how the story "Lady in the Tower" (page 3) is titled in this collection? All other printings are titled "The Lady in the Tower". Thanks. MHHutchins 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No "The" in ToC, story title page or copyright acknowledgements. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll create the variant. MHHutchins 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg Bear's Queen of Angels
Please check the cover link for this pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm 99% sure your copy was published by the Quality Paperback Book Club (indicate as publisher / QPBC). There's a statement on my trade copy that this was a selection of the BOMC and the QPBC.  MHHutchins 21:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed the picture and re-checked the copyright page and there is virtually nothing there. The copyright data and the LoCCiP Data and that's it. Locus has the BOMC edition as a HC and no ISBN, but no listing for the QPBC. I don't have any other of their books to check a 'style' or anything. Still might be worth adding to the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There very few indications that a book was published for the QPBC, nothing explicit. There is no price and it's a trade paperback.  The interior will be identical, even the copyright page, and the cover art will be exactly as the hardcover dustjacket.  I re-read your note and saw that it has an ISBN-13, which wasn't placed in books prior to 2006.  If that's true, that throws my assumption that is the 1990 QPBC publication out the window.  Back to square one. MHHutchins 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And no ISBN-10. Know I've had this a few years, even read it twice! Maybe the date on this should be changed to 0000? For sure it wasn't published in 1990. Maybe even a note that "This doesn't exist" signed by both of us?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That might work, but don't hold your breath. (I found three copies for sale on the abebooks.com, and one dealer says it was published simultaneously with the hardcover edition.) Perhaps this was reprinted in the recent past by QPBC?  Where is the Questar logo located? The 1990 trade hc only has it on the spine and nowhere in the book itself. MHHutchins 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, top of the spine and that's it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Interior art for 	Harvest the Fire
This submission. Are you not putting in the interior art offsets because they are greater than 10?--swfritter 23:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't tell which of the two edits you mean, the link is to the MOD page which I can't see. I did put in the art on the SFBC edition and was going to just import it once accepted to the trade edition. Clear as mud?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You've entered Interiorart for "Harvest the Fire [1]" through "Harvest the Fire [9]" plus three more "Harvest the Fire" with no suffix. BLongley 23:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OH!!! I get you now. I just forgot the [10]; [11]; [12]. On my window, the most I can add at one time is nine entries, then I have to scroll further to add more. This is another example of why it would be so nice to have a 'preview' page for submissions that the editor can see. A lot of mistakes could be avoided. When I edit here I can always see a preview before signing my life away ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok! Approved and improved. Interesting. In the past I have linked to submission acceptance screens and editors have been allowed to look but not approve the submissions. I think the Radio Shack TRS-80 is a little out of date for the internet. Don't worry, even if you make a mistake on your wiki page I will not send the DeathStar to your planet.--swfritter 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whew! Yoda be praised! And is the TRS-80 yours or your grandfather's?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad there's no Death-Star doom invoked for this planet, as I seem to be stuck here until I figure out which one is my home. (This 24-hour day thing is not fitting in with my species at all.) I agree the TRS-80 wasn't really suited for the internet though. My Sinclair ZX-81 wasn't either. Nor the Spectrum. (And rebranding as "Timex 2000" in the US didn't actually bring any future capabilities forward either.) I'm pretty sure I could get one of them online but I could also do that for the ASR-33 teletype I have stored in my parent's loft - but I couldn't afford the paper-roll costs. One view of Asimov's page and I'd put a paper-mill back in business. ;-) .  BLongley 00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Phantasia edition of Medea: Harlan's World
Perhaps there should be note on this pub's record that the cover is from the SFBC edition. The Bantam logo is evident on the cover scan you added to this Phantasia edition. (I'm assuming they both had the same cover art.) Thanks. MHHutchins 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same situation with the trade edition. MHHutchins 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I looked for both of these on ABEBOOKS and found several with thumbnail pics, even one of the slip-cased edition (only $250 - a bargain!) and they matched the artwork of the SFBC edition. Good thing because the TP edition's cover is boring. I will add the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

People of Pern by Wood and McCaffrey
This publication was a SFBC alternate selection for June 1989. When I get a chance I hope to finish up the 1980s listings. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that the one I had in as a 'placeholder'? As I've been going through all these books I'm making/keeping a list of the SFBC editions from '89 up and once I get through will enter them all at once. There wouldn't be a blank template I could print to transfer all these rough notes too?? Hint, hint.... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That was the pub that you'd placed in October 1988 with a note about it being a temporary placing. The only templates used are the links to the five-year intervals at the top and the bottom of each page.  The tables are created using basic Wiki editing, and they're all now in place.  It's just a matter of filling in the fields.  When you want to add another selection just copy an empty line, and paste it into the right place.  As for your notes, I'll create a field at the bottom of each page for them.  It'll be just one empty table and it will expand as you add more notes. Let me know if it works. MHHutchins 00:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I created a table for notes on the bottom of the first page SFBC 1953-1959, but it just occurred to me that you can use the talk page for each page to write notes about that page. Click on "Discuss this page".  Each one will be created the first time you do it.  After the page is created you can add comments and edit it just like any other Wiki page.  That might be a better approach.  Just let me know which is better for you.  MHHutchins 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Power Play
Added a cover image to your verified PWRPLY1996A that matches my copy of the same 1st edition. --MartyD 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Supermind
Added a cover image to your verified SPRMND661977 that matches my copy of the same 1st edition. --MartyD 18:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Always Coming Home
I'm wondering if you overlooked the verified hardcover edition of this title before you submitted a new one. Or is there a difference I'm overlooking. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally missed it, though the image is valid. REJECT!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)