User talk:Bluesman/Archive9

SFBC of Hugo Winners, Vol. 5
Does this pub have a gutter code? Mhhutchins 19:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, 'Q43' pg 339. Will add to the record.


 * Could you also look for a gutter code in Medea: Harlan's World? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly the trade edition with the number line expunged, no code. Paper quality and binding superior to BCE editions, regular trade size as well.


 * And Robots and Empire. Mhhutchins 19:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No code. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Vt of Von Kempelen and his Discovery
Thanks for the heads up. I'll enter it as it appears in the pub. Syzygy 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Error Related to The House on the Strand Cover
I appreciate how fast you've approved my edits the past two days. Thanks. I'm learning. I encountered an error I thought I should mention to you. On The House on the Strand I clicked on the ISFDB link under the cover image and got the error "Error creating thumbnail: /var/www/html/wiki//bin/ulimit4.sh: line 4: /usr/local/bin/convert: No such file or directory". When I click the same link on other pages, like The Tenth Planet, I don't get the error. I saw on a help screen that the longest side of an image shouldn't be over 600 pixels. The House on the Strand image is 623 pixels. Perhaps that's the problem.Jmaloney 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not the problem! By default the thumbnail size is set to 320x240. You can change that by doing the following:
 * Click on the "My Preferences" link at the top of any wiki page or on the left side under "My Pages".
 * Click on the "Files" tab on the next screen.
 * In the drop-down menu next to "Limit images on file description pages to:" choose "10000x10000px".
 * In the drop-down menu next to "Thumbnail size" choose "300px".
 * Click on the "Save" button.


 * Now you should see any images. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That fixed it. You're good! Thanks!Jmaloney 22:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am, but I had the same problem once upon a time and was helped with the same instructions. Just passing this along! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wizard John Varley 1981 Cover
I think, this pub have wrong cover. This edition was with cover by Tim White (there & there for exemple) BarDenis 20:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, seems to be for the '85 edition. Updated the record. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Muito obrigado pela as aprovações!
Did you do that just to reduce the eye-strain, or did you have fun spotting the deliberate mistakes? ;-) BLongley 04:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither! It took less time to just blast through them than to wait for the page to download to get to my submissions at the bottom of the list. ;-)) Thank god Fixer doesn't get a colour .......! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please tell me you're not going to do 500 Variants in one ‡(( shot ;-)  --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah... I'll stick to a hundred a time. Till later, when the Brazilians seem to have divided one English tome into two or three volumes. BLongley 05:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, even fifty looks too many. The Publisher Series page takes ages to load when there's hundreds of titles. I might have to go and code some improvements, if Ahasuerus will let me submit changes again (we have a backlog of several months now). :-/ BLongley 11:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You might try keeping the publisher's page open in it's own window/tab and temporarily set your 'preferences' so that clicking on a link opens in a new tab/window which you can close after working on the pub, then back to the Publisher's page and pick the next one. Should work better than waiting all the time. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A Step Farther Out
This record shows up on the Stray Authors list because the author of the pub doesn't match the author of the title record. Can you double-check the book to see if it's credited correctly and determine whether a variant should be created for the title? Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's credited correctly, I made specific mention in the notes about the PHD. I would imagine the first Ace tp edition is similarly credited though none of the OCLC records show it, for any edition. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I had already checked the OCLC records and saw that none credit the Ph.D., so until someone comes along and verifies the other editions, you'll have to make yours into a variant. (Or drop the "Ph.D." from your record and explain why.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Price of verified entry
My copy of THE BEST OF TREK #2 1st printing has a different price ($1.95 as to your $1.25). Could you check your copy and isn't a $1.25 a little low for a 1980 book? My copy maybe a later printing that kept the full number line. Thanks.Don Erikson 23:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the typo was in the $, not the ¢! Price is $2.25, and clearly an overprint. A Canadian edition. Since no-one else has verified, I changed the existing record to match my pub so you should clone since yours is a US edition [?]. The image is of mine so it has the $2.25 price showing [no other price]. I'll have to check the rest in that series as well. With no other verifications it's hard to find these differences. Thanks for catching this one. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Gibson's Spook Country
Does your copy of this book contain only the ISBN-10? According to the Amazon Look-Inside, it prints the ISBN-13. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Only the ISBN-13 is present. Changed the record. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Astounding UK
Hi, if you will release the hold on Malcolmf's Astounding submission, I'll try to recover it. I've already generated a blank record on the Astounding UK page and all I need is to add a tag to link the submission over (or so I think).--Rkihara 01:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. If that works let me know how you generated the tag, might come in useful! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Publication Tags are automatically generated when a new publication is approved. They're not stable (people can edit them on existing publications) and it's better to use publication IDs for linking. I think some Magazine moderators do, or used to, make sure Tags were decipherable into a pub-title (without all the vowels) and a date, but it's really not necessary and is frankly undesirable. (swfritter discovered several "tag clashes" for magazines, I'd already discovered several for "Doctor Who and the..." book titles, and fixing that took longer to explain than code!) If a "link by tag" fails to work, (usually by linking it to the wrong pub) let me know - but generally leave them alone and link new ones by ID instead. BLongley 03:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Golden Apples of the Sun
I'm not sure you should have approved P-Brane's edit adding a price from an ad in a later edition. This was £0.40,  was £0.40, making  £0.35 looks suspicious. I'm not saying it's wrong (and I must check my copies, I'm sure I have at least a couple of printings), but I'm very dubious of prices from ads unless they're very close in date. BLongley 03:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and something I thought of after accepting it. I'll wait until you check your 'stash' before reversing the edit. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Prod me if I don't get round to it in the next day or two. I'm pretty sure I've got most of my "B" authors sorted. In fact, if I can push a few more "A" authors back into bookcase 1, and get rid of the MZB pubs on bookcase 2 that I suspect I'll never get round to reading, bookcase 2 might be purely "Baker" to "Byrne". BLongley 03:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, it is price for which is highly suspicious! £0.40 is very high if you look at other Corgi prices from 1970 and the book is quite slim (169). All known '73 releases in Corgi SF Library very £0.35 and the price appears in a several ads from 73 and 74. Cheers, P-Brane 03:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC).


 * You're right, the 1970 edition is probably wrong. Unfortunately the UK price is blacked out on my edition so I can't be sure, but I'd say £0.20 or 4/- is more likely. BLongley 13:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Canadian printings of American publishers' editions
I was going to add notes to this record when I realized that my copy is not a first edition. There is no statement of edition or number line on the copyright page, and there is no price printed on the dustjacket. In the price section of the barcode on the back of the dustjacket, only the number "90000" appears instead of a price. And to top it all, there's a maple-leaf impressed on the back at the bottom of the cloth section of the book. So I removed my verification and am stumped about adding a new record for my copy. There's a statement on the copyright page "Published simultaneously in Canada" so I'm thinking my copy may be one. Are you familiar with how books published in Canada by American publishers look? Do they have printed prices? Have you ever seen the impressed maple-leaf? It's the same size (but different shape) of the one used by BOMC for their printings. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember a similar 'stamp' being mentioned by MartyD, though I can't remember the title. We determined that it had to be a BOMC/CANADA or something along those lines. I have never seen one, personally. The '90000' appears in many barcode blocks, US & Canadian, and always for some kind of BCE. I am not familiar with any exclusively Canadian Book Clubs, not sure if any still operate here [the SFBC is no longer servicing us]. If I can think of anything else, I'll add to this. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This [site] categorically states: "If you find a circle, square, maple leaf, dot, or star blind-stamped on the bottom right of the outside back cover, it's a Book of the Month Club (BOMC) edition." --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ballantine 1st edition of The Wanderer
I'm trying to confirm whether the Easton Press edition of this title is a facsimile reprint of the Ballantine first edition. For a page check, can you see if page 127 starts with "seemingly" and prints the graphic that looks like a yin-yang symbol above the caption "SIX HOURS"? And page 201 starts "AS THE MORNING TIDE flooded up the Bristol Channel..." and after that single paragraph begins "CHAPTER" (over) "TWENTY-NINE"? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 04:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes on both instances. You're welcome! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the very fast response. I figured it was a facsimile, not just because of the page count, but the type face as well. Mhhutchins 04:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fawcett pb ed. of Rogue Moon
Can I bother you to check another book to determine if it's been reprinted as the Easton Press edition? Page 100 begins "I guess. Shouldn't..." and page 168 starts "stars, now dead black...". Also, does your edition have chapter headings that include various shapes of a crescent moon? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes to the page 'beginnings' but no doodles on chapter heading pages. And I checked both the editions I have [s1057, L1474]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah ha! So they added the doodles. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Publication date discrepancy with OCLC in The Cosmic Puppets
I have a copy The Cosmic Puppets which is exactly the same, except for a different pub date (1986) which  matches the OCLC record you verified. Should I Add or Edit ? --Pips55 22:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The date recorded is from Locus1, and they note that the edition does have a 1986 date but wasn't published until 1987. OCLC would only record the date as put in the book. Without the book I'd go by Locus, but our policy is to record what's in the actual copy and note differences if reputable secondary sources disagree. Here I would edit the existing but note that Locus has a different date [note the actual date Locus gives - 1987-03-00]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

price
Hi Bill, I found here Deutsche Nationalbibliothek another price for the Katalog der deutschsprachigen utopisch-phantastischen Literatur 1460 - 1960. What do we now? Rudam 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to tell if either price is for a first edition? Does the DN note other editions/prices? From the notes in Tuck about this book [sounds like it would be one to acquire!!] he probably used it for a lot of his entries and had a copy. If you are comfortable that the DN price is correct, alter the record but note that Tuck has a different price. Covers both possibilities. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * DN notes only one edition and my research doesn't find other printings. But I can't for sure say that DB is correct, therefore I will note the DN price. I'm delighted that you find this treasure. Rudam 19:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if you can find an actual copy, clone it a bunch of times and send us all one! Tuck does note that even though it's in German any bibliographer could use it. Apparently there were periodic update sheets of the current releases, all under the Transgalaxis label. Of course this would have been in 1974 ... --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cover credit for The Towers of Utopia
Artist for this pub is Bruce Pennington, based on the credited use of the same cover art here. I'll update the record. Mhhutchins 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And I have both of them .... my Pelman radar is slipping! ;-) Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover art credit for Toyman
Thanks to Tineye, I found the cover artist credit of this publication. Mhhutchins 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't Tineye. It was my own memory of the unusual cover art when trying to find the original publication sources for the covers of NEL's Science Fiction Monthly, all covers of which were reprinted from earlier book covers. Mhhutchins 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! Those Tubb covers are quite interesting, and seem to be from one artist. Hopefully you find some more matches. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that all of them are most likely by, I'm just looking for some corroborating evidence. Look at the other Arrow publications he did in the early 70s and you'll see the same style. He seems to have got away from it in the later work. Mhhutchins 21:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

John Brunner The Squares of the City
Hi, should the pages field of this pub read viii+319 ? Thanks --Pips55 20:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed! And now it does. Good catch. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Multireal
Hi, I've changed the price from $15.00 to $15.98, according to this page. I also altered the publisher to Pyr / Prometheus, as Prometheus is named on back cover, title page and copyright page: "Pyr®, an imprint of Prometheus Books". --Dirk P Broer 00:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

2008 Locus1 verification
I'm holding a submission to update a 2008 pub for which you did a Locus1 verification. Trouble is, currently Locus1 only goes up to 2007. If you're verifying from the most recent Locus Database CD-ROM, I would think it better to indicate that as your source and not "Locus1", which is the ISFDB short-hand for the online database. The conflation of the two sources might cause some confusion (as it did in my case). The submission also wants to change the price and gives the publisher's website as a source. Another editor must have entered that strange number line, and without a primary verification there's no way of knowing its source. If you want to take over the submission, I'll release the hold. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All the data except for the price was entered from a 'Look-Inside'. The 'odd' number line simply lacks the spaces between '54321'. Publisher website aside, neither Pyr nor any other publisher sells books in the North American market for $XX.98. I do understand that "Locus1" currently only goes to 2007, but eventually it will include 2008 and beyond. I struggled with how to deal with the CD-Rom data when it exceeded the current online catalogue. The toss-up is between stating the CD-Rom as the source and having to change all such notes when the exact same data becomes part of the 'official' online version [which, as Bill C. says, will be when he 'retires' from Locus in a year or so] and simply using the same notation as is currently the standard. Such verifications have stopped [I got as far as 'G' in the listings] and might be a few hundred in total. It's the only verification source with this 'dilemma'. As usual, Kurt thinks that any online source is 'Gold', but we all know better. I'll bet you have the Locus issue that has the price as $15.00. The publisher change is fine. I'm open to suggestions on how to note perfectly valid data in a form that won't require changes later just because the same data is viewed as being more 'official'. Really! I did struggle with this when I got the CD, and KISS seemed the best way. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the number line now: the first part indicates the year of publication and the second part is the printing number. So "12 11 10 09 08 54321" means the first printing in 2008. I also looked at the price of the 2008 Pyr publications and saw a mixture of whole numbers and $XX.98 (some primary verified). I'll release the submission and let you and Dirk make the final decision.  It's just a matter of noting the sources and the differences between them. (Something I'm always harping on.) I'll pull out my July 2008 issue of Locus to see what it says.
 * I see your point about not differentiating between the Locus CD-ROM and the online database, and won't argue that you should handle it as I would. I just hope they're merged sooner than later to avoid any user confusion.   I also wonder why Contento would give away an income source by doing so.  It makes more sense to keep the online database several years behind the CD-ROM.  And did you ever wonder what would happen if corrections to the data are made after the CD-ROM's production and the uploading of the corrected data online?  By noting your original source, you'd still be covered. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There will be differences, no doubt. I've sent in maybe 100+ corrections but not just to the post 2007 data. As you've noted to new editors who try linking to Locus it's not a static database. I don't keep track of the notes I've sent so can't say how many may already have been corrected. To me the CD-Rom is just a later edition! We don't worry about differentiating between such for Clute but I wonder why we do so for Bleiler when the second edition covers the same years, just corrects and fills in some holes. As for the prices, PYR doesn't price its books [physically] and I would imagine most of the prices have come from Amazon [without the Locus CD there is no other source to check, the PYR website may be showing the current price]. That's why I bought it in the first place and now that Amazon has virtually killed the 'Look-Inside' finding correct data is getting harder without buying tons of books. I'm curious who gives the price to Locus? --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Planet ohne Wiederkehr
Hello Bill, unfortunately you make a wrong submission with this entry Planet ohne Wiederkehr. It isn't a single publication. The novel is part of the first german Science Fiction magazine "Utopia Magazin #12". The first book publication was 1977. Should I delete this pub and make a new submission of the magazine? Rudam 18:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do! Thanks again for checking up on these. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Son of The Tree by Jack Vance
Hi, I am having some doubts about this pub. I know that you did not primarily verify the book, but your reference was the only one in the record ... First, it is classified as a CHAPTERBOOK: why ? Second, no month is present, even if the record states "Month from Amazon.UK" Third, content is specified as a novella, while the number of pages is 128 and also Worldcat says it is a novel. Should I edit ? --Pips55 22:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it should be changed. OCLC having 'a novel' is not a judgment on their part, simply what was [probably] on the title page. The word count is well under 32,000 and there's no evidence it was expanded for the Mayflower edition. All other instances where the story has been printed [except for the Underwood/Miller edition] class it as a novella, and I think that edition should be changed to a chapterbook as well [Underwood/Miller editions always had wide margins and sparse word count per page]. I put the month in the record [must have slipped over it when I added the image]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke's July 20, 2019: Life in the 21st Century
Would you mind my adding contents to this pub? If not, we may use this section to discuss any tricky points about the nature of the pieces; some of them indeed 'defy categorization'. One thing more: is there a number line in your copy indicating first printing? There is one in mine; otherwise it's pretty much the same edition, except that the dustjacket is missing. Waldstein 16:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We need a category for "Speculative Essay" just for this book! [Though I do like the one-word category on the copyright page: Forecasts]. Just to re-hash some of the old ground covered last time we looked at this pub: I don't think Clarke should be credited for more than editorship for the bulk of the pieces [definitely authorship of the Intro and Epilogue]; he explicitly credits each chapter [by subject at least] to the various authors on the page following the TOC. Even though some of the 'essays' have appeared in Omni in somewhat different form there is no indication if any alterations were done by the original author[s] or Clarke, and if by him would be in an editor's role. Also the chapters should be classified the same as they were in the original Omni appearance, though some may require Varianting as the titles are different. I think they were all entered as essays. Perhaps the "Defies Categorization" can be expanded to give a better general feel for the tone of the book. Funny that just last night I finished reading "First On The Moon" with a similar epilogue by Clarke on the future of space travel, way more optimistic than reality proved to be ... ah, well! Yes my copy has a number line anding in '1', must have missed that! So, yes, go ahead and add the contents, but let's not try splitting hairs on the categorization. Since we don't really have an appropriate one the notes may just have to be more voluminous than usual. This might be a good prospect for an extensive Publication Comments page!!?!! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very funny indeed: this morning I was reading Clarke's "Beyond Apollo" too, and was wondering how to include it somehow in his bibliography; I will of course add notes about the two parts of it that are reprinted in "By Space Possessed". As for "July 20, 1969", I rather agree with Clarke's (mostly) editorial role. The book baffles me quite a bit as it is very different than his other collections with speculative non-fiction. It does read like "compiled by Clarke", rather than "written" by him. In this case, how should I credit the authorship of the all chapters except the Introduction and the Epilogue? I can't find the Omni originals in the database and see how they are credited. I will also, in the next few days, add the number line and try to expand the notes appropriately. I must read some of chapters again. It is a really bizarre stuff. The parts about robots, hospitals and schools read like ordinary essays with a lot of history and little speculation; the chapters on death and war seem to me almost exclusively science fiction; and the chapter on psychiatry is for the most part pure fantasy. I guess 'essay' is a fine generic category: otherwise some confusion might ensue. Waldstein 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Beyond Apollo' is already in his bibliography, I entered the book noted above just so it would be. The easiest way to find the corresponding OMNI pieces would be by author or the [OMNI] grid. If that doesn't work, let me know what ones are not showing up and I'll dig out the copies [I have a lot, if not all, of them]. Even the author names may be slightly different in OMNI. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found all authors but none of the pieces save one: 'House Arrest', published in Omni just a month before the book itself. Most of the other authors have essays which suggest the area pointed out by Clarke in the Acknowledgements, but it is quite impossible to tell how much of them was reprinted in the book, how much paraphrased and whether Clarke did any original writing at all. Therefore, I suggest I list the essays by both authors, Clarke and whoever happens to be the other one, and later, if you like, you can check the original issues of the magazine and see if some pieces should be linked as alternative titles or whether Clarke should be excluded as an author from them. Waldstein 17:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarke should not be listed as co-author for any of the essays. And they all did appear in OMNI first, the book was commissioned by OMNI. I can easily find the originals for each piece. Since the book is not purported to be just a collection of previously published material, it doesn't Acknowledge the pieces in a normal fashion. It is quite likely the magazine appearances were already edited, space requirements/limitations/etc. and what appears in the book may just be the essays in their original unedited form or have been expanded for the book. There's just no way to tell. Enter the contents and I'll pull the magazines tomorrow and cross-check. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. So be it. Waldstein 17:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've just come to a reference in "Astounding Days" which seems to make your point. Clarke credits the essay 'War' exclusively on Heppenheimer and, since a short commentary of him was apparently refused, continues to say: 'This was not the only time when my editorial role in this book was negated, and as I was never sent the final proofs it contains some stupid caption errors.' Waldstein 15:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover art credit found
I've found the same art used for the cover of this book on the artist's website. See #12 in the book cover gallery. Mhhutchins 23:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Same for this book. See #11. Mhhutchins 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Another one. See #4. Mhhutchins 00:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delightful! Three more bite the dust. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Quark/3
Is the foreword in this record spelled correctly? Mhhutchins 03:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed I incorrectly spelled it and I've changed it into Forward. Rudam 06:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Anticipation
It looks like at one point you entered a number of "Anticipation" pubs from Tuck. It turns out that we already have a relatively robust Fleuve Noir - Anticipation pub series, so I changed the "Anticipation" pubs to match the rest. Unfortunately, we have just under 10% of the pubs in this pub series, so we have our work cut out for us... Ahasuerus 05:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tuck doesn't give the whole series title. I believe Hervé probably put the rest in. OCLC likewise just records the series as 'Anticipation'. There are no doubt other series that could use some merging under a common name, some of the German ones as well. I wonder if it's even necessary to repeat the Publisher's name as part of the series title? Doesn't seem to be another like-named series from any other publisher... --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be easy enough to change the series name if we go with the shorter version. "Anticipation" does seem to be more logical than "Fleuve Noir - Anticipation", but perhaps Hervé had a reason to list it that way. I am unaware of another "Anticipation" series that we would need to disambiguate, but then my knowledge of French pub series is limited to the heavy hitters listed over on allsf.net. Ahasuerus 06:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just butting in, I'm in the process of entering the whole (2002 volumes - at least 1000 in my library for this series) lot (#186 reached), so dont't bother to do this. For the title series, as I said to one contributor, I prefer to regularize the form as "Fleuve Noir - Anticipation" because there are in fact (allsf is quite a limited site) quite a number of series with the same name see here and one (Belgian IIRC) magazine. Note that I've proceeded in the same fashion for most of the french series as local publishers singularly lacks imagination when naming them (they generally end with "publisher name - SF" or "publisher name - Science Fiction" or "publisher name - Science-Fiction". Hauck 08:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying! I was wondering if there might be more Anticipations lurking in the shadows :-) Ahasuerus 13:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pegasus in Flight
The catalog number seems very high in this record that you Locus1 verified. The current Locus listing gives the ISBN as 0-345-36897-5, which is the same number as the first paperback printing. (I think by this time Ballantine had stopped changing ISBNs for each printing.) Do you know if your verification came from the CD-ROM? Again, it was the high number that threw up a red flag for me. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The same problem with another Del Rey edition by McCaffrey. Locus1 gives the ISBN as 0-345-33546-5. Mhhutchins 21:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Both are the same in the on-line index and the CD-ROM, printings as noted. Did you mean the printing number seems high? It may be a copy-paste error from Locus if you think the ISBN # should be different. Locus1 does note a different ISBN for Dragonflight in 1997 but that was a tp., subsequent pb printings have the same ISBN noted above throughout.   --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Added cover credit
I added cover credit to your verified .Don Erikson 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Byron Preiss' The Universe
Hello, Bill. In my edition of the above mentioned book are some slight changes to the edition you verified. As I think it quite probable that the pages and titles weren't moved around too much, you might want to take a second look at your copy:

1) The essay beginning on p. 13 begins on p. 12 in my edition.

2) The interior illustrations printed on pp. 146, 180, 244 and 270 are printed on pp. (n+1) for each of these illustrations in my copy.

3) The essay beginning on p. 98 has a differing title in my edition: instead of 'Supernovae: Creating ...' it is 'Supernovae: Creative ...' in my edition. Stonecreek 14:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you already make the changes? Thing is, I don't think I added the contents. I have no memory of doing so. Good that it's fixed, anyway! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, thanks are due to Mhhutchins, who seems to have altered your verified pub too. Stonecreek 21:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I added the cover artist for this publication. Stonecreek 21:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I corrected it along with mine. Because they had the same errors, I was pretty sure that Bill had imported my contents. Mhhutchins 21:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, the culprit! Knew my mind wasn't completely gone [yet]! ;-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Star Prince Charlie
You apparently entered two Putnam editions of this pub http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?362389 with different SBNs, one labeled "Library Edition". I have a copy of one of them, but don't know which one. Both SBNs are given on the copyright page: SBN:  GB-399-60933-4 and SBN:  TR-399-20443-1. I would guess I have the trade edition (it looks like the picture, blue cloth with dust jacket), but don't really know. I have the Curry A jacket, with a very light slash between the authors' names on the spine. It is also signed by both authors. I don't know if it means anything, but there is "10 up" on the copyright page and at the bottom of the front flap of the jacket. Bob 01:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "10 up" is the reader age group. I don't know the difference between the trade and Library bindings [if you click on the LCCN link it also shows the two ISBNs]. Some publishers put separate prices on the two editions' jackets [library one usually a little cheaper than the trade] but I'm not familiar with Putnam's practices. Kudos on the signed edition! I'd lean toward it being the trade edition as well. Someday someone will drop in with an identifiable edition in either direction and it could be sorted out then. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

After the Fall - cover credit
I added the cover artist (and a note) from Jane Frank to your verified After the Fall. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Selections From Beyond Human Ken - cover credit
I corrected the artist for this verified pub from "Bergen" to "Charles Binger". His signature is on the cover. Thanks, --Willem H. 21:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Think "Bergen" was there from Scott Latham. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Time Gate by John Jakes
The cover artist for this book is identified in Tomorrow and Beyond (page 42). I've updated the record. Mhhutchins 17:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And I have the Summers book! Missed that one ... Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake Weather Powers 1998
Hi, my copy of this pub has a slightly different cover: the Guardian blurb is in white. The cover in the record seems the same of the hard copy Legend edition. Clone or edit ? --Pips55 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit, for sure! Without a verifier, it's sometimes impossible to know if different covers were used when new editions were published, and Amazon certainly doesn't help!! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks --Pips55 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

SFBC 1982 listings
Thanks for adding this pub to the SFBC listings. (Don't know how we missed that!) But shouldn't it be under May, not June, based on the Locus listing. Mhhutchins 23:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Considered that, but the gutter code would mean it was printed, offered and sent in the same month! Not usual SFBC practice [still, not impossible but not what one might expect from an anthology]. Contento has the month as May, but that could be early or late, and it's not mentioned in Locus until July, so the month is a retro-active one. It was really just flipping a coin and the gutter code kind of made me lean to June. Even if we move it back to May, we're still missing a selection from either May or June [only two months/seasons in the year that didn't have four entries! Spring has four.]. I'm not married to either month being used ...  --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * At that point in 1982, and up until 2012, the received date in Locus listings is always two months behind the issue date. The 18th was the first week of the month of May. I know it's rare that a book could be printed in the same month and offered to members, but it may have been in the pipeline and then rushed. It was not a main selection, so it didn't have to be mailed to those who chose automatic shipments. In the same issue of Locus, in their "May Books" listing, they show receipt of Bradley's Children of Hastur, Stableford's Journey to the Center, Niven & Pournelle's Oath of Fealty, Kaye's Ghosts, van Vogt's The Voyage of the Space Beagle, Moorcock's The War Hound and the World's Pain, and Carr's Fantasy Annual IV. These are all of the May and Spring selections according to our list except for the non-fiction book by Asimov. And there's only three selections in May. Without any further data, I think we should use a reliable secondary source: Locus. Mhhutchins 23:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's an easy change. That still leaves a missing selection for June!! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cover artist identified
The artist for this cover is credited in the Ian Summers cover-art collection Tomorrow and Beyond as Vincent Di Fate. I've notified the Primary1 verifier (Bill Longley) as well. And I have this paperback, too. Just never got around to doing Primary2 verifications on all the paperbacks that had been primary verified before we added the other primary verifications. Mhhutchins 23:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Knew I'd seen that one before! And I have the Summers book on my desk. Keep hunting! Love finding cover artists. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going through it now, and only up through page 65. I'm finding more work used as covers than Summers did!  Maybe even the artists had forgotten that the work had been used. There have been several that are given as "Untitled / from the artist's portfolio" but have triggered my brain so that I've found the actual books they were used on. Mhhutchins 23:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a trigger?? I need one of those. My brain just fires randomly ..... ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Earthman's Burden
Please see this discussion. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

An issue of Chapterbooks
And please take a look at this discussion also. Stonecreek 09:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"No Boundaries", by C. L. Moore & Henry Kuttner
I added a month of publication to your verified edition of this book An ad in the back of the book lists "Ballantine Science Fiction published through November 1955". That pretty much proves the month of publication had to be Nov. or Dec., and there seems to be a lot of precedent in the ISFDB for using this type of ad as a source for the publication month. Chavey 05:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The last number in the list is 117, whereas No Boundaries is #122. I'd have chosen December, since the key word in the blurb is "through" [usually means the end of ...]. Ads can be a great source, but if used should be noted. Good catch/research! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And good catch on comparing the catalog #s in the list. I changed it to Dec., and added a note as to the justification for the month. Chavey 05:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Earthman's Burden
Please see this discussion. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Galaxy Magazine, June 1968
Can you check p58 of this please? I believe it should be Daisies rather than Daises. BLongley 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And now it is! Guess they grow better with 'i's to see ... ;-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Donata Giancola / Donato Giancola
Hi Bill, I've seen that you verified all five instances of Donata Giancola as cover artist. Can you please check wheher that was a typo by the publisher? I believe the artist to be Donato Giancola. --Dirk P Broer 23:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Guess that's what happens when you mis-type once and auto-fill the rest!! All fixed. [And here I thought it was his sister!!!] ;-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Auto completion is a wonderfull thing. It went to extremes when it got used by smartphones, but also proved they actually were dumb. :p)--Dirk P Broer 14:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"[The] Critique of Pure Reason", by Poul Anderson
In your verified anthology Never in This World, there is a story listed as "The Critique of Pure Reason", by Poul Anderson. Both the ToC and the story title page list it as "Critique of Pure Reason", so I have created that as a variant. (I'll note that you are the Primary2 verified, but the Primary1 verifier is no longer active, so I'm informing you.) Chavey 15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Guess I should have been more alert...
... but I entered the illustrations for the German edition of Planet Story by Harry Harrison & Jim Burns without realising that there were some illustrations with the same titles 'Planet Story' to 'Planet Story [7]' already entered in this issue of Omni, which was verified by you. (They weren't in the original edition, so I overlooked them.) But I fear, that they aren't illustrations with the same numeration, they'll be only some selection. So it'd be very kind of you to take a look and give a short description to eventually determine the correct titles. Sorry for this mess! Stonecreek 09:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First pic: two little rat-like things bottom left, lime-green lizard/snake bottom right and what looks like the London Bridge background right; [2]: two humans getting 'guano'd' by flying reptiles ridden by tiny reptiles; [3]: two lizards, one about to toss a rock, second one getting lasered; [4]: lizard with green weapon belt foreground left, portion of an airship with wooden gondola under in background; [5]: lone lizard foreground right with 'pet' looking down over a city carved out of the rocks; [6]: gigantic lobster/spider left side and rather buxom raygun toting female on right [my kind of girl!!]; [7]: some kind of view-screen? shows various lizards on it with a single red button below with the initials 'OP', smaller buttons right and left with 'MEM' over left one and 'RAD' over right one. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, you were just great [my kind of helper!! ;-)]. I'll rename the artwork accordingly and then merge the titles. Stonecreek 18:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

inquisitive
Hi Bill! I've just verified this title Tür in die Zukunft and there is a month of publication. I'm curious where do you find this information? Rudam 09:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the month, it was already there. Style of the notes seems like Christian's [Stonecreek]. You might ask him? --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice. I'll ask him. Rudam 19:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Jungle Tales of Tarzan, Novel or Collection?
I'm proposing that we change the title type of Jungle Tales of Tarzan from NOVEL to COLLECTION. Since this would affect your verified publication, please join in the discussion here. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made these changes and added the stories using the page numbers from the first Ballantine printing. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Science Fiction of the Thirties
Hello, Bill. As a verifier this, I am asking you to see this discussion about a minor discrepency in the contents field. Thanks. --John L.-- Syzygy 01:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Darwin's Children
Hello, Bill. This is John, again. In your verified pub of, you list the page count as 492+[13], as does Locus1 (without counting the unpaginated pages. I was ready to do a secondary verification when I decided to double check the OCLC#. Well, they state a 493 page count. ??? Ok, so they just included the acknowledgment page to their count, but take a second look at that page as I did. You'll find that the acknowledgment page is indeed paginated...at the bottom. I'll hold off on my verification until you have a chance to fix this. Thanks. --John L.-- Syzygy 02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This one you could have just changed and let me know. We all miss minor things like this. Anyway, all fixed! :-)  --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks, Bill --John L.-- Syzygy 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Quantico
Third time's a charm! It's me again. In the publication that you did an OCLC verification for, click your link in the note field and double-check the ISBN's and verifiable data there. Now click on WorldCat in the Navbar and what do you get? Have you run into this before? --John L.-- Syzygy 03:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I get the record, which matches.... what do you get?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bill, I reread my note and I wasn't specific. Your link in the note field and the one in the navbar point to the same publication, but they have different OCLC catalog numbers. --John L.-- Syzygy 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the numbers do match.... at least from my browser they do. 253568359 in the link and the record ...?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My browser (IE) points to record #216784551 here from the navbar. Upon a closer look, it appears to be the Vanguard hardcover edition (24cm), but the ISBNs are the same as the pub record that it is generated from. Unfortunately. I'm not at home right now so I can't do a physical check with the publication, but will be within 24 hours. Any thoughts? --John L.-- Syzygy 01:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Misread on my part, didn't even register you were comparing records from the notes and Navbar. I have never used the latter to get a link for OCLC. They have enough conflicting/wrong/inadequate records as it is and I have no idea how our Navbar link is generated, so I don't use it. I always do a check for the most complete and accurate record they have [and sometimes there are dozens to choose from] and link to that. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go ahead and do a verification on Quantico. As you say, there probably is a lot of disinformation on WorldCat, that was just my first experience with it. If you want to add any notes to the pub listing, go ahead, but I'll consider this subject closed. Thanks for checking up on this and informing me. --John L.-- Syzygy 22:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tarzan at the Earth's Core
I've the interior art for the title page for Tarzan at the Earth's Core. I would have had you check first, but the notes already referenced the art. I also linked the Worldcat record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tarzan the Invincible
I added the publication month per the Heins bibliography to Tarzan the Invincible. I also linked the Worldcat record. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for both! I am catching most unlinked OCLC numbers but appreciate anyone who gets there first! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What Mad Universe by Fredric Brown
Hello, I see you've verified this pub. Can you compare the text with What Mad Universe published in Startling Stories, September 1948 (referenced as complete novel); it is also referenced in ISFDB as novella (ShortStorie) and don't have connection with the novel. The subject appear to be the same. I need a confirmation before doing a pseudo work, or you can do it. See also OCLC note. Thanks. ChanurBe 11:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Short of reading the whole thing ... 71 pages in the magazine and 205 in the book. Comparing the first two and the last three there are textual differences, paragraphing differences, but the gist seems to be the same. Copyright page notes the Bantam follows the Dutton hardcover version, no mention of a magazine publication at all. Hope this helps. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Report on Probability A by Aldiss
Can you check to see if there is a statement "Printed in Canada" on the copyright page of your copy of this publication? Mine also says "Cover printed in the U.S.A." on the back cover. Mhhutchins 21:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, mine's a completely US edition. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Book of Brian Aldiss
This is probably something that Marc Kupper added to the record before you verified it, but the first bullet point is incongruous with the second. Why should this be "assumed" to be the first printing, when there is a statement "First Printing, 1972" on the copyright page? I'm thinking about removing the statement and leave a note on Marc Kupper's page. What do you think? Mhhutchins 21:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's definitely Marc. Without a handwritten, notarized note from God he plunked in assumed wherever and whenever. :-))  A statement of first printing seems to mean nothing without a number line to back it up, at least I think that's his thought process. Personally, I don't think the word assumed should be part of the vocabulary of any editor. If any assumptions are to be made it should be up to the one reading the notes, not the one writing them. Again, this is one of those phases that Marc seems to go through, as a conversation quite some time ago [about a Cherryh collection, I think] brought up the point about assumptions and he did say he should quit doing that. Still a lot of records with such in the notes, though. A number of editors, myself included, simply state "First Printing: XXXXXXXX; no number line". No worries, no assumptions. I did see the conversation you had with Syzygy recently about some of Marc's earlier 'schemes' and think those [particularly the publishers created by appending a written printing number] should be hunted down and excised. I zap the ones I find, but no concerted effort so far.... --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

R. Vaughan Abrams
Hi Bill, you verified the only book for R. Vaughan Abrams. I just came across him as today is his birthday, and according to my information his name is Robert Vaughn Abrams. I checked the cover of the book you verified and it is also missing the second 'a' in Vaughan. Can/will you correct it? --Dirk P Broer 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Conquest of Earth
Can you point out where the cover artist's signature is on the cover of this publication? I just updated the record for my copy of a later printing, and sourced this record for the cover art credit, but I can't see the signature at all. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure! About an inch to the right of the foreground figure's left knee, running vertically in the dark brown. Letters are black so a little hard to see. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Frederik Pohl's New Scientist "Mars at the British Ass."
Please see this discussion. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

New page count for Salvage Rites
Hello Bill, I changed the page count to 252 for this pub (I guess the smaller page count crept in from the hc edition). Stonecreek 14:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word on it, that one's rather buried at the moment. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Cover artist for six issues of Fantastic found
Beginning with this issue, I have identified Johnny Bruck as cover artist (thanks to perrypedia). Three are already vt'd, three more are to follow in the next days. At least one of them was primary verified by you. Stonecreek 14:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It took some more time than I expected, but now it's done. They comprise (in addition) of the issues from November 1967, March 1968, May 1968, August 1968 & December 1968. Stonecreek 18:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Artist credited
I've matched the signature found at the bottom of the cover image of this record with those credited to Maelo Cintron, and have updated the record. More of the signature is visible on my copy of the book. Should I scan it and replace the one you uploaded? Mhhutchins 17:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Mhhutchins 18:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lando Calrissian and the Starcave of ThonBoka covers
You verified & uploaded a cover for the. There is also an. The cover you had uploaded & linked to in the Canadian edition had been at Image:LNDCLRSSNN1984.jpg. However, that is the title that is auto created by the "Upload new cover scan" link on the American edition. In order to avoid future confusion, I moved that cover over to Image:LNDCLRSSND1983.jpg (the link auto created by the Canadian version) and uploaded the American version at Image:LNDCLRSSNN1984.jpg. I also updated the image link in the Canadian publication record to match. Hopefully that makes sense. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as the right image is with the right record, it doesn't have to make sense! ;-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Atlas of Pern
You verified two SFBC versions of Atlas of Pern that are both apparently second printings. Most data seems the same but they have different cover artists. One has the artist that did the artwork for the majority of the cover, one has the cover designer. I think one of them should go. I've also expanded the contents for the trade edition of the Del Ray edition if you want to clone that. Dana Carson 04:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch! Deleted one record. Have no idea how I ended up verifying two ... --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Double Helix
Another editor created a new record for a book published by "Word Publishing / Thomas Nelson", so I changed the name of the publisher for the books that were in the db as "Word Publishing". Only afterward did I see that you'd primary verified this record. Can you see if Thomas Nelson is credited as the parent publisher of this book? Perhaps the company was acquired later, and I'll have to revert the change I made. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 16:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No Thomas Nelson anywhere. Changed the record back to just Word Publishing. I don't think I have any other books by them to check further. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

R Is for Rocket
Jane Frank says the cover of this was done by Paul Lehr. I think every Bantam printing (at least till the 14th) used the same illustration. --Willem H. 15:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Really! I would never have guessed Lehr for this cover, not like his later stuff at all. Definitely need to replace that scan, though, it's terrible! Added artist and source. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Beyond Armageddon: Twenty-One Sermons to the Dead"
This verified publication of yours is listed with a publisher of "Donald I. Fine/Primus". As best as I can tell, Primus is an imprint of "Donald I. Fine" (e.g. see here and here). As such, it should be listed as "Primus / Donald I. Fine". Do you mind if I correct this? Chavey 12:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oopsie on Blue Dragon by Kylie Chan
Hi Bluesman. I apologise for the stuff up... I unverified myself from the above mentioned pub, [Blue Dragon], and accidentally unverified yourself from the OCLC record. Sorry.... >.< --Ling 19:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tsk, tsk ... not to worry, think we've all done that at some point. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Cover art for 'Blade Runner'
I've added the cover art credit for this verified pub. John Alvin is well known to have created the artwork that appears on it. 'The Ladd. Co.' are producers of the film and hold copyright to the image. Thanks. PeteYoung 00:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That Hideous Strength
Hi, Bill. Could you please check the artist's signature on this verified pub. A number of quite reliable secondary sources (including this and this, for example) has it as "S. R. Boldero". Cheers, P-Brane 03:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC).


 * The signature is on the very bottom left, and where the 'S.' might be is torn. I can't confirm or deny the existence of the leading initial. Question is did the artist always sign with two initials? --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have no clew as to the way that person used to sign his name, stumbled upon it by investigating cover artists for early Pans. Shall we make it into pseudonyme for the time being with the explanatory note? Cheers, P-Brane 03:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC).


 * I am loathe to create a pseudonym because of a lack of data. I'd much rather just add the first initial and add a note. If a later Verifier can confirm it's not there then the record can be amended. And don't forget, we can and do extrapolate from cover signatures to give credit to the canonical name, but record actual credits exactly as given and make appropriate pseudonyms. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That makes perfect sense, (and one more cover artist is identified!:) Cheers, P-Brane 00:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC).


 * (After ruminating:)So, one should put canonical name when entering uncredited author deduced from signature? Is that an official policy? Then I have a few edits to make: I do recall a few "Melvyn" instead of "Melvyn Grant" on uncredited Hamlyns with clear signatures. Cheers, P-Brane 00:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC).


 * We didn't use to do that, but [even without an 'official' policy] it has become so. We routinely credit from initials, and many artists never signed with a full name, yet we record the name credited as such [Paul Alexander comes to mind, as does Paul Lehr; Rowena Morrill]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Starchild
I added a cover artist to your copy of Pohl and Williamson's Starchild, as well as a note to its source. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Gladiator-at-Law
You have a pub of that gives dates for First-Fourth printings that you state is a Fifth printing. I have one with the same cover and price that lists First-Fifth printings. Would you say that that is a Sixth printing or could yours be a Fourth? You also entered another printing or entered the same one twice at Dana Carson 18:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted the second record, an obvious duplicate. As for the first the main reason it isn't a fourth printing is the price: $1.25 for a '69 pb is way too high. Mine is a Canadian printing which probably just reprinted the fourth printing with a new cover. Is yours a US printing? --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fifth Printing: June, 1972; blank line; Printed in the United States of America Dana Carson 03:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've amended the record I verified, making it a Canadian printing. Suggest creating a new record for your US edition, noting difference in copyright page data. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Created. Thanks. Dana Carson 23:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

La mort blanche
Hello, IMHO the cover that you've uploaded for this printing is a much later one. It should be a metallic one. Hauck 14:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, all I did was take an existing amazon scan that had the ZZZZZ in the url and re-upload it. If you're sure it's not the right one then please delete it! You certainly know the French covers better than moi!! ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The usual problem with amazon. Note that the metallic covers seems to exists in a variety of "motifs" (don't know the english term), see here. Hauck 14:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed!. Changed the image to the first one shown, but why would there be two with the same date and ISBN?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the publisher sometimes used different types of metallic paper (with different optical effects) for the same printing. Hauck 20:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The? Star Beast
Hi, Bill. Could you please check the title page for this verified pub. Earlier verified printing insists on "Star Beast" w/o The on the title page, even though tthe cover reads "The Star Beast". Cheers, P-Brane 05:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Following up. Also, what about middle initial? There is no "A." on the cover, what's on title page? Cheers, P-Brane 05:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC).


 * No 'The' but definitely the 'A.' is present. All fixed. Good catch. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Astounding Science Fiction Anthology - Cover Artist Confirmed, Book Club note on DJ Confirmed
I received a copy of today with dust jacket and have confirmed that the cover artist is listed on the rear flap as 'Leo Manso'. In light of this I've removed the note "Unfortunately it is without dustjacket so the artist cannot be confirmed." My copyright page also is as described without any notice of 'First Printing'. My dustjacket on the front flap states "Book Club Edition". I will add a note "Front flap indicates 'Book Club Edition'". - Thanks - Kevin 16:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1987 Annual World's Best SF
Can you check your verified copy of this for the title of Damon Knight's story. On the title page, it is "Strangers on Paradise", yet it is listed as "Strangers in Paradise". Thanks. Syzygy 14:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed the title is as you say. And, after checking where the story has appeared, it may always have been that way. I have three of the other verified pubs that all mistakenly have "in" instead of "on". The only one I don't have is the original [magazine]. I'll put a note on Ron's and Steve's pages. Easier to correct at the title level than change a bunch of records one at a time. Good catch! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I reply somewhat embarrassed for not doing the research on this subject. I, too, have the magazine issue in question (although not yet verified) and it appears that the title is Strangers in Paradise, both on the story title page and the ToC. So, the error may just be with this said anthology. I hope this helps in clearing things up. Syzygy 16:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've checked the title in my verified pub and it is indeed "Strangers on Paradise" and not in. Thanks for the hint. Rudam 18:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All fixed. Thanks, gentlemen! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Shwartz and/or Schwartz?
Hello, Bill! Are there really both versions of Susan Shwartz' name for her shortfiction and her afterword stated in this pub.? I'm just asking because the latter version shows up on the (pseudonym) page of Susan Schwartz, which should lead to a differentiation between both names, if that's really what's stated. Or would it be possible to give a note on the misspelling? Stonecreek 06:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed there are both versions!! Only the afterword adds the 'c'. TOC, page headers and Biographical note don't have it, just the 'signature' at the end of the afterword. Not sure a note does anything as no-one is likely to 'correct' this. Up to you. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking this up, Bill! I would like to change the notes for this publication, hoping that no no-one will hop along. But I'll ask the secondary verifier (Chavey) too, first. Stonecreek 05:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Universe
You verified this pub with a note "Verification copy has no price or bar-code and no indication that it may be a BCE". My copy does have the price (frontflap) and barcode (backcover). Could yours be the book club edition? --Willem H. 10:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Other than missing a price, there's just no way to tell. That's why I didn't create another record. Now that you've shown there is a priced copy, I've created a [second] record. You can take over the P1 Verification for the trade edition. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks! Isn't this what notes are for? --Willem H. 19:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You might be onto something there!! ;-))  --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Twilight World
I updated your verified pub to match my copy in Hand. The Prologue (Twilight World) was pointing to the wrong one, so it showed as if by both authors, when in fact this publication has it only "as by Poul Anderson". I've drop/added/merged the correct variant into the pub now. Thanks Kevin 01:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Coming of Vertumnus
Hello, Bill, there was a typo in your verified pub. in that 'VFSF' was credited as publisher. I corrected it to 'VGSF'. Stonecreek 16:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

First Contact
Hi Bill, can I prompt you to look at your verified Star Trek title First Contact... your SFBC edition has the same page count as the matching trade hardcover I've just added to and verified, yet the essay 'A First Look at Star Trek First Contact' is not listed in your title. Cheers. PeteYoung 05:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is now!. Good catch. Thanks. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Breed to Come", by Andre Norton
As a second verifier for this book, could you please look at my question about two possible printings of this book, which I have posted on Marc Kupper's discussion page. Chavey 03:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fast Forward 2
I changed the publication date for this verified pub from "2008-10-00" to "2008-09-00" and changed the note from "Month and price from Locus1" to "Month and price from Locus #574, November 2008 (books received September)". Strange note, since Locus1 has no entry for 2008 yet. --Willem H. 06:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the CDROM which goes to mid-2009. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Making me envious again... You can of course change date & notes again, but as far as I know, Locus1 is the online version. --Willem H. 07:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, to me the CDROM is like the revised/updated version. No-one would bat an eye if it was the latest physical edition of Tuck or Reginald. And in the future [near or maybe next year] the online index will include what's on the CDROM. Until then, these minor differences in dates aren't world-ending/altering. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Beaker's Dozen", by Nancy Kress
I corrected a typo in the page numbering of the contents of your verified edition of this book. The story "Always True to Thee, in My Fashion" had been listed on p. 293; it's actually on p. 283. Chavey 01:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The actual story begins on page 285, the intro [untitled] is on page 283. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Galaxy, Dec 1976
I reviewed my copy of and found two minor discrepancies. Since Alibrarian is inactive, I come to you for permission to make changes to your verified pub. First, there is a missing interiorart on page 43 by Stephen Fabian. Second, the page number for the review of The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed I believe should be page 121 and not 122, keeping with McPhee's other review, The Curve of Binding Energy. Syzygy 14:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I also found a missing interiorart in, for Yenne on page 83. Syzygy 18:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My magazines are way buried, go for it! :-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Robots of Dawn
I updated your verified pub and back dated the first printing gutter code from (I believe) your verified notation of "O11" to "N52". Also I happen to have 2 copies in hand at the moment, one with O11 and the other with N52. In my O11 copy the gutter code is printed upside down. If it's not in storage, I was just wondering if yours was upside down too? I also put a note in the pub listing about the upside down code.
 * "Upside down"? You mean 11O?? There were two Doubleday presses in production at that time, and O11 or 11O would be the same. My copy definitely has O11. Still worth the note! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I mean upside down. Take a look here (And my understanding was that for only a few years in the seventies had one of the presses (the 'third' press) using number before letters and they did mean different years). Thanks for checking! - Kevin 03:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The number's not upside down, the book is!! ;-)) I think Doubleday ran multiple presses into the eighties, but Michael would know the dates better. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarzan and the Madman
I've added a cover artist to Burroughs' Tarzan and the Madman per a secondary source, and a note to that source. I also linked the Library of Congress record, but found that it refers to the Canaveral edition, and thus noted that fact. Thanks --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Vi Landade Pa Mars Kl", by John Keir Cross
I corrected two items about this translation of Cross's "The Angry Planet". The data entered from Tuck ended with K1 ("K-one"). Apparently, the actual Swedish ended with Kl ("K-ell"). Making that change to the title allowed me to find the OCLC record, so I changed your WorldCat "N/A" verification to a regular verification, and added the OCLC link. Chavey 03:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Double-checked and Tuck did have a '1'. Good detective work! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Prologue in Dragon Harper
I rejected a submission by another editor to add the "Prologue" to this title in the record for another printing, but I see you have a record for it in your verified record. We ordinarily do not create individual content records for separately titled parts of a novel (e.g. Chapter, Part, "Book", Section) including a prologue and/or epilogue. Is there something different in this case? Mhhutchins 14:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just that it's on the Roman numerated pages. Added a note about that but removed it from the contents. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Monsters in Orbit by Jack Vance
You provided the stub for http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?284773 Monsters in Orbit. I wonder if it should be classified as a novella and the book as a chapterbook. It seems to be shorter than "The Dragon Masters" which is classified as a novella. Bob 00:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Provided the stub" ... ?? I'm not even sure what that means. I didn't enter the record, just added a couple of secondary verifications ... however, that's not relevant to the question. There are two 'camps': lengthists and bookists, and ACE has never been helpful to either. We all 'know' that most of the 'novels' presented as such in the Doubles ain't no such thing. There have been a few discussions about this. The usual result is to leave sleeping dogs lie [at least as far as the Ace editions go]. When these quasi-novels get published on their own, we get conundrums [like this one]. At present we have two 'novels' merged. What changing one to a novella will do to the display, I have no idea. I'm sure the software will have some sort of melt-down, or at least a stern message warning. Hey, it's software, not much life so it does what it does. Personally, I don't care what the designation is, but would rather see the same work show up on one page, which I'm not sure will happen in this case. Before changing anything I would put the same question on either the Community Portal or Rules and Standards and let the software geeks [a nice bunch of chaps] sound off and maybe get some more interested input.


 * On a total side note: since you have Primary Verified the book, any note quoting a secondary source for data can be eliminated [providing, of course that the data is present in the publication itself], in this case the BLIC/Currey/WSFDB# notes can go [assuming the price/artist/edition/printing statements are there]. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Master Mind of Mars
The 1st Canadian printing of Burroughs' Master Mind of Mars has a note that the printing date of February 1964 is from the 4th US printing, which you have verified. Harry also has a note on the 7th printing with the same date for the Canadian printing. However, the 2nd US printing lists the 1st Canadian as December 1964. Could you verify that your copy has the 2/64 date? Assuming it does, the date is probably correct by virtue of being later than mine (they had a chance to correct it) and its repetition. I can add a note about what is stated in the 2nd printing and that it is believed to be incorrect. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, my copy does state February 1964 as first CDN printing. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. I've expanded the note on the 1st Canadian printing accordingly. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible cover art credit
The cover art on your verified record is identical to the one that someone has credited to Tony Roberts in this French publication. I can't say how reliable that credit is, or if "one of Cowley's pictorial books" refers to this guy. Mhhutchins 19:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it refers to the french translation of this pub (page25). Note also that's it's quite typical Roberts. Hauck 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have enough British editions to know how 'typical' Roberts' work is, but the specific credit from Hervé is good enough. Thanks, gentlemen! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * At the most typical, it looks like this (IIRC it was also used for a LP record). Hauck 15:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was! I used to have it but can't remember who the band was ... first thought was Uriah Heep, but ... --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DAW Collectors
Could you please review this discussion when you get a chance? There may be some confusion as to the desired end state of this pub series. TIA! Ahasuerus 00:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe such a Publication Series exists, as it would by default include every book they've ever published or will publish. Where's the 'Series' in that??? --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation! Let me repost it on the Community Portal and respond there. Ahasuerus 04:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing license tags
doesn't have a tag. Mhhutchins 03:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Found four more:, , , and  Mhhutchins 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All of the above are/were 'alternate' covers, in that booksellers used to get pre-publication covers, unfolded [no book attached] and an order form. The above were included in the notes, which wouldn't show up if you're just looking for untagged images, just to show what that pre-publication image was. Thus, as such, they really don't exist as no book has ever 'worn' them. It didn't seem necessary to tag such. As for the one below, it's the same image as the one that is tagged, just with a sticker. Again, does it even need one?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The artist and, in all probability, the publisher that hired that artist still have a copyright on the image, and so we still need to say by what right we host and display a copy. If anything, being less widely published weakens our claim, not strengthens it. A tag is needed or the images must be deleted, IMO. There is no telling from the image page that it is the "same" image -- if the difference is big enough to be worth a separate image file, then it is big enough to have its own tag, I think.
 * Also, tagging puts the image in the proper categories so that images can be found by artist and by publisher, when someone wants to do that. -DES Talk 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In all the above cases the difference is one of typography, not the art. No publisher owns a font. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, but a publisher does own a copyright on the overall image, which includes both art and text. If there are 10 minor variants on the image, the publisher owns 10 copyrights, even if the variants are just changes in wording on the cover. For the matter of that, a page of text with no art at all is copyrighted -- not the font, but the words. Moreover, someone seeing a specific image page on our wiki should be informed who holds the copyright on that image, and by what right the ISFDB displays it, without needing to know and find other similar images. Is it really that much trouble for you to add the license tag? -DES Talk 02:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't seem to be the one 'bothered' by this. The idea of '10 copyrights' because of a placement/font of the same words over the same image is ridiculous. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be "ridiculous". It is also the law. (If you really want I can find and cite case law.) You don't seem to see the point -- that someone viewing a wiki page with a copyrighted image should also see the license information -- on that same page. This is true even if we have multiple other pages with the exact same image -- as we sometimes do when people scan and upload covers for different printings that have the same cover. Just as when you quote someone you provide a credit line or note right there, even if you credited the same quote three pages back. Yes, I am bothered by failing to acknowledge the source of an image right where we use it. This seems to me to be wrong, whether we are legally required to have such a tag or not. It also seems to me to be less helpful to our users than we could and should be. I don't understand your objection to providing this information on the image page. How is the user supposed to find the information when it is on some other wiki page with not even a link? And how is the user supposed to know that this is a pre-publication image? The tag could provide that information. -DES Talk 03:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It sounds like there may be multiple angles here, e.g. the links in the Notes field currently take you directly to the image rather than to the Wiki page, so very few people will actually see the Wiki page. Of course, the same applies to regular images as well.


 * The credit links on displayed cover images go to the wiki pages. Perhaps images linked only via notes should go to the wiki page, not the image page. -DES Talk 12:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As a general observation, we need to be careful not to step over the (admittedly often hard to draw) line that may invite a lawsuit -- think of all the work that would be jeopardized if the site was brought down because of a few images! -- so it may be prudent to err on the side of caution.


 * That said, I can see how entering effectively the same tag data multiple times can be a drag. I don't suppose you could use the "Upload new cover scan" link on the pub page because it would get entangled with the currently uploaded one, right? Ahasuerus 07:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. See my message below where I explain how easy it is to add a license to an image that is linked through the note field. The editor clicks on the publication record's "Upload New Cover Scan" link, copies the auto-generated template data, but doesn't carry through with the upload. He then goes to the non-licensed image's wiki page, and clicks on "Edit This Page", pastes the template that was copied. At this point he can add further information, like "back cover", etc. It's a couple more steps, but relatively easy for most computer users. Mhhutchins 13:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a license to, which was a stickered UK distribution of the US printing. If you click on "Edit This Page" you'll see how easy it is to add a license to the images you link to records in their note fields. Mhhutchins 22:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

BLIC links
There remain more than 1400 records with unbroken links to BLIC. You can see the complete list by going to Advanced Search. Under the "Publication Search Form", enter "BLIC <a" in Term 1 and search in the "Notes" field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And that number will decrease as I come back across them. Or any editor can delete them when encountered. Even at one minute per 'correction' it's 25 hours of work. The data isn't wrong, just the link doesn't go directly to the record. With the ones I have re-discovered, I've been removing only the HTML as the record number is valid, and by plugging that into BLIC's Advanced Search will bring up the correct record [important only for pre-ISBN editions]. Anything with an ISBN the whole link could go but that doesn't decrease the time frame. For me this is a really low priority as the links aren't causing any harm. Stuart Wells sent me over 60 GB of images [approximately 25-30,000 at a couple of MB each] that will take me months to downsize for use on the DB. It's also a very time-consuming project, but with more positive results. Then there's my ACE project, another year's worth of time. The BLIC thing will be winnowed down, it just won't be quick. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't know you were working on them at all. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. And I disagree that the "data isn't wrong, just the link doesn't go directly to the record." The link doesn't go indirectly to the record either. It goes nowhere (except to an http error 404 screen). Would you feel the same if anyone else had added links in note fields which were broken? As I point out, it's rather easy to find them using the Advance Search form. I understand prioritizing projects, but correcting errors that one has made should be high on anyone's list. God knows I've corrected enough of my own. Mhhutchins 03:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dickson's The Spirit of Dorsai
Please take over the Primary 1 slot for this record. Turns out my copy is a third printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Done --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

At the Earth's Core
I added a publication month to Burroughs' At the Earth's Core, and a not as to its source. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This kind of notification belongs on my other page, please. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your notification message should be updated then. It says to report adding images and notes to another page, not changing one of the record's fields. Mhhutchins 03:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuum 1
Hi, I've added cover artist Patrick Woodroffe to this publication. Horzel 14:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This kind of notification belongs on my other page, please. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Existence
I added the author's afterword to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 14:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This kind of notification belongs on my other page, please. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Worlds of Fritz Leiber
Hi, I added cover artist Patrick Woodroffe to this publication. Horzel 08:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This kind of notification belongs on my other page, please. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Aliens of Earth", by Nancy Kress
In your verified publication, I corrected the spelling of one art piece, formerly "Down Behind Cube Lake", to "Down Behind Cuba Lake" and added one art piece that you had missed, i.e. "The Battle of Long Island" on p. 204. Chavey 04:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Missed one?? Rats! ;-) Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Islands in the Sky
Hi, Bill. Have a question about this Currey-verified pub. Is the cover artist credit coming from Currey? This book is crediting the cover to Gerard Quinn, though with pub. date of 1954. Cheers, P-Brane 07:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC).


 * Currey doesn't mention artists, ever. I don't know the source of the credit. If there is a good secondary source, as you seem to have, then change the name and cite the source. As for the date, that's from Tuck and Currey. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Will change to Gerard noting the source. Cheers, P-Brane 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC).

Day of the Minotaur
Thanks for the good guess about the artist for this pub. I added Gino D'Achille based on the signature here. --Willem H. 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Very cool! Like it! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Frank Herbert's ''Direct Descent"
Please see this discussion when you have some free time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Guardsmen of Tomorrow", by Larry Segriff and Martin H. Greenberg
Could you please recheck the DAW Collectors number on this verified publication? It's currently listed as 1169, which is also used by The Bifrost Guardians: Volume Two. I can verify that's the number used by "Bifrost", but I can't find another source for this number on "Guardsmen", and looking at a closeup of the number on the cover makes me suspicious. Of course it might be another example of DAW re-using a number, but I'd like to make sure. Thanks, Chavey 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the number as on the copyright page, and that's the only place "Collectors" is used. The cover has "No. 1968" though it takes a magnifier to tell. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Silverberg's THE SHORES OF TOMORROW
Regarding this title that you verified, I have a review copy which has the publisher's enclosed statement "Publication date Nov 22 1976." I've submitted a revision to indicate this in place of the note that the publication date was taken from data on Amazon.--Ckovacs 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ginsberg / Ginsburg
Hi, can you please check, to see whether it is indeed Ginsberg as you verified? It has Ginsburg on the cover. Mirra Ginsburg is a translator of some standing. --Dirk P Broer 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Typo. Fixed. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Best from Fantasy and Science Fiction: Seventh Series - Data Check
I was doing a verification of and I found a few errors that might also be errors for your record copy of. Could you please check the title of "Lyric for Atom-Splitters', is it with or without a hyphen between Atom and Splitter? Is "Journey's End" listed with or without an Apostrophe?, and Lastly, is 'Full Circle' listed as by Dorothy Cowles Pinkney, or Dorothy C. Pinkney? - I suspect that all three of these are small typos that have coasted through the database for some time. We can probably fix them all at once ... once everyone checks in. Thanks Kevin 02:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No hyphen between Atom and Splitters; Journey's End with the apostrophe; Full Circle author with Cowles, not C. SInce you are doing the asking I assume you have the situation under control and will leave any changes to you! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Updated as described. Thanks Kevin 21:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Preferred Risk
There are two records for this title that appear to be identical in the pub listing, but one is printed in the US and the other in Canada. Shouldn't the Canadian printing give the price in Canadian dollars? Also, the two different image files appear to be identical, showing "Printed in U.S.A." on the back cover. Was the cover of the Canadian edition printed in the US? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to find the CDN printing. I have two copies of the US printing, hence the image showing front and back. Price ought to be in $C but I can't answer if the cover was printed in Canada. Perhaps Kraang can? I removed my Primary from the CDN printing until I can find it, though it's not where it should be .... --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Trembling World
Looking at this record makes me wonder why it exists, when there's another almost identical one that's been primary verified. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 02:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Both links go the the same record. Harry's verified record doesn't have the Catalog #, but I have absolutely no idea where it came from. I'll delete the seemingly same record, though from Harry's notes on the cover artist [convoluted as they are] there would seem to be other editions. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

DAW Collectors publication series
I and a couple of other editors are trying to formalize the DAW Collectors Books publication series. The consensus is that we should include only those publications that explicitly list their DAW number, either on the cover, the spine, or the copyright page. This applies to, apparently, all first editions and to some reprint editions, but not to most of the reprints. You have verified several DAW reprint editions where the notes list the DAW number. However, I can't tell from the wording in the notes whether this number is listed because (i) it was actually stated on the book; or (ii) the number was inherited from other editions with the DAW number listed. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could check these reprints and when they have the number actually listed, update the notes to reflect that. For example, adding "(on cover)" or "(on copyright page)" to a phrase like "DAW Collectors No. 123". The publications you've verified that fall into this scenario are:  Marion Zimmer Bradley's Sword and Sorceress XVI, 2nd printing C. J. Cherryh's Foreigner, 2nd printing Hal Clement's Fossil, 2nd printing  Thanks much, Chavey 19:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * From about Oct/Nov '80 until about 1993-1994 all first Canadian DAW printings had a number line that started with '2' but they are not reprints. All published the same date as the US editions with a '1' in the number line. Thus if the US edition had a Book/Collector # then the CDN one did too. If the number isn't there, then I don't put it in the notes. All three above, the # is visible on the cover images. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. But doesn't that mean that these publications should be listed under the Canadian price instead of under the American price? Chavey 02:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The Bradley is a US printing. Until it can be determined when DAW restarted using a '1' in Canadian printings, the other two may just be second printings that happen to have been printed in Canada. The reason for the records is the difference in printing lines, not the difference in place of printing. [I'm hoping that's never enough to justify a wholesale addition of records just because of being printed in Canada, though there are several hundreds in the DB now]. I simply don't look at enough Fantasy [that seems to have been all DAW printed in the early 90s] to be able to narrow down when the practice happened. Until then I just leave the US price as dominant. At most it could affect 100 records for the two years? --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twenty-Ninth Annual Collection
Hello Bill, I took the liberty to change the page number of the "honorable mentions" essay from 661 to 651 as per hc (I supposed it's the same for the the tp). Hauck 14:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In the middle of reading it now! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

City of Ashes
I'm verifying a public library copy of and noticed the cover image is slightly different than the image you uploaded to ISFDB for this publication.

The publication had not been primary-verified and the only notes on the publication record were:
 * Data from Locus1; Locus books received, April 2008
 * OCLC 126225183

The only thing that links you to this publication record to is that you uploaded a cover scan and also did Locus1 and worldcat verifications.

I don't know if you scanned a physical publication meaning we have two different covers or if you downloaded the cover image from a web site and was not aware that it did not match the publication you linked it to.

I uploaded a scan of the cover I have to Image:260928.jpg and added a publication note explaining the cover is there and is different than the one you linked to the publication. There are also notes on each image record linking to the other record.

If you have a hc 1st printing then something that may distinguish the covers is that the one I have has "0308" in the lower-right corner of the front flap. I'm assuming that's a printing date. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If I had the book there would be a primary verification. Save the hoopla and just replace the scan. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You stated in the image's CID1 block that you had scanned the cover implying physical possession. I made the assumption that you either forgot or chose not to verify the publication record.


 * If you are downloading cover scans from the Internet and then uploading them to ISFDB them please document the source much like how we document the source of other information we add to publication records. That lets future editors create a better picture of how reliable the data shown in a particular record may be. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Doomsday, 1999
I fixed a variant problem on a verified pub. Someone must have merged the title, and the original title 'Midge' was showing as a content item in 'Doomsday, 1999'. It's fixed now, to match my copy in hand. Thanks Kevin 03:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Dune Storybook", by Joan D. Vinge
I was doing a Primary2 verification of your verified edition of this book. A note says "First printing, full number line 1—10." My copy has no number line on the copyright page, which thus seems odd. My guess is that it means I have a later unstated printing, but I wanted to verify that this wasn't a mistake, or that the number line wasn't hiding some place I didn't see. Thanks, Chavey 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Odd, indeed! Mine definitely has a number line, just below the "Printed in the United States of America" on the copyright page. But it's a funny number line in that only a portion of the '1' is there and the whole number line is a different font than any other numbers on the page. I'm wondering [as Putnam never put "First Edition" or a number line on anything in the 80s] if the number line is an addition, just not done very well?? I'm assuming all other data matches? --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a copy of the bottom of the copyright page for my edition of the Dune Storybook. You can see that there's no number line, and no room for a number line in the location you've mentioned. I uploaded the whole thing in case you want to see if there are other differences. Please let me know if this gives you any insight into our two books. My guess is that this means it's a later printing, but that they decided not to indicate later printings with a number line. Chavey 02:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/d/df/Dune_Storybook.jpg


 * Surprises all round! Went to scan my copyright page and another piece of the '1' came off, so I took an ink eraser to the number line and the whole of the number [or what I thought was a number] disappeared.

http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/e/e2/Hc026.jpg

Now it's an obvious second printing, with a space created for the number line. I'll clone the existing record. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's amusing, someone created their own "first printing" with a pencil! I'm guessing that means that I have a first printing, and that the absence of a number line is what indicates that. Does that seem right? Chavey 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep! Putnam didn't use number lines or state edition for the firsts, just the later 'impressions/printings'. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dream Park
There was an earlier limited edition of this title published by Phantasia Press (March 1981), so the SFBC edition (June 1981) would be the first trade hardcover edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

ISBN-10s on 2008/2009 publications
Can you confirm that the following books do not have an ISBN-13? ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and. They're all Star Trek novels form Pocket Books. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 02:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Might take a bit. They're a little buried at the moment ... --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Found the one with the earliest date and it has both so the rest will too. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, November 1976
Can you check how Philip José Farmer is credited in this issue? We have him in the database as "Jonathan Swift Sommers, III", but all sources have him as "Jonathan Swift Somers, III" (only one "m"). I would normally ask Stephen, but he doesn't respond very well these days. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good thing I like you! Magazines are buried deep, in the back, at the bottom ... and only one 'm' in 'Somers' TOC and story title page. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks (very very much). I changed the name and notified the other verifiers. --Willem H. 14:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Dhalgren
I added a cover artist to Delany's Dhalgren and a note as to the source. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Beagle story in Year's Best Science Fiction 29
You verified the trade paperback edition of the latest Year's Best Science Fiction, which includes a Peter S. Beagle story. That listing gives the story title as "The Way It All Works Out." But looking at the book's table of contents and the story's title page through an Amazon.com search inside, I see it listed as "The Way It Works Out and All," which would make it a reprint of this story from F&SF. Can you double-check your copy and see how the story is titled? I've left a similar note on Hauck's talk page, as he is the verifier of the hardcover edition, which I assume is an identical text in different binding. Best, BrendanMoody 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Corrected. Will wait for Hervè to check his so there's one merge, not two. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Already done ;-). Hauck 14:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Omni, June 1983
Can you confirm the spelling of the artist credit for "A Teardrop Falls" in this record? If correctly entered as published, it should be varianted to the artist's canonical name ((A|Don Brautigam)). Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Spelling as entered in the record is correct, but I'm not sure the two artists [if there are two] are the same. There are not a lot of Brautigam cover images, about one in three records has an image and of the fifteen or so that I checked that do not one is anything like the OMNI piece. Which side to 'err' on .... ? --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Explorers
User Horzel found proof that the cover of this verified pub was by Jack Faragasso, not Richard Powers. I changed the credit and added notes. Thanks, --Willem H. 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both. Never did think that was a Powers cover. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Cyclops
I believe the publication date given in this record is a few years off. Based on the catalog number and the way it appears on the front cover scan, this was probably published in 1970. Popular Library didn't start using their SBN assigned publisher's number (445) as part of their catalog number until that year. Compare the covers of 1967 printings to those of 1970. The base number (2485) also bears out my hypothesis. In 1967 the numbers are in the 2200s and in 1970 they had jumped up to the 2400s and 2500s. Mhhutchins 05:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The price seems to be more 1968 than 1970, but PL is not a publisher I know very well. Notes are not mine. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at the 1970 releases from this publisher. All but one are $0.60, so that's not a factor. It's more the way the catalog number is presented, and the fact that the SBN was not present on any of the 1967 pubs, but on all of the 1970 pubs. It's your call, since the primary 1 editor hasn't been around in years, so I'll drop it. Mhhutchins 22:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, changed the date [turns out Reginald1 has 1970] --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Better Than One", by Damon Knight and Kate Wilhelm
You did several secondary verifications of this book. I have a question about the notes for that book, which I believe are wrong. In case those notes came from you, could you look at the discussion I began with the primary verifier here? Thanks, Chavey 12:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not my notes, no opinion to give. --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just checking; it's often hard to figure out where the notes came from. Chavey 04:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Butt by Will Self
There are two different records with the same ISBN for this title. You did a Locus1 verification of both (although I am unable find 2008 records online, how were you able to get to them?) One is the US hardcover and the other is the UK tp, both with the ISBN: 978-1-59691-555-8. Can you please confirm that this secondary source data is correct? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Bloomsbury quite normally would use the same ISBN on both sides of the pond but only list the US/CDN prices for the US edition. Here, Locus CD-ROM notes the UK edition but doesn't give the ISBN, just the date and publisher. ISBN for the UK edition was from OCLC. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Bloomsbury quite normally would use the same ISBN on both sides of the pond. Quite untrue. In most cases, Bloomsbury uses different ISBNs for the two countries. Their current range of ISBNs for the UK are 978-1-4088-XXX-X, and in the US they use 978-1-59990-XXX-X. In 2008, the ISBN range of 978-1-59691-XXX-X was used exclusively by the US division. while the UK division was using 978-0-7475-XXXX-X.  They use different ISBN ranges because they are effectively two different companies. Quite often a book will be released in one country by them, but in the other country by another publisher.


 * But for argument's sake, let's say they do use the same ISBN. Then why would one be hardcover and the other trade paperback? Since your cited source (Locus CD-ROM) doesn't give the ISBN, perhaps that should be removed from the record? And since the OCLC record doesn't say it's tp or hc, perhaps that should be removed from the record. In other words, the record should be removed. Once removed there will be records for one UK hc, one UK tp, one US hc, and one US tp, all with different ISBNs. (Along with an odd "airport and export edition" in the UK.) A search on Abebooks.com gives only the US hardcover edition, not the UK trade paperback edition.


 * I've mentioned this before, but I feel you should not use the Locus1 verification button for anything other than their online database. (That's how it's officially designated. The link to the ISFDB verification goes directly to the website.) I don't think anyone would use it for a verification from the printed version of Locus, so how is using it for their CD-ROM version be different. Indicating that it's "Locus1 Verified" based on the CD-ROM would be confusing to the average user. If you disagree with me, I can bring it up on the rules and standards page for a group discussion. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The ISBN 9781596915558 when put unto BLIC brings up a record for a TP edition. Just because Locus/OCLC don't specify the binding and one is as yet unavailable on Abebooks doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On the other hand deleting it won't break anything and if someone does have one it can be re-entered. Locus'1' discussion: [1]. Nothing new to add. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Autumn Castle", by Kim Wilkins
In notes to the hard cover and paperback editions of this book, you noted that both covers were credited, by different sources, to the same artist. Since they were quite different artwork, you expressed skepticism about this, and asked verifiers to check it out. While verifying the paperback I contacted the artist in question and resolved the error. (OCLC was wrong.) Just thought I'd let you know. Chavey 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That's what skeptical notes are for!! ;-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Omni, November 1983 Art for "Showdown on the High Frontier"
Art for "Showdown on the High Frontier" was painted by John Harris. BarDenis 20:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct! No idea how Tim White was credited ... Good catch, have corrected the record. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Eyebem or Eyebeam
Can you confirm the spelling of the story on page 225 in this collection? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First spelling is correct. Changed the record and merged the two. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Abominable Earthman cover art credit
Can you confirm that the copyright page explicitly credits "Robert Foster" as the cover artist of this book? I'm trying to determine how to disambiguate this artist's credits since we have an author by the same name. Many of Foster's works are credited to "Bob Foster". Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins


 * As the field indicates, Robert Foster. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And when you get a chance look at the credit in this book. Mhhutchins 15:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, as the field indicates, Bob Foster. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Omni, May 1986 art for Alien Landing
These three paintings actualy are from two artwork: Supermind (first) and The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (second and third). Maybe it would be better rename this interior artwork something like this: "Alien Landing (1)" (for Supermind) and "Alien Landing (2) (2 paintings)" (for The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). What do you think? BarDenis 19:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That it would result in yet more utterly useless artwork Variants ....... --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this is so useless. When I see that Omni magazine has Tim White's interior art without varianting it, I think that this is something new. Like this one from Science Fiction Monthly. And without magazine I don't have information is it true or not. Denis 17:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Beyond Star Trek
Can you confirm the publisher as given in this record? More sources, including the OCLC record you verified it from, give the publisher as Basic Books. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 05:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The only publisher on the copyright page is HarperCollins but BasicBooks [no space] on title page and back of the jacket. Altered the record to reflect imprint/publisher. Good catch! --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

MacLeod's Song of Time
I recently got a copy of this edition and did a second primary verification of the record. But I changed the note that said "Limited edition of 500 copies; not numbered or signed." to "Trade edition of 500 unnumbered, unsigned copies (not stated)." I can find nothing in the book to confirm this, nor on the publisher's website. What was the source of your data? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * At the time the book was originally offered that was the edition size according to the PS website. I have a copy of each of the two editions, trade and slip-cased, but the slip-cased one only has it's edition size of 100 stated. PS may have extended the run after the original offering and changed how they listed it. Seeing that they are still offering this now, three years later pretty much confirms that. I only got the slip-cased one because I had ordered two copies of the trade edition but they ran out [so it was limited, whether intentionally or not] and they sent one of the slip-cased to fill the order. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Encounter with Tiber
There's no hurry on this - The copyright page of has
 * Interior illustrations by Andy Andres (pp. 3, 25, 29, 74, 101, 110, 153, 174, 175, 197, 223, 372, 465, 560) and John Solie (pp. 174, 175)

I recorded this as:
 * Encounter with Tiber • interior artwork by Andy Andres
 * 174 • Palathian • interior artwork by Andy Andres and John Solie
 * 175 • Shulathian • interior artwork by Andy Andres and John Solie

You verified a different edition of the same publication,. I've merged the interior artwork records for pages 174 and 175. I did not merge the record for "Encounter with Tiber • interior artwork by Andy Andres" as you have the artist as "Andy Andres and John Solie".

The item for you double check is if the interior art credit in your publication credits them in such a way that you could credited the artwork on pages other than 174/175 to both Andy Andres and John Solie. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No differentiation at all, no page numbers given, just a general inclusive credit. Doubt the two noted pieces which are artwork [as opposed to diagrams] are a joint effort. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Long Earth
Could I get you to double check the Canadian price for Pratchett and Baxter's The Long Earth. I'm almost certain we have the same edition, except that mine shows the Canadian price as $29.95. Just making sure I don't have a deeply discounted second printing to spur sales in the commonwealth nations for which they forgot to change the number line! Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One too many '9s'! Corrected to $29.95. "Deeply discounted" ... nice touch! lol  --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Galaxies Like Grains of Sand
First of all, thanks for your help with my 'italian' edits. More to the point: after working on a rewrite of this pub record (which was quite complex), I noticed that in this pub you verified, the variants of the main stories point to the italian version. I think that something like this happened: I remember that the entries in the pub record were not grayed, so I proceeded to change the previous titles (which were in English as in the early times of italian submissions) to the italian ones, but they were probably the 'root' title for the stories, notwithstanding the fact that they came later in time. Could it be the case ? Thanks --Pips55 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I assume you mean removing the XXX contents? Three keystrokes for me and they're gone, just helping a little. Great work you're doing!!
 * As for above: Most certainly with the connecting material, though it would seem completely outside the norm for the stories to have NO other listings anywhere, so I'm surprised they weren't grayed out. Possibly the contents had yet to be 'normalized' to the canonical form for Aldiss' name?? Anyway, I believe it is still 'policy' for the English version to be considered as the 'root' version [honestly I find it hard to keep up with all the changes the new language support has spawned] but I'm sure there will be more 'versed' commentary coming? I'm not capable of tracking how this occurred, or of suggesting an easy fix. Gentlemen?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is my take about what probably happened: the contents records were updated during an edit of the Italian publication record, changing the English language titles to the Italian titles. They just happened to have been the parent (read "English") title record for the stories. We have to remember that just because a content record isn't greyed out, that doesn't mean that it's OK to edit them from a pub record update. It's possible that there were no publications of the stories as by "Brian W. Aldiss" in English, just variants credited to "Brian Aldiss". So they weren't greyed out in the Italian magazine appearance, and were editable from a publication update. The best way to fix this is to 1) change the titles back to the original English titles, 2) remove them from the Italian publication, 3) add new title records (for the Italian titles) to the Italian record, and then 4) make them variants of the parent English title records. If this sounds complicated, Pips, I'll do the first part, and then you can do the other three steps. This situation is relatively rare, but I suggest in the future that you not change the titles of any content records that you wish to convert from English to Italian using the publication update method. First, remove the English titles from the publication record (even if they're not greyed out), and then create new Italian content records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with the 'rollback and edit' solution; it just sounds complicated, I think I can repair the damage myself. In the future, I will avoid the language conversion while editing contents. I do not know how rare the phenomenon is, maybe we should add a note in the Help pages to advise against this apparently 'legal' practice (just in case foreign editors flock to ISFDB ...) because it can produce difficult-to-spot incongruous results: I was lucky to notice the mishap. Thank you for your answers (and yours continuing support). --Pips55 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Change to author name for 暗黒星雲のかなたに
I helped Don Erikson with entering a Japanese language translation of an Asimov work. Later in the day you changed the author name for from "アイザック アシモフ" to "Isaac Asimov"

The publication states the author as "アイザック・アシモフ" on its title page. The dot appeared to be a typographic convention, like "Isaac・Asimov", and so I had Don enter the name as "アイザック アシモフ"

Thus I'm wondering why you edited the publication.


 * I am under the impression we do not put foreign translation of names in the Author field. The date came from OCLC. There was no indication in the submission that it was a later printing. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Help:Screen:EditPub says to enter the name exactly as it appears on the title page with some normalization rules. Help:Screen:EditTitle has the same. Maybe there's been an agreement to not put foreign translation of names in the Author field that never got added to the help? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Help and Foreign language changes haven't exactly been neck and neck. If Don had put a note in the Notes to Mod section I'd have left the submission in the queue for you to handle. At worst it's a few keystrokes to revert, though if his copy is a later Japanese printing we should end up with at least two records. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to add name in Japanese, you should use dot because Japanese language don't have space.Denis 13:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not done with entering the publication data such as the printing number, printing date, etc. Don just e-mailed me a scan of the copyright page but some of it is blurry and so I've asked for a new scan. From the scan I got it appears to be a 13th printing of a November 1964 book but I'll wait for the better scan. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Eventually the author field of the pub record will have to be reconciled with the author field of the title record. At the moment, the record is showing up on the mismatching author cleanup script. I don't care either way which one you choose, as long as the author fields of both records match. Mhhutchins 17:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there was no movement in correcting the pub record, I made the author fields of both records match, choosing the Japanese letters. Mhhutchins 05:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditis
Hello Bill, the series' for the few SF titles published by Ditis (there are eight of them) is not "La chouette" this one, but simply Science-Fiction (or "scienceSfiction" as on title page) that one. Data from OCLC pertaining to french "collections" (publication series) is generaly false. Hauck 14:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Did you correct them? --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done the lot. Hauck 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In the Ayes of the Beholders / Eye of the Beholder
Hi, can you check this to see whether one or the other title is right? I came upon it by seeing this page.--Dirk P Broer 10:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, "this page" only gives "First Word". Title of the essay is as in the pub record. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You may also check it there. Denis 12:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would I check it elsewhere when I have the magazine? Or was the comment directed to Dirk? --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, to Dirk, of course. Denis 11:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As I saw on the cover the story is named there as 'Eye of the Beholder', as does the fourth line from above. There's a rather great difference between "Eye" and "In the Ayes" and a small between "Beholder" and "Beholders", so I wonderered who had made the typo, Omni or you. It appears they have illiterates there as well.--Dirk P Broer 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Illiterates"???? what an incredibly pompous thing to say! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The title of the article, as given on its title page, is a pun, of course. A pun which the cover copy editor obviously didn't get. Another good reason not to judge a title by its cover. (Sorry, that bad pun was irresistible.) Mhhutchins 18:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not that bad, it's quite adequate.--Dirk P Broer 00:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Silverberg's Hawksbill Station
Please take over the Primary1 position of this record. Turns out my copy was a second printing with the same price, ISBN, etc... BTW, the artist is Paul Alexander. On my copy his distinctive "A" is slightly more visible. He did the covers of 4 or 5 Silverberg titles that Berkley published in 1978. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Spinetingling Tales for the Dead of Night
I see that you did quite a bit of work on this publication http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?359882, but you didn't primarily verify it so I did some work on it. I hope I didn't step on your toes or that I was presumptuous. MLB 13:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I didn't do any of the contents. Looks good! When it comes to unverified records there really aren't any toes to step on as long as the source for the data is noted. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Vonnegut's Armageddon in Retrospect
Can you confirm that all of the pieces in this collection are fiction? Several of the reviews I've read mention essays, and one in particular is noted: "Wailing Shall Be in All Streets". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Writings on war and peace" is the descriptive for the various pieces. Stories and vignettes, definitely reminiscences for Vonnegut. How much fiction is involved only he could say. They read like stories and tell stories, most particularly the one you specifically mentioned [I just re-read it and it's quite powerful]. I don't think 'Essays' does them justice, nor is it very accurate. My 2¢. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I ask because another editor has entered it as an essay. I have no dog in the fight. Mhhutchins 03:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One other Vonnegut question: are there other contents in this collection, and is the introduction a work of fiction? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas, I don't have that book here at the moment. Lent it to my brother a couple of X-mas ago and haven't got it back yet. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't you just hate that?! Mhhutchins 04:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am the other editor who entered "Wailing Shall Be in All Streets" as an essay. My original decision for making it an essay came from these editorial notes where the piece is described as a "memoir". Now that I have read the piece to form an opinion, I must say that I am still in favour of declaring it an essay. The deciding factor for me is that the story, despite its gripping power, is clearly non-fictional. So, if you don't mind too much :-) I would like to change the title type to essay. What do you think? Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 21:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Vonnegut's Slapstick
Can you confirm that there is no exclamation point in the title of this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the other verified copy and have corrected my copy's pub record. If your copy agrees, I would assume that the 2nd printing also incorrectly titled and and we can just merge the variant back into the parent title.  Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It does and I've corrected the one record. Since you have the overview on this I'll leave the merge[s] to you. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)