User talk:Bluesman

See User talk:Bluesman/Archive for 2008 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive2] for Jan/Feb 2009 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive3] for Mar/Apr 2009 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive4] for May/July 2009 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive5] for August/October 2009 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive 6]for November 2009/May 2010 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive7] for June 2010/March 2011 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive 8] for April 2011/December 2011 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive 9] for January 2012/October 2012 discussions.

See [User talk:Bluesman/Archive 10] for Nov 2012/May 2013 discussions.

Ring Around The Sun
Hi, could you please change the cover artist of this edition from John Schoenherr to Robert E. Schulz. It's the same cover that was used on The Big Jump (Ace 1955), but there the whole signature is visible. Thanks. Horzel 21:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The links provided show two entirely different covers ..... ???? --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Ace Doubles ISFDB pages often have a link to the other cover. Here is the direct link to The Big Jump. Horzel 10:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite alright. Change made here and below. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Of Men And Monsters
Hi, the cover artist of this Ballantine 1968 edition is Stephen Miller, as can be seen at this online gallery. Could you make the update please? (Also interesting is this quote: "he produced 6 covers in the same style for 6 William Tenn books published by Ballantine in the late '60's"). Thanks. Horzel 21:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Tried the site and can't find anything on Stephen Miller. If there is a specific URL that will show the image with the artist's name you can just as easily make the submission yourself and put the link in the notes. A link that only goes to a site in general isn't much good if one can't find the image!! :-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 22:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Bill, I'm sorry. Of course I always test the links in the preview and it seemed to work. I guess Firefox used an existing session variable. Apparently with this site, you can't use the link found through the "search" facility. I've tested this link through another browser. Horzel 09:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'd prefer to, and used to, make the update myself, but then I ran into this, I quote: "... addition of cover art credit in a record for a book in which the cover art is not credited is considered a change of the record. This is not merely an addition, it's an actual change in the record, and a significant one. The proper procedure would have been notifying the verifiers of the new data without making a submission, leaving it up to them to decide whether the data is from a reliable source, and to make an edit to the record. It is very much appreciated when you come across important missing data, and are able to provide that data to the primary verifiers, along with your source. You should not feel it's necessary that you make a submission to change the record. Editors notify each other of such data all the time without making the changes themselves. And as I said above, if you had a copy of the publication and was willing to do a primary verification of the record, I would have had no problem accepting the submission knowing you'd already notified the other primary verifiers. I'm sorry if this procedure isn't clearly outlined in the Help section, but I hope this explanation helps. The verification system is important in maintaining the integrity of the db. ... Mhhutchins 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)", I guess I'll have to take this up to the moderator page, since no one seems to know about this. Horzel 09:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem! I like being notified if something is changed, but more so for things other than artist credits [still interesting but often the evidence is inferred or from a fan's blog so suspect]. There is no hard and fast 'rule' about notifying verifiers and many editors [mods or not] have posted the parameters of what they like to hear about at the top of their talk pages. Some are more narrow in their approach, some less. And there's that balance of what/when to notify if the particular editor isn't very active. I find it pointless to post something if it isn't going to be dealt with, possibly for months. The nice aspect about the DB is that nothingis written in stone. If a change proves incorrect it can be reverted with a few key strokes [in most cases]. Hang around long enough and you'll learn the pit-bulls from the cats .... ! Cheers!  --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Kuttner (and Moore?) - The Mask of Circe
Please see this discussion regarding the credit to The Mask of Circe. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hollow Earth - Rucker
Should the title on Hollow Earth be changed? The title page on mine reads "The Hollow Earth: The Narrative of Mason Algiers Reynolds of Virginia" and this is the title in the LOC listing as well. I have not touched the listing. 04:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "...touched..." as in twenty more OCLC links??? lol  This one's a little buried at the moment, will dig it out later today. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Add away! I'm not that interested in sub-titles, most just about as 'informative' as "A Novel". --~ Bill, Bluesman 12:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Virgin Planet
Bill, I'd like to add the Author's Note to your verified pub of Poul Anderson's Virgin Planet. It's quite substantial, running from p.150-156. Bill Longley (PV1) also notified. Cheers. PeteYoung 14:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Go for it. I tend to ignore such notes as they are usually of little bibliographic interest [same old brief bios] but this one at least has something to do with the story! Cheers!  --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Élisabeth Vonarburg's In the Pit
You have verified a pub containing this record and a pub containing this record. It looks like these are the same story and possibly the same translation (one pub credits Vonarburg and Brierley, the other just Brierley)? -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merged. Translator[s] as listed. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Cover art credit for The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
The cover credit for this publication can be found on the artist's website. (Were you aware of the value of the first printing of this? John Knott is selling a copy for $4500.) Mhhutchins 16:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Make me an offer! ;-)) Updated the record. I picked a number of nearly immaculate Heinlein first editions [including two slipcased] in December. Those two I checked out but had no idea what this one might market for .... !! And there's a few that go for more! Just need old Robt. A. to reach from the grave and autograph this one ...  --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphans of the Sky - Data Check
Bill - Could you please check your verified copy of to see if there is a Library of Congress statement on the copyright page? I've got a copy of that book with a Book Club jacket and a statement of "First American Edition 1964" on the copyright page, but no LoC info. According to a 14 yr old newsgroup posting, I might be able to confirm the difference between Trade and Book Club by the presence or absence of the LoC Info. Since my copy with a book club jacket does not have this information present. This is a toughy because there are no-other (or very few other) Book Club editions with edition statements from the 1960's. - Thanks Kevin 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does have the LOC # on the copyright page. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Cover art credit for The Patchwork Girl
According to the primary verifier of a later printing, the cover art for this edition is credited on the copyright page of his copy. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated the record. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Relativity
I just received a copy of this collection, and one of the notes jumped in my eye: Limited to 1000 signed copies. I looked at every page of the book, but no signature, and nothing in the book about it. Can you check your copy again? I also think there should be a note about the source of the publication date (Locus1). Thanks, --Willem H. 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The limitation is on what would be page [308], as well as the month, directly after the "About the Author" essay. Does your copy still have the full number line? Mine is signed on the title page and if memory serves [I've had the book awhile] it was ISFIC that said all copies were signed. If yours has the limitation statement but no signature then that part of the note needs to be changed. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The limitation note is in mine too, and the month, failed to notice that :( and the numberline is complete. Can't find anything on the signature though. Locus1 doesn't mention it, nor Rob's website or the publisher's. I'll ask Hervé about his copy. I'll be back --Willem H. 14:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No signature on my copy, the fact that it should be signed seems not to be mentioned either. Hauck 16:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Then I'll remove that part of the note. Thanks gentlemen! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Year Before Yesterday
Hello, Bill! Since you are the earliest available primary verifier for an edition of this title I'd thought to ask you if you can also verify the statement of 'a new novella, "The Merdeka Hotel"' as part of the fix-up, because in the British variant title Cracken at Critical there's stated a new novella titled "The Mannerheim Symphony" as part of the novel. If these are really two novellas with different titles it'd make me think about the possibility that the two novels are not identical in their published texts. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 17:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The title record note isn't really correct. "The Merdeka Hotel" seems to be a portion of Equator comprising part of chapter II but re-written. Only a few pages, not a novella. "The Mannerheim Symphony" is split into four parts but only totals 34+ pages so it's not a novella either. The confusion is from how the titles follow each other: Equator chapter I & part of II then Mannerheim Symphony part III [only two pages] then The Merdeka Hotel then chapter III of Equator to the end. It could appear that The Merdeka Hotel is the last third of the book but it's not. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing this up, Bill! I'll change the note for the title accordingly and thank you for not having to take steps for a page by individual page comparison ;-). Stonecreek 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Eva
I just added some information to the first Laurel-Leaf printing of Peter Dickinson's novel Eva. However I had to leave the artist field empty. In your verification of this title here you state the artist is Cliff Nielsen. My book has no artist credit anywhere. I'd like to take your word for it, but where did you get the artist credit? MLB 02:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the note says data from Locus1 [actually the CD-ROM]. The absence of a credit in an early edition doesn't necessarily mean it hadn't been added for the 30th printing. But without the book in hand, no way to know for sure [Locus does make mistakes]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate cover images?
I noticed that the cover for the Easton Press edition of The Philosopher's Apprentice is the same as that for the Easton Press edition of Futureland. (The images are the same for two different files.) Also, the second doesn't have your usual Notes and no pagination for the contents, so I think you may have conflated the two pubs. (Morrow & Mosley must be beside each other on the shelf.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed! The editions I wasn't sure about keeping are still in the shrink-wrap, thus no notes. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Roger Zelazny
While I was verifying some of these titles I found some that were marked as 'N/A' for Clute/Grant. However they are present in my copy. The titles I found were

Deus Irae Eye Of Cat The Last Defender Of Camelot Lord Of Light The Mask Of Loki Changeling Doorways In The Sand

and three in dos format:

Today We Choose Faces/Bridge Od Ashes Home Is The Hangman/We In ... He Who Shapes/The Infinity Box --SGale 19:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct, my old eyes must have been asleep! You found 'em, you verify 'em! ;-)) [The N/A ones are the only ones you can 'overwrite'] --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Gunn's The Millennium Blues
Can you confirm that the author's middle initial is given in the title page credit of this publication? By the time this title was published, he'd long stopped using his middle initial, though it's possible this one may have slipped past him. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's there! Nowhere else except the copyright. --~ Bill, Bluesman 13:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A Short, Sharp Shock
I've added the Blue Mars excerpt that is located in the back of this edition of A Short, Sharp Shock, in part because I've just obtained a later printing that excerpts The Martians instead. I am also able to confirm that this excerpt is identical to the one listed in Destination: Voyager, so I will merge those records after the pub edit is approved.Albinoflea 08:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Holmes Sherlock" by Eleanor Arnason
I'm holding a submission that wants to make this into a variant of this. But from Amazon's "Look Inside", it appears that the story has the subtitle on its title page in Dozois's anthology. Can you confirm this? If so, you can merge the records, and I'll reject the submission to variant. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I viewed it as more a [series] title, since the author's name separates the story title from the series inclusive. But then we still have those who think 'A Novel' is a subtitle. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since both subtitles appear, albeit in different locations, should I merge the two as one, or should I accept the submission to variant the records? I have no dog in the fight. Your call. Mhhutchins 16:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And I don't even have a puppy!!!! ;-)) Such a decision ... right down there with whether I should part my hair on the right or left [I'm bald as a cueball .....]. I do dislike Series 'data' being part of a title, redundancy at the least. And the author intends only the simplified title, as that's all that's copyrighted. For me, that counts so my miniscule vote is no subtitle. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Martians
I'm finally getting around to editing the Bantam/Spectra 1st printing mass market paperback of The Martians to include the individual poems from the Poem Series If Wang Wei Lived on Mars and Other Poems as outlined in this discussion. Thanks. Albinoflea 09:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Night of Masks
Cover artist "JW" of this publication is Jack Woolhiser, see for example here. Horzel 11:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know who the initials are, thought I'd caught all of them. Thanks! If you find more go ahead and do the change. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cauldron
This record is dated April 2007, based on the COA according to your note, but "6/4/07" is June 4, 2007 (in American usage). Also is it wise to date these Easton editions based on the date of the COA, when the book itself may not be appear for months after the author as signed the COA? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Definitely messed that one up. I had been giving 8 weeks as likely earliest publication from the date of the COAs [similar to dating Doubledays by the gutter code]. And the COAs are dated differently by US and non-US authors. As for the 'wisdom' involved, that's what the notes are for. I'll adjust this record. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Fate of the Phoenix", by Marshak & Culbreath
Your verified copy of this book was a 2nd printing with no publication date. I added a publication date from the publication history in the 4th printing. Chavey 07:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Doomsday Wing
I uploaded a cover to this pub, after verifying it, and it told me that you had deleted a cover of the same name. I assume you were deleting an invalid cover, since the cover I uploaded is the correct cover for the book that I verified. If I've messed something up, please let me know. Sjmathis 16:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I approved the edit and while I don't remember the reason for deleting the other image your surmise is most likely correct. No worries. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Checked the previous image and I had uploaded the image of the Bridbooks edition to the wrong pub. Ah, well. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"STNG: To Storm Heaven", by Edith Friesner
Your verified publication was listed as by "Edith M. Friesner", but my copy credits it to "Edith Friesner" on both the cover and the title page. Assuming there isn't some weird two-version variation of this book, I corrected the author credit. Chavey 03:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nightwings
Hi, cover artist Don Ivan Punchatz is confirmed for this Avon edition at Heritage Auctions. The original art shows the Punchatz signature, but I don't know if the URL works for you. Horzel 21:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Good find! I knew it was him. Added and credited. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of The Wrath of Khan
Can you confirm if the review in this publication is of the book or the movie? It appears from the author credit to be of the movie, and if so, should not be a REVIEW record, but an ESSAY record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wondered about that one. Fixed. I rarely encounter reviews ... --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Stainless Steel Rat
See this submission, which I have on hold, and this note to Don. You didn't make yourself a verifier, but since you did upload the image and it says "scanned", I'm hoping you might have the book and could help figure out if there are any other distinguishing differences. Thanks. --MartyD 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Scan was from several 1,000s of images I received from Stuart Wells. Don has responded that the submission has an error. Even so, if his cover price is different from the image, even if the catalog # matches, then that image should be deleted. Ace has been known to re-use a catalog #. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I added interior art credit
I added interior art credit to your verified story "Heads You Lose" .Don Erikson 19:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If, July 1969
I added cover artist Johnny Bruck to your verified If 1969-07. Assuming the cover had been used for Perry Rhodan, I could easily google it. Horzel 13:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The 1983 Annual World's Best SF
Verifying it, and for the story Souls, the TOC states copyright 1981, while the DB contents has 1982

When I went to the Bibligraphy it also has 1982. So, I'm confused. SHould it be changed to what is in the hard copy book? Datil_Mountain_Muse 14:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (Invited to participate in the discussion by the editor) We don't date titles based on the year of copyright. Title records are given the date of first publication. In this case the work was copyrighted in 1981, but was officially published in the January 1982 issue of a periodical (meaning it probably appeared in November 1981). So the date remains 1982-01-00, the date of its first publication. (An exception: if a work is serialized before first book publication, the novel record is dated the same as the book publication, not the serial publication.) A corollary standard: we don't use the table of contents or copyright page to record story title or author credit. All titles and credits must come from the title page of the story, i.e. the first page on which the story begins in the publication. Mhhutchins 15:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahh, OK. I reread the help pages, it is starting to make more sense now. Thanks for the help. Datil_Mountain_Muse 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right way to do this....
Hi, I just found this site, this page specifically. I was trying to track down my exact copy, and it seems that mine has a gutter code that isn't recorded anywhere, "P40". I was hoping you could point me in the right direction, thank you!


 * We enter SFBC editions a little differently here than we do normal trade editions. If nothing has changed except the gutter code [and with a P40 code your printing would be October 1985, see [here] for an explanation of what the different codes mean] then you can add to the existing notes, in this case the third line. Just tack on "P40" (1985). If you choose to verify the record then add [verified] between the code and date, just like the other two. Of course, this assumes that everything else is the same: cover, SFBC# [in this case 5293]. During the mid-eighties many reprints from the SFBC would add a leading '0' to an existing code. In that case we do create a new record for that code/printing. I've added the usual greeting with links to various aspects of the database to your talk page. Most of the processes here are fairly straightforward, some are not. The Mods are here to help. If you're interested in the SFBC editions in particular then [this] page should prove valuable. When posting or adding to a post, indent each 'step' with a colon and/or one more colon than the previous post so they read like a ladder. Also, at the top of the editing window are a series of tabs. You already used the one for the link. The second last one is a signature/datestamp to 'sign' the post. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Bester's Extro
Added a cover art credit for your verified Extro, via Chris Moore's book Journeyman. PeteYoung 11:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

SEP Reader of SF
Your publication record has come up on the script that finds mismatches between the pub record's author field and the title record's author field. Other primary verified records under this title give a different author credit. When you get a chance, please get with the other verifiers to determine how the author (editor, in this case) should be credited so that they all match, or create a variant title record if you're unable to agree. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In order to clear the clean-up list, I created a variant title and made it match your publication record. I made no changes in the publication record's author credit, leaving that decision to you. If you think it should match the other records, remove the variant and update the publication record's author credit. Mhhutchins 03:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

P K Dick's Collected Stories 1990/1 Grafton Editions
I started to verify these from my bought-from-new set and have noticed an oddity regarding the cover images used currently on ISFDB. Vol 1 shows the series style I have on my set, Vol 2 shows an amazon image which is clearly different in layout (but uses the same artwork), Vol 3 shows another image with the same layout as as the amazon one for Vol 2 (which was apparently scanned by yourself), but - Vols 4 and 5 show covers with the same layout as my Vol 1. My set has the same layout throughout all 5 volumes (images are the same between layout versions of each volume however). Initially I thought the Vol 2 one listed was an amazon error, but seeing the vol 3 version came from you I thought it was worth seeking your thoughts before changing any images? ThanksProf beard 22:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The images would have come from external sources [likely ones we don't have permission to directly link] so if any don't match the books-in-hand change them. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheers Bill, will do. ProfProf beard 09:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

ConAdian Souvenir Book Content
I'd like to add some additional content and suggest some changes for the ''ConAdian Souvenir Book: If you feel strongly we could always open the discussion in Rules and Standards and see if we could get a community consensus.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) First the changes. You have the editor as Shannon Reschke who is listed in the convention staff as (what I assume is the head) of the Publications division.  I believe that the division handles more than the program book (progress reports, convention newsletter, pocket program).  Jon Gustafson is listed under Program Book and I think is more likely the editor.  Let me know if you disagree or determined Reschke's name from some other source.
 * No person is specifically credited as an editor. I chose Reschke because everything to do with 'Publications' ran through her. Choosing Gustafson is even more tenuous.
 * I do disagree. To use your magazine analogy below.  To me, that seems like crediting the president of Street and Smith publications with the editorship of Astounding over John Campbell.
 * Utterly ridiculous. No person is specifically credited as editor. The only change here would be to uncredited, certainly not to an even more tenuous choice.
 * I can only reiterate that I disagree. The person credited with "Program Book" seems far less tenuous that the person credited with "Publications".
 * 1) I'd like to add the day of the month to the date from the first day of the convention (September 1st).
 * 2) I'd like to replace the single interior art credit with individual items for each piece of artwork, especially since the book does a good job of crediting the artists.
 * All but a handful of the artwork is just doodles and don't illustrate anything.
 * I'm unaware of any standard that states criteria for interior art that is worthy of a "gang" credit but not an individual credit. My issue with crediting a single item like this is that it appears that 8 artists collaborated, which isn't really what happened here.  I feel that all the artwork qualifies under Rules for including artwork.  Your inclusion all of the artists in the gang credit suggests that you considered at least one of each of their pieces worthy of inclusion.
 * The choice of 'gang' credit [what an unworthy description] being described as crediting 8 artists in collaboration ... are you joking? No-one would think that. Adding notes that each artist contributed multiple drawings would be quite sufficient. There is no advantage to having [#] next to each artist's contributions in the contents because there's no differentiation between the entries, all would be titled by the publication as they don't illustrate anything.
 * The standards and while it does say a single entry (I was not intending the term "gang" as a pejorative) for a work is permissible (though it does say this applies when the book is is illustrated by a single artist). It also says it is " acceptable (but not required)" to add individual items.  I would consider the artwork to illustrate the story or essay where it occurs, though I suspect you would disagree.  My point was that you were indicating that certain artwork should be excluded because they are "doodles" or because they don't illustrate anything.  Both the single credit and the multiple credits are different ways of noting the same artwork.  So why did you include artists in the single credit for artwork you don't think should be credited at all?  Additionally, the rules state "Credited cartoons are always included." and give special rules for how they are to be credited.
 * 1) I'd like to add the content that was excluded. I feel strongly that article about Canadian magazines, the Hugo material and the In Memoriam list be included.  But I would add almost everything else excluding the advertisements, table of contents and the indices of advertisers and artists.  I have been adding a number of Worldcon programs and had originally excluded some of the content (membership lists, conventions staff listing).  I went back and added them after seeing how Confiction 1990 - Programme Souvenir Book was entered decided to go ahead and add the additional content (there are other issues with that record).  Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of guidance in the RoA on this type of content.
 * I looked at that record. What a mess. I view this as basically a non-genre magazine with 'associational' material other than the actual fiction content. But staff lists, membership lists, even the In Memoriam is just a list with absolutely no bibliographic data. Non-fiction/non-associational materials [and no I don't think the Constitution of the WSFS is associational] should not be included. Except for the contents that are included there is no reason to have a record of the Program at all. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Conficiton program needs work and I intend to tackle that one next.
 * "Tackle"? You've become the program guide guru??
 * I don't claim any special expertise. I was merely indicating that I saw several problems with how that publication was entered and that I intended to ask the verifier about the changes I thought necessary.  Which has now been done. I used the term "tackle" because of the volume of changes that I felt were necessary to be discussed.
 * The RoA do list program books as "Debatable" But it goes on to say "We definitely want any convention-published 'real books', but probably not the ephemera."  If the program book isn't what is referred to by "real books" then, I'm not sure what the purpose of that phrase is.
 * "Real books" would be chapterbooks/collections produced specifically for the convention. There are multiple examples on the DB. Fanzine??[below] Not even close. A one-off that isn't any more than it pretends to be: a program guide.
 * We disagree on the interpretation of "real books" I am aware of program books with ISBN and done by real publishers.  And I do think program books are more akin to fanzines than to non-genre magazines.
 * I actually think a closer analogy would be a fanzine. With the exception of the membership list, any of the items could easily be published in a fanzine, and if they were, there would be no question of their inclusion.  I could argue for the associational value of the WFSF constitution (it deals with the administration of the Hugo awards), the in memoriam list (we display a similar list on our home page) or even the membership list (it includes authors and other professionals that attended), but I do see how others could disagree.  I'm not asking you to add the content or even to agree that the should be included, rather to agree that they should not be excluded.
 * That's supposed to be a difference??
 * Absolutely there is a difference. Some editors may choose not to add all content for a publication, and that is fine.  That doesn't indicate that the content they chose not to add is prohibited from being added by another editor.  You have indicated that all of the content you didn't add is because it should be prohibited.


 * Take the 'discussion' anywhere you want. You can't make this what you want just because you want it that way. If you're detecting a little ambivalence here, that's just the tip .... I'm quite pissed that you overwrote quite a few Currey verifications for no obvious reason other than wanting to see your name highlighted more times for records of pubs you happen to own. I'll leave it there for the moment as I'm in a really nasty mood about this and have had about enough of personal agendas. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly you have some beef with me. This is the first I've heard of it and I'm not sure I understand it completely.  I've certainly entered Currey verifications, but never when someone else had done the verification first, which is what I guess you are accusing me of.  While I don't recall ever doing so, I suppose that I could have removed a Currey verification if I determined that it was added in error.  However, if I had done that, I certainly would have asked the verifier first provided they were still active.  I'm  really perplexed as to why you think I would have done such a thing.  My only agenda for entering secondary verifications is to indicate where we have corroboration of the data in one of our listed sources.  If someone else has already verified that, I have no need to do so. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you verified this one first, I won't make any changes without your assent. I obtained my copy of the book in the secondary market. I hope you got yours at the convention as it looks like it would have been fun. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky
I accepted a submission updating this record which noted a fourth printing based on the different set of ads. Thought you'd be interested. It was updated by Don Erikson. Mhhutchins 23:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Best of Trek 14
The unidentified cover artist for your verified pub The Best of Trek 14 is John Harris, not Paul Lehr as you suggest in your note. See the cover of Greg Bear's Eternity, and it's also the cover of Harris's own collection Mass. PeteYoung 15:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Same artist for Best of Trek 13 – see the cover for Cramer/Hartwell's Year's Best SF 16.
 * And Best of Trek 12 – see the cover art for John Barnes's Finity.
 * Also Best of Trek 15 and Best of Trek 16 – they also appear in Harris's Mass. PeteYoung 15:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All added and credited. Thanks. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Cover for The Abominations of Yondo
I think we should remove Bruce Pennington's cover art credit for your verified pub The Abominations of Yondo. The note says the art isn't credited and it doesn't match Pennington's style, or for that matter the art for a later Panther edition for which he did do the cover (only 2 months later as well, it appears). What do you think? PeteYoung 10:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Re-arranged things a little, dropped the credit. I do think the date on the later printing is likely wrong as the price jump, especially for other countries is pretty steep for supposedly being only two months apart. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Road to Science Fiction #2: From Wells to Heinlein
Please see this discussion as it relates to your your verified copy. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also #3 in this series, on which you're the first primary verifier. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rendezvous with Rama
Hi, I've added cover artist Bruce Pennington to this publication, based on inclusion in this Pennington checklist. The cover art has been repainted from the art on the Gollancz 1973 hardcover. Horzel 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Cover question
Concerning the cover credit of your verified Ellison book has a note suggesting the artist is Don Punchatz. This web site claims the the cover is by the Dillons. If you agree, you might make the appropriate change.Don Erikson 20:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed and credited. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Desolation of Soom in Hyperborea
I have discovered that Clark Ashton Smith's "The Desolation of Soom" is a variant title for his prose poem "The Abomination of Desolation". Aside from building the variant relationship, I have changed the title type of the variant title from short story to poem to match the type of the parent (and the other prose poem in the collection). I'm letting you know since you've got one of the printings of Hyperboria where the title appears. I've got the other one. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They Fly at Çiron
I added the author's note to your verified They Fly at Çiron. --Willem H. 14:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dreaming Down-Under
I no longer have access to so have changed my verification from Primary1 to Transient. You may wish to change your Primary2 to Primary1. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Three to Conquer
Hi - according to the record here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?241185 you mark this as "N/A" as regards Tuck. My Tuck shows "(Penguin: 2005, 1963, 202 pp, pa 3/6) at the top of right hand column on page 374.  Do you want to correct this or shall I do the secondary verification?  Cheers Prof Prof beard 11:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite correct, you found it, you verify it! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Shards of Space
Hi there - I think you skipped this Sheckley one in Tuck too http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?268926 - p386 (top right column) shows the Corgi edition. If you are happy, I'll verify for Tuck. My copy (which appears to be that edition in all identifiable respects) has the price at 3/-, whereas Tuck shows 2/6 - I'll add a note which says this but comments that it possible that my PV1 copy is a later printing. I note the image used has the price obscured - I'll replace it with a scan of my visibly priced copy. cheers Prof Prof beard 10:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Alire
Hello (and happy new year), I've changed the publisher for your recently entered Vonarburg titles from Editions Aliré to Alire. Hervé Hauck 09:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"Phoenix in the Ashes", by Joan D. Vinge
You had one of the pages of art in this volume, specifically "Phoenix in the Ashes [2]", incorrectly listed as being on p. 22. I corrected that to p. 21. Chavey 04:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Heavenly Host
Hi! You verified this publication of "The Heavenly Host" against Currey. In the notes field, it says "First published … 1975 … on copyright page". However, the year of this pub record is 1976-00. Shouldn't this be 1975-00 then? Thanks, Darkday 20:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite correct. Fixed and found other data to add. Good catch! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Best from F&SF Third Series - SFBC Copyright page retained 'First Edition'?
I was attempting to verify my copy of, but I could not find a 'First Edition' statement on the copyright page. This looks like a Tuck statement to me, and wouldn't be the first error identified from that source. Could you check your copy when convenient to see if there is a statement I'm missing, or if I've got a corrected re-print. - Thanks Kevin 00:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a Tuck statement. Indeed my copy does have "First Edition". However, there's no way to know if the jacket [which does say Book Club Edition] was substituted for the trade jacket. Since gutter codes were not yet in use there's no way to know for sure. Quite possibly the trade edition was simply offered to the club but with a BCE jacket .... --~ Bill, Bluesman 11:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. Since mine doesn't, any objection to us adding a statement "At least one later printing did omit 'First Edition' and appears without a statement of edition or printing." or something similar? Kevin 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Added a simple statement. If there's anything else you can think of, feel free. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Works for me. - Thanks - Kevin 00:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Varianted cover art of The Comet Kings
It now appears on this page. Stonecreek 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Best of Science Fiction
re: Conklin's "The Best of Science Fiction" (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?4111), can you please confirm that your copy has "First Edition" and price of "$3.50", as noted in ISFDB? I've got 2 copies, neither of which have a statement of edition on the copyright page, and both of which have $3.00 price on front flap of the dust jacket. The one which I believe is a 1st printing has following points: (a) "The Monster From Nowhere" is incorrectly credited to Donald Wandrei in Table of Contents and on page 542; (b) the copyright page has no statement of edition or printer; (c) the boards are black cloth embossed with silver on front and spine; (d) on back flap of dust jacket is blurb for Jerome Dreifuss' "Furlough From Heaven" (a 1946 Crown publication) with "D.P. -- 4512" under the Crown Publishers address; (e) on back of dust jacket the top blurb is for "The Collected Stories of Ben Hecht" (a 1945 Crown publication) and second blurb is for "A Treasury of American Folklore" (plus 4 other blurbs); and (f) the book is printed on very thin paper so only 3cm deep. Supporting my belief this is a 1st printing, there is a Bud Webster article at http://www.philsp.com/articles/anthopology_101_03.html which notes, "due to a mix-up, the Nelson Bond story was credited to Donald Wandrei in the first printing". The one which I believe is a 2nd printing has same copyright date and price, but differs on all those points: (a) "The Monster From Nowhere" is correctly credited to Nelson Bond in Table of Contents and on page 542, with an additional footnote on page 542 that begins, "Note: By error, Mr. Bond's story was credited to Donald Wandrei in the first edition of this anthology ..."; (b) the copyright page has no statement of edition, but notes "Printed in the United States of America / American Book - Stratford Press, Inc., New York"; (c) the boards are maroon cloth embossed in gold on spine only; (d) on back flap of dust jacket is blurb for Will Jenkins' "The Murder of the U.S.A." (a 1946 Crown publication) with "The Best of Science Fiction ..." printed diagonally in small type to left of Crown Publisher address; (e) on back of dust jacket the top blurb is for "A Treasury of American Folklore" and second blurb is for "20 Best Stories in Ray Long's 20 Years As An Editor" (other 4 blurbs are same); and (f) the book is printed on thicker paper so 4.5cm deep (i.e. 50% thicker than 1st printing) with dust jacket flaps extended by 0.5cm to accommodate the additional depth. I will update the ISFDB listing, but first need to resolve issue of price and "First Edition". Thanks. Markwood 23:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the above should not have been placed on my 'secondary' page. That's just for images and added notes as the 'blurb' at the top of my talk page explicitly notes. Only found it today, I don't check it very often. My copy seems to be what you have as a second edition, with the corrections and maroon boards. As for the price, that is what's on the dust jacket [of which I only have the front flap and most of the front cover, but NO rear cover/flap so can't compare any of the blurbs]. Tuck also has $3.50 for the first printing. I'll create a new record for my copy, undated.


 * Apologies for posting at wrong page. I'll edit/add listings for the 1st & 2nd editions. Thanks. Markwood 04:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, April 1978
I have added three letters and corrected the name that David Bischoff published his short story in this issue of Fantastic (I added the "F."). Also, did Ted White actually write an essay for the letter section, other than answering the missives? MLB 02:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As with the posting above, if you have questions put them on my TALK page. Answers to letters are just as much essays as the letters, though a total mis-use of 'essay'. We just don't have another category. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Saliva Tree by Aldiss
I'm holding a submission to add a record that is very similar to your verified record. The major difference is that the title on the title page omits "Strange". Here is the message I left on the submitting editor's talk page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of the Sphere 1968 printings have two title pages, one with "Strange" and one without, though the one with it is more a false title page. I don't remember changing anything, but it's been awhile. Seems the paperbacks should have no 'Strange' in the title and be varianted to the hardcover, assuming it doesn't do the same thing! At least it's verified by a current editor who could say. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your record is under the title record with "Strange". So will you be changing it? Or do you think I should accept the queued submission as a different printing? Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll change both of the Sphere records and add a similar note to that of the above held submission. But before variants I'll drop a note to Markwood and see what the hardcover actually has. Hard to deal with anything at the moment, been fighting a migraine for a few days ... and losing ... hard to concentrate. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I accepted the submission and will let you take it from here. Hope you're feeling better soon. Mhhutchins 04:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually the submission should have been rejected as now we have two identical records. I'll drop a note to the editor to get him to PV2 the existing record and delete the now duplicate one. The headache is medication driven. Have an abnormal heartbeat at the moment and that's a situation that requires temporary meds which give me the headaches. Bad trade-off but not a lot of options. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are mildly interested in . ..
. . . my project of determining the publication dates of various Moewig publications that you have entered in the first place, I think. I believe to have found an archimedical point to fill in the dates for 'Terra' (and hopefully for other Moewig series as well). This one is the latest. (I'll also fill in the occasional cover artist, mostly Bruck, since his works are quite well documented). Stonecreek 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no access to anything like the German Perry Rhodan, and seldom put a day in the date field without more than 'probable' data. The only reason I've entered any is that I come across them in Tuck and use OCLC for back-up. Feel free, since you have the sources. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Misaligned ISBN
Can you check to see if the ISBN-13 is given in this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this one does.

Same question for this book. Mhhutchins 07:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's a photocopy of the '97 edition, no ISBN 13 then. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. I've added a note to explain the reason for the presence of an ISBN-10 on a 2010 publication. This should avoid any future editors bugging you about the anomalous situation. Mhhutchins 01:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)