User talk:Markwood

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mhhutchins 23:10, 1 Jan 2008 (CST)
 * Help pages
 * What the ISFDB Wiki is for
 * ISFDB FAQ
 * Help:Screen:EditPub - Warning and a note on how to update a publication's contents

The Other Passenger by John Keir Cross
Thanks for adding new content to this pub. Your submission was accepted with some minor changes. For prices use the dollar sign, e.g. $2.75 in this case. Also when adding new content such as stories, the new records created by the update will have to be merged with any existing records for the same stories (there were title records for 8 of the stories you added). I'll do that and you'll see the results on John Keir Cross's summary page. Thanks again, and welcome to the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 23:17, 1 Jan 2008 (CST)

ESPer
Your submission was accepted, a correction was made to the price entry. All prices need to start with a currency symbol, and prices in cents need a leading zero, e.g., $0.35.--Rkihara 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Conditionally Human
I accepted your submission updating the cover artist of this pub, and notified the verifier. It is ISFDB policy that an editor notify the verifier when a change has been made in a verified pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ellison Wonderland
Thanks for correcting the Bluejay Books edition of Ellison Wonderland ! I have approved the submission and massaged the data in this publication, so it seems to be OK now.

One word of caution: if you edit an existing title in the Contents section of a collection, anthology, magazine or omnibus, it will affect that title in all other books and editions that the title appears in. Sometimes this behavior is desirable, for example if you are correcting a typo and the correction applies to every edition that we have on file. However, in this case it would mean that 'Back to the Drawing Boards' would replace 'The Forces that Crush' everywhere, which is presumably not what we want. This a common issues that all new contributors run into and we plan to change the behavior of our software to make it more intuitive, but for now we follow the workaround described in Help:How to change a story in a collection. Thanks again for the submission! Ahasuerus 04:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

LCCN placement
The LCCN should be placed in the note field. The Catalog #/ISBN field is used only for the ISBN or the catalog numbers of pre-ISBN paperbacks. I've adjusted the change you made to this pub accordingly. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis field
The synopsis field is used for a brief suimmery of the plot of a story or novel. Comments such as "Per Acknowledgments in 'Shot in the Dark' (p 310), reprinted from 'Wanted: Someone Innocent' (Pony Books Edition) by Margery Allingham Carter, 1946. Contento also lists 1946 as publication year." should be placed in the notes field. Thank you. -DES Talk 21:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The same thing happened in Who Is Charles Avison?, and i again moved the "synopsis" of "Originally published in an April 1916 issue of Argosy, per Contento (1st edition, p 572.)" into the notes field. I do thank you for these detailed and useful notes, but do please put them in the note field in future. -DES Talk 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The same thing with The Bronze Parrot by. But here there is another oddity. I have read most of Freeman's work, and little if any of it qualifies as speculative fiction. Handling Non-SF contents in SF anthologies or collections is a bit tricky, and opinions vary on the best way to do it. But some indication of non-speculative status should generally be recorded. -DES Talk 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DES: thanks for cleaning up my edits. The Freeman story, 'The Bronze Parrot', does qualify as speculative fiction. A milquetoast churchman finds a small bronze parrot, and is unaware that it immediately changes him to an intimidating bully. When he finally returns the parrot to the museum which lost it, he returns to normal. At the end we learn the parrot was the totem of an Ashanti War Chief whose war chant translates as, "Foreign slaves revile me. Why?".
 * You are welcome. Since I left this msg, i found the story in the collection The Great Portrait Mystery (via PG Australia) and i quite agree. There is another story in that collection that is basically a ghost story. I'll have to see about entering it. -DES Talk 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DW?
Hello - when updating you added the note "per DW front flap, 'Jacket illustration by Alex Schomburg, copyright 1952, by Better Publications, Inc.'"  I approved the update but what's the or a DW? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would guess "Dust Wrapper", aka "Dust Jacket"? BLongley 23:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that makes perfect sense. I updated the publication to spell out "dust wrapper" and found three other pub records that also used DW which I expanded. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1964 Ballantine edition of Star of Stars
You may not have run into it yet, but when we make changes to verified publications, we generally leave messages on the verifier's Talk page so that the verifier can make sure that the changes match his copy. (In a small percentage of cases it turns out that two editors have two somewhat different editions.) I have approved the addition of Richard Powers as the cover artist to the 1964 Ballantine edition of Star of Starsand, since it was already verified by User:Kraang, left him a note on Adding Images/Notes to Pubs Verified by Kraang. Thanks for editing! :) Ahasuerus 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Ahasuerus meant User talk:Kraang/Changes to Verified Pubs. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Men Against the Stars
The submission for this new pub was accepted, but a few changes were made. I copied the catalog number that you had in the notes fields into the ISBN/Catalog No. field, and the contents were entered based on the reference in Tuck. A couple of questions: Tuck gives this a 1957 date, and gives it 191 pages. Can you double check the page count before I do a Tuck-verification of the record? Also if you have a copy, please add the page numbers for the stories. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to OCLC record 2398051 this was published in 1957 and has 191 pages (both agrees with Tuck). It also says that "Pyramid Giant G234" is printed on the cover. Does your copy agree with this? MHHutchins 21:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found this OCLC record 15863672 which has the same date and page count as your copy but it only lists seven stories. We need to reconcile the ISFDB records with Tuck and OCLC.  I added a cover scan from Bookscans website.  Does it match your copy?  Also, does you copy have a statement that it is a second printing?  Thanks. MHHutchins 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gollancz edition of Blood and Burning
Do you know which stories are included in this edition of the Budrys collection? Thanks. Also, I removed "uncredited" in the cover artist field. That field remains blank if the artist is not credited in the book. If there is a visible signature, or a secondary source you can place that name in the field and place the source in the notes. Otherwise leave the field blank. See the artist section of the entry standards. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Sellings' "The Transfer"
I accepted the submission which updated this title record with a note saying that it was not in the collection. Contento and Tuck disagree, but they do make an occasional error. I will accept a submission which removes it from this pub record, but will ask that you do a primary verification on the pub in case someone should come along and try to add the story back based on Contento and Tuck. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Stories from Outer Space
I approved the update to but am puzzled in that you changed the note from to
 * Page count and place of publication from OCLC record 6033507.
 * Page count and place of publication from OCLC record 6033507. Page count verified by my copy of book

Someone looking at this record will not know who "my" is.

Does your copy not state the place of publication? Per what's at Template:PublicationFields:Publisher it looks like it would be better to:
 * Change the publisher name to "Chartwell Books" to remove the city name.
 * Update the note to say "OCLC record 6033507 reports the publisher as 'Secaucus, NJ: Chartwell Books.'" --Marc Kupper|talk 08:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Coverscan of "The Other Worlds"
I noticed your third effort to upload the for The Other Worlds. Nice scan btw. There seems to be one step in the procedure you haven't found yet, step 6: ''Once the file has been uploaded, the image's wiki page will appear. In order to get the URL (address) for the image you just uploaded, left click anywhere on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window. (Or right click on the image and choose "Copy Image Location".) If you're adding a cover image to a pub record, this is the URL which you would enter into the pub record's "Image URL" field.'' After this edit is approved, the scan should be visible on the publication page. --Willem H. 06:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't responded, I added the link. --Willem H. 06:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Code
I am going to approve your update of Code but the comment of "Copyright attribution in Sterling's collection 'Visionary in Residence' says, 'first appeared in Men Seeking Women: Love and Sex On-line edited by Jonathan Karp, Atrandom.com, 2001.' " belongs in the note field, not inn the synopsis field. I will move it. -DES Talk 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A similar issue occurred with The Necropolis of Thebes where I moved text from the synopsis field to the note field. Please remember that the Synopsis field is for a brief plot summery of a novel or story. Thank you for your contributions. -DES Talk 06:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Complete Novel=Serial
The ISFDB gives any novel that is published complete in one issue the SERIAL title type. Yes, this may first appear to defy the meaning of "serial", but keep in mind, when authors sell a work's "serial rights", it simply means that it will be published in a periodical as opposed to a book, not that it will necessarily have to be split into multiple issues of that periodical. The ISFDB uses the SERIAL type accordingly, and then makes it into a variant of the canonical title record, which contains publications of the story in book form. If you look at the title record for the Budrys novel here, you'll see that it contains three publication records. The first one is it's "serialization" in a single issue of Satellite. The second is its book publication by Ballantine. And the last is a translated serialization (in one issue) of an Italian magazine. The two serializations have been made variants of the book title which we consider the canon title of the work. If the book publication ("Man of Earth") had retained the same title used in the magazine publication ("The Man from Earth"), and if we made the magazine publication into the NOVEL title type (which your submission would have done) then we would have a novel title record "The Man from Earth" which is a variant of another novel title record "The Man from Earth", an untenable situation as it would be natural to merge these two records. So those persons who designed the database (not me) decided to make all magazine appearances into SERIAL title types, regardless of the number of issues in which it appear. Mhhutchins 17:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes in The Kid from Mars
Hi. I just accepted your edits to. It sounds as if you actually have the book. In cases like this, where the notes indicate the entry was constructed from secondary sources, it's ok to remove/revise the notes where the source of the data is now the publication itself. For example, the note talks about the year being from Worldcat, but you've found the date on the copyright page (and you've added a note to that effect). Other than the fact that this corresponds to OCLC #1806888 (which should be kept in the notes), most of the first two sentences are no longer relevant if you have the publication. Does that make sense? Absolutely no harm in erring on the side of keeping things and/or following an add-only policy, but I wanted to be sure you know it's ok to do more than that in this situation. --MartyD 12:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Harrison's introduction in Best SF 1970
Just a note that I accepted the addition of page numbers to the first US edition of this book, but converted Harrison's "Introduction" from a review to an essay. I also merged it with its counterpart from a later printing and set up a variant title for the retitled version of the intro in the Sphere edition. Thanks for editing! Ahasuerus 07:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-decimal British currency
I accepted your change to this pub, but reverted the price from "6s. 0d." back to "6/-", which is the form we use here on the ISFDB for pre-decimal British currency. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-Fiction vs. Essay
Hi. Approved your addition of, but I changed the types of the two introductory pieces from NONFICTION to ESSAY. We use NONFICTION for book-length works, and ESSAY for shorter pieces. You will rarely (if ever) have a case where you would set a content entry's type to NONFICTION. The distinction isn't obvious unless you've studied the help. Thanks. --MartyD 12:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Foundation's Edge
I approved your edit to this pub, but then cloned it, because mine was obviously a second printing. Also moved my verification, and deleted the note about the 2nd printing. I would have appreciated a message on my talk page. Thanks, --Willem H. 11:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Variant dustjacket for Travelers of Space
I've responded to your message to Gilgamesh on his talk page, but I just noticed that you'd uploaded the Binkley image by using the replace image method. So the Cartier image no longer links to the pub, the one you replaced it with (the Binkley art) is now displayed in the pub record for Travelers of Space. In the future, don't use the "Upload new cover scan" link if the images don't match. This link is to upload a better scan of the image than the one that's currently displayed in the record. If you look at for the image, you'll see it is credited to Edd Cartier, who was the artist of the image you replaced. I could revert these changes but the image you just uploaded (the Binkley artwork) may be lost. If so, you'll have to upload it again, using the other method of adding images to the server. I'll let you know if I can save it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have the artists of the two images confused. Is the blue one by Binkley and the red one by Cartier...or the reverse? Mhhutchins 23:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * go ahead and delete the Binkley image I uploaded, and replace with previous Cartier (red) jacket. apologize for the hassle.


 * No hassle, but you should sign your comments with four tildes - ~ :). I've reverted the image to the Cartier art, reloaded the Binkley image and linked it to the pub record's note field.  Please add further notes to the record detailing what you know about each of the two dustjackets.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search for Who We Are
I'm not sure if this title would be covered under the current policies about inclusion in the database. Was is your rationale for adding it? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This nonfiction book appears consistent with the other nonfiction books already listed for Sagan. It, too, is 'popular science', this time focusing on human evolution and biology. I'm just trying to fill in a missing title in a catalogued body of work. Markwood


 * Your submission doesn't credit Sagan as the author, only Ann Druyan. Those other books by Sagan are in the db based on their being reviewed in an SF magazine.  I don't think we need to add every book every written by a scientist who wrote only one work of SF, but I'll allow the submission if you'll update it, giving Sagan credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've accepted the submission making the following changes based on the OCLC record: Changed the ISBN from "0-394-534881-6" to "0-394-53481-6", added the roman-numeraled pages, and added Carl Sagan as the co-author. If this matches your copy of the book please do a primary verification of the pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Bradbury Chronicles 2
I accepted the submission adding this new pub but removed the publication series in which you placed it. This is a title series and is already in the pub's title record. Mhhutchins 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the OCLC record, the cover art is by Dave Gibbons. Are you certain that Bruce Jensen is credited as the artist? Mhhutchins 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, cover art for the hardcover edition is by Bruce Jensen, per back of dust jacket: 'Cover illustration by Bruce Jensen'. User:Markwood

Bradbury Chronicles 3
This record was accepted, and like the one above, I removed the publication series data. Also there's an error in how the cover artist is credited. If the cover art is a collaboration between two people each person must be credited in their own field. Press "Add Artist" to enter additional credits. Did both Timothy Truman and Steve Fastner create the cover art? Mhhutchins 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, both artists are credited on back of dust jacket: 'Cover illustration by Timothy Truman & Steve Fastner'. Thanks for reminder about entering each artist separately. (Doh! :)) I'll fix the database record. User:Markwood

The Inheritance by Robin Hobb (and Megan Lindholm)
Your note to update this pub states that Lindholm is credited as the author on the back cover. The ISFDB standard is to use the credit as given on the book's title page, because occasionally cover credit differs from title page credit. Can you confirm that the book is credited to both Hobb and Lindholm on the book's title page? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because of non-response, the submission was accepted, but the change in author credit was reverted to the original credit. If you feel this is in error, please leave a message here. Mhhutchins 22:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Never at Home
Hi. To answer your question about 's publication date.... Start with what does the book say? If that doesn't help, then look for secondary sources. Here, if I go to Aqueduct Press, I see they have "prerelease" pricing for orders before Aug 1, which sort of reinforces an August publication date. But if there were no information, then you might go with a July date based on your purchase. Regardless, I would include in the notes that you purchased a copy 2011-07-19. Unfortunately, being able to buy it doesn't necessarily say anything about the official publication date (other than it's somewhere near then).

A secondary comment: If you edit an entry whose notes claim Amazon (usually from Fixer or Dissembler -- two web crawlers) or any other secondary source as the source of information, you should delete that note, since now you are working off of the book. You'd only leave the note if there were some data elements in the entry that were not in the book and still came from the secondary source. --MartyD 10:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Gutter code on The Best from Universe
The gutter code is probably "O01" (the letter O followed by two numerical digits "01") in this pub which would indicate a printing in the first week of January 1984. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Creating line breaks in notes
If you want to make a line break in the note field, a simple keyboard return won't do it. You'll have to use HTML. Just add    at the end of the line before you start the next. If you look at the record you just updated, you'll see that all the data you entered into the notes are on one line and that it butts up to the previous one (with the LOC permalink). Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The New Atlantis
I approved the submission adding the page numbers to the contents of this publication. Since the introduction starts on an Roman numbered page, you should also add those to the page count. Also, I noticed that OCLC gives the page count as vii+182 while the LCCN gives it as just 180. Can you confirm which one is correct? Mhhutchins 22:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Last page with text is numbered 180. There are 8 (viii) pages before page 1, with the 1-page intro on page vii. Markwood 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating the record. Please do a primary verification when you get the chance. Mhhutchins 16:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A Wrinkle in Time
The submission adding a record for this printing of the title was accepted. There is no evidence that this was ever a selection of the SFBC. The definitive list was supplied to the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup by SFBC editor Andrew Wheeler in 2003, and this title was not on the list. There is no doubt however that this edition was published by Doubleday for any number of their book clubs. When there is no direct evidence that a Doubleday printing was a selection of the SFBC, we give the publisher as "Publisher / BCE". Can you check to see if the words "Book Club Edition" are printed at the bottom on the front flap of the dustjacket? There is also enough evidence to date this to at least 1969. (A new FSG trade edition, using the Ariel Books imprint, was published in 1968 and at that time, book club editions usually appeared between 6 and 12 months after the trade edition.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The dust jacket on my copy has both top & bottom corners of front flap clipped. Probably did have 'Book Club Edition', given other evidence (no edition/printing on copyright page, apparent book club number '2021' on bottom of back flap, blank back jacket), but can't verify. Markwood 00:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made adjustments to the record that it's a BCE and dated it 1969. If we can later confirm that it was a SFBC selection, the record can be corrected. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Best of F&SF
This is a title series, not a publication series. I've removed it from this publication record. The series was already in the title record. Mhhutchins 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

F&SF 30 Year Retrospective
I linked the Amazon cover image to your verified record of this title. Mhhutchins 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Adventures in Time & Space
I accepted the submission correcting the price of this record. Is the $2.95 price printed on your copy's dustjacket? I need to note that the price given in Tuck is incorrect. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, price in upper right corner of front flap of dust jacket is '$2.95'. Guess Tuck was rounding up. :) Markwood 02:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Adventures in Tomorrow
Can you confirm that the editor credit and all interior pieces in this edition are given to Kendell F. Crossen? The OCLC record credits the full name, but their older records may not be as reliable. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 15:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Far Boundaries
You should leave a note on the other primary verifier's talk page that you made some substantial changes to this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How to...
Click on the Wiki "Help" link and you're carried to this page. There's a link for "How to..." Clicking on that will carry you to this page. I would suggest bookmarking this page, as it has links to almost every function you will probably need to know in editing the database. There's a link here on How to merge titles. This will teach you how to merge the two separate title records for the same Ken MacLeod story. If you have any questions, please leave a response to this message. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

30 Years of MFSF
Hello, I spotted a faulty page numbering in this pub: Bretnor's Schimmelhorn story is catalogued on p. 2009 and I guess it should be - for example - p. 209. Could you take another veryfying look? Thanks, Stonecreek 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And while taking another look: the stories by Boucher and Disch both begin on p. 273 in this pub? Stonecreek 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Thanks! There were 2 typos: '2009' was supposed to be '209', and '... Saint Aquin' starts on 294. I submitted the edits. Really appreciate you finding the errors and letting me know. Markwood 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem: we all do the occasional typiung (see?) error. I was just linking the German publication of the anthology. Stonecreek 09:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Storm Over Warlock
Hello, I had to reject your modification to this pub, instead of modifying the record for the first printing, you should have created another record for what seems to the second printing. You can do this via the "Clone This Pub" item in the "Editing Tools" menu on the left of the screen. Hauck 22:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I submitted the clone edit. Markwood 22:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Approved, thanks (you also can do a primary verification now). Hauck 22:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating titles...
...should be done with parentheses, not brackets. I've corrected the title of the introduction in this record. Mhhutchins 03:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Serial LCCNs
Concerning your note in this record about a duplicate LCCN. This is called a serial LCCN because it's assigned to newspapers, periodicals, and book series, so that each successive volume can be grouped by librarians. I discovered this a few years back when I was working on other series like Universe, New Dimensions, and Orbit. You may have already been aware of the usage, but I thought I'd let you know just in case you may have believed the duplication to be an error. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good to know. I'll re-edit the Galaxy Readers I've verified to use this terminology. Thanks! Markwood 22:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Eyes of the Overworld
There was a discussion about this title years ago (I tried to find it, but my Wiki search skills have failed me) in which the conclusion was to keep this title a novel and not a collection. It may have been because the individual works had been "fixed-up" to form the novel, or that the work was published as a novel instead of a collection. I really can't remember. If you want to begin a new discussion on one of the community pages, leave a note on the talk page of each of the verifiers. I'll hold your submission until the outcome of that discussion. I can't accept it as it is right now because you left the pub type as a novel. Now that we have the ability to import contents it would be easier than it was years ago to convert each of the pubs to a collection type and then import the contents. Mhhutchins 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I also can't find the original discussion, if it still exists. My own comment here gave one reason not to rework them, but this may be a sign that we really need to look at beefing up "based on" links. In the copious free time that Ahasuerus and I don't have. BLongley 02:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If it was decided, then please ignore my edit and leave as novel. Markwood 06:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's possible that the main reason for keeping it as a novel was because of the difficulty in converting records. Software changes have made that much simpler. I see that two of the constituent pieces ("The Cave in the Forest" and "The Manse of Iucounu") were first published as a single piece ("The Manse of Iucounu") and another one ("Cil") was original to the book but subsequently published as a separate piece.  The other pieces appeared serially in F&SF over the course of a few months (12/65-7/66). So that may be why the book is considered a "fix-up" novel instead of a story collection. If you don't want to initiate a discussion (things aren't so set in stone that they can't be changed), you can cancel the submission.  I'll leave it in the queue and leave the decision to you. Mhhutchins 17:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Frost & Fire
I added a number of items to the notes section of a pub you verified, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?13592 Frost & Fire by Zelazny. Biomassbob 01:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gateway to Tomorrow
Quick question: is "Musuem Press" in this record's Notes a typo? Also, should the publisher be "Museum Press" rather than just "Museum"? Thanks! Ahasuerus 07:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * yes, those were typos. Thanks for pointing them out. Markwood 06:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No Boundaries
I added some words to the notes section of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?287050 No Boundaries that appear on the page opposite the title page to the effect that the book is a first edition, not a reprint. Bob 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Cover credit for The 7th Annual of the Year's Best S-F
Hi. I accepted your updates to, but the cover art credit likely needs fixing up. We don't credit designers unless there's no other credit (in which case, we're sort of assuming the designer is the artist). If this cover is essentially a photograph, I think the credit should be solely to the photographer, recording the designer in the notes as you have done. Thanks. --MartyD 10:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Importing contents
I accepted the submission to add contents to this record, but the better approach would have been to import the contents from this record. This would have saved someone the trouble of having to merge the records you added to the ones that are already in the database. Before adding contents to a record, you should first check to see if another record has the same contents, or even almost the same contents, and then use the "Import Contents" function. You can always go back and make changes, or add and delete records, so that it matches your copy of the book. Mhhutchins 14:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars: A New Hope
I've approved your edit of this pub, however you'll need to revise the entry for the page count. The Introduction you added to the Contents is on page "v" however at present there is no Roman numeral page count included before the pages. See the EditPub Help page if you need information on how to do this. Thanks. PeteYoung 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * good catch. thanks. Markwood 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

BCE of The Last Space Ship
I accepted the submission to create a record for the book club edition of this title, but wonder where you got the publication date of 1949. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't know how else to enter it, other than by setting 'year' field to 1949 (matching the copyright date, which in BCE was switched to Roman numerals, perhaps to confirm that edition's copyright was also 1949), and adding comment to effect I didn't know for sure. Is there a standard for handling situations like this? Markwood 03:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * If the publication doesn't specify a date of publication, you can use a secondary source, which you should record in the note field.
 * If you can not find a secondary source for the publication date, you can use the copyright year, but only if you're certain that this is the first printing of the first edition. You still should note that the book is not dated and you've had to resort to the copyright date.
 * If you're not certain that the book is the first edition, or you're certain that the book is not the first edition (as in the case of a book club edition) and you have no secondary source for the publication date, you should enter 0000-00-00 in the publication date field, which will be displayed as "date unknown".
 * Please remember that, in most cases, it's not the edition/publication which is copyrighted. It's the work which is copyrighted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I accepted the date change to 0000-00-00. In doing so, I noticed the publisher is recorded as "Frederick Fell" instead of as "Frederick Fell / BCE".  While trying to dig up a help reference for that, I found only "/ SFBC" is mentioned for Science Fiction Book Club editions, with no mention of treatment of other book club editions.  Guess I will go bring that up and see.  --MartyD 10:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I know this was not a selection of Doubleday's Science Fiction Book Club, which was founded in 1953. That doesn't mean they could have reprinted it several years later, but no sources give this title as a SFBC selection. Tuck doesn't give a book club of this title at all. It is the IFSDB de facto standard to use " / BCE" at the end of a publisher's name if the words "Book Club Edition" appear on the book, and it's uncertain that it was a SFBC selection. Mhhutchins 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I added " / BCE" to the publisher on this. --MartyD 10:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dating titles
Re The City on the Edge of Forever: The ISFDB records the date of first publication of a work, not its date of writing or the date of its production (if it's a play, teleplay or screenplay). So, I'm rejecting the submission to redate this piece to 1966 based on the author's assertion that it was written in that year. We may need to determine if it was first published in 1976, as that is currently the only publication we have of the work. Mhhutchins 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, on that basis 1976 is correct date. Both of the intros, by Elwood and by Ellison, are explicit that this is the teleplay's first publication in this, its original unedited form. Thanks for clarification. Markwood 04:55, 30 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 03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not update your verified pub, but some of the titles in your pub now have variants added. I recommend you double check your verification when you get a chance - Thanks Kevin 21:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked these both in the first hardcover, and in the Ace paperback:

- 1st hardocver has hypen in Atom-Splitters. Ace paperback does not. - Both have apostrophe in Journey's End. - Both use 'Dorothy Cowles Pinkney'. If these need to be corrected, could you please do that? I've not made this type of edit before. BTW, note that I deleted the listing for the Arthur Clarke essay 'Message to the Stars'. It is not in either publication. Thanks. Markwood 22:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you please double check on or about page 93. Is section V of Clarke's Venture to the Moon, titled "Who Wrote That Message to the Stars? ...in Letters a Thousand Miles Long?" or is it titled "Watch this Space"? You see the 5 short stories that make up 'Venture to the Moon' were each previously published separately, and in some anthologies are listed as separate pieces, and in other as a single work.  Take a look at the record for the book club edition . If it has the alternate title, that might be the only place it appears (Since the title record Who Wrote That Message to the Stars? ...in Letters a Thousand Miles Long? is now orphaned and doesn't have any appearances at all). Otherwise if your book does not have that title, we should consider removing the orphan title from the database. Kevin 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Year's Best Science Fiction & Fantasy 2012
Replaced amazon scan and expanded notes for your verified here. Hauck 12:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Caviar
I changed the price field in this record from "21s" to "21/-", the ISFDB standard of entering British shillings. If the price had been 21s/6p, it would have been entered as "21/6". Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yefremov's Stories
Are you certain that the cover art of this publication was also done by the same artist that did the interior art? Is he credited inside the book for its dustjacket (which you say your copy doesn't have)? Mhhutchins 23:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On ABE there are images of the book with dust jacket. The dust jacket art is identical to the embossed image on the front board. The credit "designed and illustrated by ..." seems clear that G. Petrov is responsible for book design, which includes the artwork on front board and dust jacket. However, let's snap to whatever is ISFDB standard. Feel free to edit as appropriate. Thanks.Markwood 00:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In 99% of books in my collection, the term "Book designed by...", when credited on the book's copyright page, refers to the interior design of the book, not the dustjacket cover art. The ISFDB standard is to record credits as given. If you don't have the dustjacket, you can contact someone who does (perhaps the Abebooks dealers) to ask if they would check to see if the dustjacket art is credited. If you're unable to confirm the artist responsible, the field should remain blank. Mhhutchins 02:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Deleted the attribution for cover art. Markwood 04:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Red Peri
If your copy of this publication is a limited edition, it is better to clone the record and create a new publication record for it, making any changes or additions to it, and then do a primary verification of that new record. If you choose to do this, then cancel the submission to update the record for the trade (not limited) edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, cancelled the edit, and will create new entry.Markwood 00:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Markwood 00:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Third Galaxy Reader
You might want to double check your verified pub. The work 'End as a World' listed by Floyd. L. Wallace, is listed as by "F. L. Wallace" in my book club edition. Usually these things are from the same printing plates (But sometimes they are not). I'm just recommending a double check. - Thanks Kevin 02:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Fixed. Thanks. Markwood 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Better Than One", by Damon Knight and Kate Wilhelm
Your verified publication says that it was published without a dust jacket. This doesn't seem right to me. My copy has a dust jacket, which matches the picture of the book on that page and several other dust jackets on copies offered for sale, hence clearly published with the book. Of course it's possible that the book was published at Noreascon II without a jacket, and then later with a jacket, but that seems inconsistent with other copies available for sale. For example, this copy for sale has a dust jacket, and is not only signed bu the authors, but is inscribed by Knight, hence seems almost certain to have been purchased at the con and not later. This copy for sale on Abebooks has a dust jacket and includes the receipt for the book's purchase at Noreascon. Do you have any idea where the claim came from that it was published without a dust jacket? Chavey 12:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the note about it being published without a dust jacket. I added a couple of other minor notes. Chavey 11:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there are two different editions. See the printing history on the NESFA website. --Willem H. 11:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Good edit, well documented. Thanks for catching and fixing. Markwood 04:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I found the right person at NESFA who gave me some details about the printing history. In response to my question about the dust jacket vs. the green book alone, Tony Lewis wrote to me: "The book originally had the plain white dust wrapper. Sometimes this was removed when selling at conventions because it was believed this improved sales." I have added this note to the publication. Chavey 00:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And in case you're interested, this was in response to the following email question:
 * "In your web page about this book, you say of the Printing History:
 * "Text cover; No dust jacket or interior artwork. The front cover of the book has the authors' signatures embossed in gold."
 * But most copies of this book have a plain white, text-only, dust jacket. This includes copies which are fairly convincing about being purchased in the original distribution at Noreascon II. Am I incorrectly interpreting your phrase "No dust jacket"? Has the book always had that plain white cover, and that phrase just means there was no "professional, artistic" dust jacket? Or does it really mean that the original edition came with no dust jacket at all? Chavey 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Adventures in Time and Space
I added the cover artist to Adventures in Time and Space along with a note as to its source. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Whispers
Added cover scan and subtitle "An Anthology of Fantasy and Horror" from title page.SFJuggler 20:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sturgeon's Maturity
Is the "Postscript" in this publication for the entire collection or just for the preceding story? Whichever one it is should be added parenthetically to disambiguate it, e.g. "Postscript (Maturity)". Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

File uploads
Please keep your cover image uploads to no more than 150K in size and no more than 600 pixels at its longest side. Exceptions can be made for wraparound cover art, but otherwise you should stay within the prescribed limits. Mhhutchins 07:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yarbro's Cautionary Tales
Are the essays that you've added to this record entered exactly as they are titled in the publication (i.e. capitalization and punctuation)? If they are not titled at all, and all just a paragraph or two, it is not necessary to have created content records for them. A note in the pub record would have sufficed.

Also, you made a subsequent submission that made no changes to the record, only a "Note to Moderator" concerning the untitled poem. You should not make submissions that don't edit a record. In this case, you should have waited until the submission was accepted, and then made the necessary changes to the record. About the title of the poem, you should only title it exactly as it appears in the collection. If there is no title on the poem itself, but it is titled on the contents page or copyright page, or in the acknowledgements, you can add the title, but note the source of the title in the note field of the poem's title record (and the publication record if you wish.) If there is no title given at all, enter the first line of the poem exactly as given in the publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 08:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, each of those essays has a title at top of essay, exactly as I entered them. The poem is untitled on page 207, but Contents page lists "An Indulgence" on page 207, so that must be its title. Markwood 04:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Great. Looks good, although it might be a good idea to note the source of the poem's title so that any future primary verifier doesn't try to remove the title from the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jizzle
I accepted the submission to update this record, even though you didn't provide a source for your data. I can only assume that you're working from the primary source, since you added the cover arat credit and the page numbers of the contents. If so, please let the moderator know that in the Note to Moderator field, and then do a Primary Verification of the record after the submission is accepted. If you're working from a secondary source, that source should be given in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, primary verification. I entered a 2nd primary verification for the publication. Markwood 00:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Flow My Tears
You made subsequent submissions to update this record. If I accept the second submission, all the changes you made in the first will be reverted back to the original data. It's important to wait for each submission that updates the same record be moderated. I'm going to go ahead and accept the second, but then I'll have to go back and return the data you added in the first. Please look at the record once I've finished to confirm that everything you wanted to note is there. I don't think it will be necessary to keep the note about the Abebooks.com dealer because you say that the ISBN is stated in the book itself. The number is invalid, even if it stated (it's a publisher error). The only way to get around that error message is to add a "#" before the number that fools the software into thinking it's a catalog number instead of an ISBN. I'll note this in the Note field. Mhhutchins 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoah. Now you've made a third. This is going to take some time to figure out just what to keep and what not. Please stop updating this record until I've sorted it out. Mhhutchins 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's ready to be updated if you need to make any more changes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies for having you jump through those hoops. I didn't understand how your view of the editor worked, and I assumed each edit would make incremental updates. I won't make that mistake again. I reviewed the end state, and you got everything perfect. I see you also put "One Plus One Studio" in the "artist" field. I wasn't sure that a "Studio" would be considered an "artist". Thanks for that fix & clarification. And, again, thanks for sorting out the multiple edits. Markwood 00:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Studio" or "Company" as Cover Artist is one of those things we've not settled. I'm frankly against putting a company in there - after all, filling the field with a new name leads to problems like the new "author" suddenly needing birthdate and birthplace etc. I've not complained too much about this before though, although I recall publications like some of Robert Rankin's  - e.g  where the author is actually the creator of an item that gets professionally photographed by someone else... we'll get round to sorting out the code in a year or two I'm sure. BLongley 05:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Image file upload standards
I've noticed the last few cover images that you've uploaded are at 640 pixels. We ask that image files not exceed the height of 600 pixels (see the standards here). Please set your scanner and/or image software to this limit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Replacing image files
You seem to have had some trouble uploading a replacement file for. Whenever you replace a file, you must clear your browser's cache, otherwise the original image is seen regardless of how many times you go to the publication record or the wiki page. Just hit your "F5" button (in most browsers) after you've replaced an image and you'll see the new image. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Doh! :) Thanks for explanation of what was happening. Markwood 00:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Herbert's Direct Descent
I've accepted the submission updating this record and agree with your assessment that this should have been typed as a CHAPTERBOOK instead of novel. I've made the appropriate changes in this and all other publication records. A question: is Garcia explicitly credited with the cover art in your edition? My mmpb edition doesn't credit the cover art. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no visible signature on the cover or any interior illustrations, and on the copyright page it says, "Illustrations copyright (c) 1980 by Garcia". Just an opinion, but it appears to me the color cover art is stylistically similar to the black-and-white interior illustrations. However, I'd appreciate if you edit the record to align with ISFDB standards in this situation. Thanks. Markwood 02:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The copyright page statement is rather clear about the illustrations, but without an explicit credit for the cover art, it would be best to leave the field blank. The UK edition of this title retained the interior illustrations but had different cover art, which was explicitly credited. I'll remove the cover credit from this record until a time when a credible secondary source supplies further data. Mhhutchins 04:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

File exceeding limits
exceeded the limits in both dimensions (800 pixels) and size (196 kb), so I reduced it to be within the ISFDB standards (no more than 600 pixels, and no larger than 150 kb). Mhhutchins 08:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Conklin's Science Fiction Terror Tales
I've expanded the notes to Conklin's Science Fiction Terror Tales. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"Dreams That Burn in the Night", by Craig Strete
I corrected the spelling of two stories in the ToC of your verified publication: The Night Xenex Sanurian Took a Wallflower to the Prom had "Sanvrian" instead of "Sanurian", and We All Lived in the Warm Aquarium had "Live" instead of "Lived". Chavey 23:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Markwood 23:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

ESSAY vs NONFICTION
A short piece of nonfiction which is contained in a larger publication should be entered as ESSAY. The type NONFICTION is reserved for book-length works. I've changed several introductions (e.g. this one) which you've entered as NONFICTION to ESSAY. Mhhutchins 01:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, and for fixing those into listings. Markwood 23:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification request
Please don't post any messages on this page without reading the notice. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A Treasury of Science Fiction - Conklin
Can you check your copy of http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?1319? Mine has a cover price of $3.00 on the dustjacket and you list $3.50. Variant, perhaps?SFJuggler 05:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Was a typo. Thanks! Markwood 06:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The original price probably came from Tuck. I added a note about the difference. --Willem H. 10:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Best Science Fiction and Fantasy of the Year: Volume Seven
Hello, I've replaced the amazon scan and changed Paul J. McAuley to Paul McAuley for his story in this pub. Hauck 16:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Good-Bye, Robinson Crusoe and Other Stories
I added notes about the publication date and story introductions to your verified Good-Bye, Robinson Crusoe. Also changed the publication date from 2013-04-30 (can't be true) to 2013-04-00. Hope you can agree. Thanks, --Willem H. 09:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * All good edits. I didn't check the pre-existing information carefully enough when verifying & updating. Appreciate the catches. Markwood 21:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Forward" or "Foreword"
Please confirm the spelling of the title on pag 7 of this publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's "Forward". Markwood 17:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I will make a note of its unusual spelling so that other editors won't have to ask the question again. Mhhutchins 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Interior artwork
Interior artwork should be titled the same as the work they illustrate. Do not use the term "interior artwork" in the title as that is explicit in the type of the record. Please correct the titles of the mistitled interior artwork credited to John Polgreen in the Willy Ley books. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors v. authors
By ISFDB standards, the editors of NONFICTION- and ANTHOLOGY-typed publications are considered the "author" of the work, unlike the editors of NOVEL- and COLLECTION-typed publications who can only be credited in the Note field. That was how the software was designed (long before most of us started working here). I suppose it was simpler to create a single field to record the credit for the one(s) who were most responsible for the work, without creating multiple fields to record individual roles for each publication. Maybe one day the software will be updated to create more fields with more finely defined roles of responsibility: editor (for novels and collections), translator, adaptor, etc. Mhhutchins 00:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A Visitor from Outer Space
I changed the editor field credit of this record from "Anonymous" to "uncredited", the ISFDB standard for an anthology which doesn't credit the editor of the work. It now matches the title record. If this was incorrect, and the editor is actually credited as "Anonymous" on the book's title page, please make a submission to change it back. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange Signposts
I've changed the notes of this record to conform to standard ISFDB entry of the LCCN and OCLC record numbers. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Art of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice & Fire
Re: your note. You may add the interior art that you like to add. There's really no need to add all of them. Stonecreek 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfettered
If you wish to remove content titles from a publication record, go to the record and click on the link "Remove Titles From This Pub" under the Editing Tools menu. On the next page, you have the option of removing any of the contents by checking its box. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Markwood 05:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Catastrophic Disruption of the Head" variant
Hi. I have your submission that would make this a variant of this on hold. I freely admit I could be looking right at it, but why a variant instead of merging them? Thanks. --MartyD 10:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right, should have merged. Just took care of that. Thanks. Markwood 18:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Beyond Tomorrow
Please move your primary verification to this record. I cloned it from the record which you had updated, which should have remained as the first printing of the title. (There's a record for the library edition at a different price). When you've PV'd the new record, remove it from the original record to which I've restored the original data. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed that the essay "More Good Reading in Science Fiction" is on page 333, while the OCLC record, the LCCN, and Reginald all give the page count as 332. Is that last page numbered? Mhhutchins 06:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see that the LCCN gives a "Bibliography" on page "[333]" which means it is unnumbered. The way to enter this situation in a record is to give the page count as "xv+333+[1]" and then give the content page number in brackets: "[333]". Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Good to know. Thanks. Markwood 04:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Worlds of Wonder
I added some notes to Worlds of Wonder. Bob 19:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Great addition. Thanks! Markwood 19:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Toymaker
I added some words to the notes for The Toymaker. Bob 18:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added Currey's description of first printings, plus description of another jacket variant I've got that wasn't in Chalker's list. Markwood 21:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange Worlds
I added some notes to Strange Worlds. Bob 18:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Toymaker
Yes, there should be separate records for different editions of [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Cover image for The Immortal Storm
at 172 kb was over the requested limit of 150 kb. So I re-sized it to meet the standard. Please keep this size limit in mind when uploading cover image files in the future. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor's Choice in Science Fliction
I'm holding the submission to update this record. We ordinarily do not create individual content records for an editor's untitled story introductions. (Imagine the thousands that have been published over the years and the ISFDB records that would have to updated if such a practice became standard.) It's usually sufficient to note the presence of such introductions in the record's Note field. Is there anything about the ones in this book which would make them extraordinary?

Also, we do not add information to Note fields which is specific to one copy of a publication, including a personal inscription. If it adds value to the record, it can be added to a Bibliographic Comments page (there's a link on each pub record that creates such a page.) Mhhutchins 19:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see now these pieces are NOT written by the anthology's editor but by the editor who originally purchased the story. Now I can see the value in that. I'll accept the submission, but remove the redundant "untitled" part. The parentheses already indicates that there is no title. (I'll remove the note about the inscription and leave it to you if you wish to create a comments page.) Mhhutchins 19:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why I typed them all in. Glad you kept them. :) Thanks for response on the inscription. Policy makes sense. Markwood 05:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"What Will They Think of Last"
I accepted the submission adding contents to this record, before I realized that you've credited the contents to "H. L. Gold", while the book is credited to Horace L. Gold. How is the author credited on the book's title page? Mhhutchins 02:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Book credit is Horace L. Gold. It's my understanding that, if I had credited all the essays to that name, then there'd be dozens of records to setup as alternate versions for the same title by H. L. Gold. That seemed like a lot of unnecessary work and a lot of unnecessary records in the database. So I figured I'd just credit them to match the existing records for all those essays. The book credit is clear, so it seemed totally unambiguous to do it that way. That said ... I'll leave it to you to decide whether to change all those authors to Horace L. Gold. Your call. Sorry about making extra work if that's what you decide. If you do that and want me to setup all the alternate listing connections to the exiting essay records, then just say so. Markwood 02:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not my call. It's an ISFDB standard to record work as credited, regardless of how much effort there may be in creating variants. I'll do it. Mhhutchins 03:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll edit the story records. Markwood 03:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, you already did it! I hope it wasn't as much work as I thought it would be. Thanks for taking care of that, and thanks for explaining the ISFDB standard for this. Markwood 03:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm only about half finished. The variants have to be made and I'm still working on those. Unlike the single submission to change the author credit of each content record in the essay collection, now each of them has to be individually varianted to the original title record. Mhhutchins 03:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Something just occurred to me: since you made the author credit conform, is it possible you also made the titles conform? It's odd that each of them were exactly as the title already in the database. Even one that was titled "Editor's Page: To the Hills!", the original one of which had the column name in the title. If the titles in the collection (as they appeared on the essay's title page, not on the book's table of contents), please make corrections. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did add "Editor's Page:" to "To the Hills!" to match, but I see you fixed that. All of the others were titled exactly as the ISFDB records, including punctuation, with the exception of "QWERTYUIOP". The ISFDB record for that is spelled with a "U" instead of "W", which I suspect is a typo but I don't have that copy of Galaxy to confirm. This has been (yet another) good learning experience. Really appreciate your attention to detail. I'll emulate in future. Markwood 03:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You could have posted a message on the primary verifier's talk page asking about the spelling of that piece in the magazine. I'll do that for you. Two more questions: Is "The Riches of Embarrassment" fiction or essay? There's a record in the database of a piece published in Galaxy, April 1968 with the same title verified as fiction. Also, there were two editorials with the title "Of All Things", in the issues for June 1953 and December 1959. Does the essay collection give the dates of the original essays publications so that you can confirm that the piece here is the 1953 piece? (I've already varianted it to the 1953 piece, because that's the date you gave the reprint.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I know you'll be glad when we're done with this entry. :) "Riches of Embarrassment" is an essay. The essays do not have individual credits, just a credit on copyright page "Copyright 1950 through 1961". However, the essay mentions a March 1958 magazine, so it must be the December 1959 version. I've edited the book listing. Markwood 04:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll need to correct the variant then. I'll ask the verifier of the April 1968 to check on "Riches..." to determine if it's the same as this essay. Can you give me the first sentence of the piece? Mhhutchins 04:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's likely they're the same, and I can see why another reader might validly consider it fiction. First sentence is, "The Costellos, two great little people well under five feet tall, had moved out of the one-bedroom apartment to the left of mine, and my neighbors and I wondered apprehensively who would move in." It's in Gold's first-person voice, and it tells an amusing mundane story about an easily offended neighbor. However, it does have a snarky SFnal denouement: "In ten years of ceaseless research, I have never found any discussion, much less theory, concerning the power that Miss McGivney clearly possessed. This can therefore be counted a First. Here it is: Using a previously unknown and unsuspected ESP faculty of the mind, Miss McGivney unconsciously manufactured embarrassing incidents." After that is a paragraph using this conceit to lampoon the neighbor, ending with "Poor world of Miss McGivney!" So, now that you know the contents, I'm curious: in ISFDB is this considered an essay or short fiction? (And at this point it won't surprise me if there actually is an official standard. :) Markwood 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Orbit 19
You'll have to also change the dates of each of the content records in this publication. Mhhutchins 03:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * done Markwood 03:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

LCCN
When entering the stated Library of Congress Catalog Card, Library of Congress Catalog Number, or Library of Congress Control Number (its latest incarnation), it should be entered in the format "LCCN: xxxxxx" This will help if or when the time comes when the LCCN gets its own field, and the universal change can be made instead of having to update each publication record. I've corrected the format in this record, and linked it to the LoC's website record. Linking isn't required but very beneficial. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Battle on Mercury
Re this publication: Is the piece "Life in a Dome" a nonfiction essay, or is it a fictional introduction to the story, making it part of the novel, and thus not eligible as a separate work? Mhhutchins 04:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a nonfiction essay. Markwood 00:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In the Wake of Man
If there is no explicit editor credit for this publication, the publication record should reflect that. If there is sufficient and strong evidence that Elwood was the anonymous editor, we can make the title into a variant credited to him. This is the ISFDB standard for crediting uncredited responsibility. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Only mention of Elwood in the book is on copyright page as copyright holder, and there is no editor credit. Seems those 2 facts would justify making it a variant so that users researching Elwood could link to this book. But it's your call. Feel free to edit, or just let me know what to do. Markwood 06:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking the secondary sources. Nice edit. Markwood 20:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the editor credit from the publication record, added a note that Elwood holds the copyright, and made the editor record into a variant by Elwood. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Planet Earth
Is Wyler's Planet Earth speculative fiction related? It sounds like a science book, not speculative fiction related non-fiction. If so, it doesn't qualify for inclusion. Her one included non-genre non-fiction book is included as it was reviewed in a speculative fiction magazine. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Am I missing something? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I wasn't clear on the boundary. Was just adding a similar pub to a listed author's record. The book has early 'space age' context and a 10-page section discussing satellites and what it would be like to travel to the moon, but it is not otherwise related to speculative fiction. Sorry to bother you with it. Markwood 19:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Foundation
The notes you want to add to this record seem to apply to a later printing. If so, a new record should be created. You didn't source the change so I'm not certain if you're working from the actual edition that this record is for, or a later printing. If you think a new record should be created, cancel the submission I have on hold. Thanks. 21:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got the July 1978 printing that I referenced, and I've seen other printings of the 1963 Doubleday reprint edition, both in bookshops and online. They've all got the Zimmerman jacket, and later printings have the same ISBN. Thought it made sense to add that info to the root record for first edition of the 1963 printing, then clone it to produce separate listing for my 1978 printing. But it's your call. If my edits to the 1963 record are inappropriate then please decline the edit. Thanks. Markwood 00:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no such thing as a "root" publication record. Each publication record is distinct and is tied to a title record which could be considered the "root". There is no purpose in providing data in a publication record about a later printing for which you'll be creating a publication record. The record for that later printing will speak for itself. Notes should be specific to the printing for which the record was created. I'll reject the submission. Mhhutchins 01:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll add record for my July 1978 printing. Markwood 01:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Analog 1
The OCLC record you note in this record does not give 1961 as the copyright year, but the year of publication. (Also, don't forget to add a colon after "OCLC" and before the record number.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I inherited that OCLC statement from whoever setup the record, and just added the word "incorrectly" since I was verifying the publication date. I'll edit to fix per your direction. Thanks. Markwood 01:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I accepted the submission, but reverted it to show the incorrect dating of the OCLC record. If you're going to give a secondary source in the Note field, you should note any exceptions between that source and the actual book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Analog 5
This publication is not in a publication series. Its title is in a title series. You'll have to remove the publication series from the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * done. Markwood 03:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Analog 6
Can you see if there is a book club id number on the back flap of this publication's dustjacket? It should be a four-digit number either in the high 1900s or low 2000s. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was there. Edited record. Thanks for catching this. Markwood 03:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Atlas Printing of From Unknown Worlds
I've added the price for From Unknown Worlds. I've also removed the note about the price clipped jacket. Happily my copy was not clipped so I was able to provide the data. I've additionally corrected the page count (it was 128) and added an item for the interior artwork. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Very much appreciated. Thanks! Markwood 18:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Delany & Chaykin's Empire
I changed the type of this record from NOVEL to CHAPTERBOOK and added a content record for Delany's fiction. Mhhutchins 17:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright date vs. Publication date
The ISFDB publication record provides the date of publication, not the year of copyright. If there is no stated publication date, only use the year of copyright after all secondary sources have been exhausted. If you do so, note that the date is from the copyright statement, because of the lack of a publication statement. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The source for the 1958 date of Teen-Age Super Science Stories was probably Locus1. Tuck and the LCCN give the year as 1957, so I've accepted the submissions. I'll update the record to note the source of the date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I will have to reject your submission to clone the original pub, because it was submitted before the ones changing the date of the contents were accepted. If I accept the clone submission, all of the stories' dates will revert to 1958. Keep this in mind when making simultaneous submissions that contain changes in content records. Also, are you certain that the Grosset & Dunlap edition came out the same year as the Lantern Press edition? According to Tuck, the discounted edition was published in 1958, although he doesn't credit Grosset as the publisher. As I said above, if your book doesn't have an explicit statement of publication, you must use a reliable secondary source. If there is no source, and knowing this was published by another publisher in the year of copyright, it is better to just zero out the date to have it displayed as "unknown". Grosset & Dunlap books, to the best of my knowledge, rarely gave a publication date, as they reprinted "cheap" editions of titles. Mhhutchins 19:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To avoid your having to rebuild another submission, I'll do that from the data you provided in the rejected clone submission. Here is the new record. Mhhutchins 19:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for corrections and explanations. Every edit is a learning opportunity. :) FWIW, I don't have a copy of Tuck, so went with the 1957 copyright date. Markwood 19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You can update the record's date and give Tuck as the source. Or zero it out, based on the fact that it was published in the same year by another publisher. If you need to look up anything in Tuck, leave a message on my talk page. No problem. Mhhutchins 20:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Publication dates from various sources
If a book provides a publication date, then unless we believe there's a printing error of some sort or that the book is reprinting an earlier edition's statement of printing, what we see printed in the book trumps what other sources say. So I think for, December from the dust jacket's 7012 should be used instead of Contento's October. The only question would be whether yours could be a later printing. I will see if the other moderators have an opinion about changing the date (which then would also affect the dates on the stories). --MartyD 11:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Two firm opinions agreeing with me, so I will change the date to December (your notes already cover the situation nicely). --MartyD 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Lehr / Orbit 9
I accepted your changes to, but I restored the Paul Lehr cover art credit based on the notes from the 1971 Berkley Medallion edition that has the same cover artwork. There someone found confirmation of the artist in Jane Frank's Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists of the Twentieth Century. I copied that note into the notes in this edition. --MartyD 11:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I really didn't want to delete the Lehr reference because it's obviously his artwork. I'm delighted that you could document the attribution. Markwood 20:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Red Mars excerpt
Is the excerpt titled "Festival Night (excerpt from Red Mars)" on page 47 of this publication? Or is it simply "Festival Night"? If this is the first publication of this excerpt under this title, it should have the date of the publication in which it was first published (April 1995), not the date of the work from which it was excerpted. Although this may not be specifically documented in the help pages, it is my belief that the fact that it is a new title that it deserves to be dated when first published as this title. If the excerpt had the same title of the work, then there would be a stronger case for dating them the same. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the Rules & Standards discussion page. Also, I rejected the submission to change the publication record. If you change a title record, it is automatically changed in the publication record, so there's no need to do two submissions. Mhhutchins 21:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As always, thanks for the coaching on ISFDB standards. In Nebula Awards 29, the title page, and the story title on page 47, says "Festival Night from Red Mars". The copyright acknowledgment is, "'Festival Night,' an excerpt from the novel 'Red Mars' ...." It appears whoever entered the ISFDB record for trade paper of Nebula Awards 29 added the parentheses around "from Red Mars". Markwood 21:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the "from Red Mars" part is in a different size font and/or on a different line it's considered a subtitle and should be entered as "Festival Night: from Red Mars". Mhhutchins 21:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "from" is in different font and "Red Mars" is same font as "Festival Night" except italicized. Markwood 22:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nebula Awards 29
Sorry I had to reject your submission which updated this record because it would have taken too much work to merge all of the newly created content records with the ones that are already in the database. (I'm also sorry for the time you took in entering all of those contents unnecessarily.) The best way to handle such a situation is to remove all titles from the record, and then import the contents from the record which contains as close as possible to the contents in the one you're working on. This one for example. I'll do that for you and then let you make any changes to match your publication. Mhhutchins 21:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, according to the OCLC record, this book has xii+307 pages, and also published under the Harvest imprint. If so, the publisher should be given as "Harvest / Harcourt Brace". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with the imprint used for Nebula Awards 30. Mhhutchins 21:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm holding a submission to update Nebula Awards 32, another one in which again you're adding content for records already in the database (see this record). Please let me know if you understand the import procedure which I'm talking about. I can walk you through the process if necessary. Mhhutchins 23:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You say "content ... already in the database", but the titles I added were not (still are not) in the hardcover listing I was editing. Since there were just a few titles missing, I thought it faster to add them rather than delete all & import all. For titles I added, I tried to enter exactly as in the trade paper listing by doing cut-and-paste from the Title data. (If you spotted any variance from the canonical Title data, then those would be typos I need to correct.) I've never used the "Import Content" tool, but sure I can figure it out. Let me know if there's a reason to use it versus the process I followed. Thanks. Markwood 23:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * They may not be in the publication record, but the titles you are adding are already in the database: Keeping Up by	Elizabeth Hand;	Must Have Been Something I Ate by Lucius Shepard; Interactive Science Fiction: 1996 by Keith Ferrell; The British Scene (Nebula Awards 32) by Ian Watson, etc. etc. By adding another identical title record to the database, you have to make another submission to merge them. Doing the importing of these titles to another publication record, you can avoid the follow-up submissions. And each merge requires a separate submission. That means you'll have to make nine more submissions to "fix" this record, when importing them would have taken only two submissions: remove and import. If there were only a couple of duplicate titles, it would be easier to use the new "Import Titles" function, where you can list the title record numbers of each of the titles to be duplicated. But when there are as many as nine records to import, I think the procedure I've explained would be better. Regardless, I'm going to accept the submission, and then ask you to merge the records. This may help you see why the method I explain is the better choice. I'm not saying you CAN'T add duplicate titles. I'm just trying to explain an easier way to do it. Personally, I'd rather not have to deal with accepting multiple submissions when only one or two would have done the same thing. Mhhutchins 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * NOW I get it. :) Thanks for your patience. I've merged all the new records I created. I really appreciate the coaching. Markwood 01:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I did the "delete all" & "import contents" process for http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?23508. I'll complete editing the record once those edits are accepted ... or you let me know if I did something wrong. Thanks for your patience. Markwood 00:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Very good. Thank you. Mhhutchins 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Amidst all of the others, perhaps you overlooked my question about the page count and the imprint. I see you've removed Harvest as the imprint used on these Nebula Award anthologies, while most of the OCLC records indicate them as "A Harvest Original". Can you re-check to see that this is not the case in your copies? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Harvest" is an imprint Harcourt uses for paperback and trade paper editions. I've got 4 Harcourt trade paper Nebula Awards books. Numbers 20 & 22 say "A Harvest/HBJ Book" on the back, and "Harcourt Brace Jovanovich" on back, title page & copyright page. Numbers 31 & 33 say "A Harvest Original" on back and title page, and "Harcourt Brace & Company" on back, title page, and copyright page. In ISFDB, for 20 & 22 I entered "Harcourt Brace Jovanovich", following the examples of trade paper editions of Nebula 20-26 (excepting un-verified 23, which uses "Harvest/HBJ".) For 31, I entered "Harvest/Harcourt Brace" following the examples of Nebula 32-33. (BTW, I believe the hardcover Nebula 33 probably has incorrect publisher, since I've never seen "Harvest" used on a hardcover Harcourt book.) FWIW, I checked all the Publisher listings in ISFDB for "Harvest", but didn't see any consistent pattern in how the 5 Harvest/Harcourt variants are used. Given this info (and apologies if it's TMI), I'll be glad to edit my verified books any way you think appropriate. Markwood 06:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The rule of thumb is to use the publisher as stated on the title page. In the case of some publishers who publish simultaneous hardcover and trade paperback editions (like Harcourt's Nebula volumes), the trade paperback may have a different imprint. If that's the case, then use the ISFDB standard of "Imprint / Publisher". I see there are currently three different variants of the Harvest imprint in the database: published by HBJ (1977 - 1992), Harvest / Harcourt Brace (1993 - 2000), and Harcourt (1999-2008). If any of your verified pubs are trade paperbacks, please check to see if any fall within this range and use the appropriate imprint. If they are hardcovers, use the publisher as stated on the title page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Foreword to Brave New World
Hi, I have found a possible hint that your edition may actually be from 1949. In my edition Huxley's Foreword has the signum '1949 A. H.' at its end. Could you please take a look if that is the case here? Thanks, Stonecreek 10:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Mine has no signum at end of Foreword. It's possible you've got a 1949 edition with updated Foreword. Here are some 'points' on my copy:
 * - On front jacket "a new edition of a famous novel with a special introduction by the author"
 * - From blurb on back flap of dust jacket: "... in his foreword written especially for this edition ....", "He notes that fifteen years ago ....", "... the foreshadowed possibilities of fifteen years ago ...."
 * - Ad on back of dust jacket for Huxley's book 'Ape and Essence' begins, "Sixteen years ago Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was a literary bomb ...."
 * - Opening sentence of Foreword: "Chronic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a most undesirable sentiment."
 * - Beginning of last paragraph of Foreword on page xix: "All things considered it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only fifteen years ago, could have imagined."
 * - Closing sentence of Foreword: "You pays your money and you takes your choice."
 * If your copy differs from any of these points, or from any of the other info about mine in the ISFDB record, then you should enter as a new edition. Markwood 19:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, my edition isn't from that early at all, but the notion "Sixteen years ago Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was a literary bomb ...." does indeed speak for a later publication than 1946, since the novel was first published in 1932, doesn't it? Also, Ape and Essence was published only in 1948, which is also a clear hint for later publication (they wouldn't place an ad two years in advance). The copyright really is only the year the copyright was assigned and has nothing to do with the year of publication per se. In this light (taking the notion of 1949 for the Foreword into consideration) a publication year of 1949 seems all to reasonable, I think (still pretty early!). And I do believe that this is the first edition featuring the specially written Foreword. Shall I adapt the publication (and the title record for the Foreword)? Stonecreek 10:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points. I hadn't checked publication date of 'Ape and Essence'. So I agree my book was likely published in 1948 or later. But how do we explain the fact it does not have a signum on the Foreword like yours? Does your book have all the points I listed? Markwood 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, at some point later in time it must have been a possible need (for Huxley or the publisher) to mark that this Foreword wasn't part of the original publication in 1932. So this signum was added to emphasize it was written and/or published in 1949. I'll try to capture our state of knowledge in the publication's notes. Please take a look if it is to your liking. Stonecreek 09:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good edits. Thanks! Markwood 18:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Analog 2
Can you check to see if there is a gutter code present in this edition? It should be visible in the gutter of the last page of text or one of the preceding pages. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 23:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No gutter code in my copy. However, it has been re-bound by a library, omitting any pages which might have followed page 275 and its blank reverse, so it's possible there's a gutter code on an un-numbered page after 275. Markwood 01:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Darn! Guess it didn't hurt to ask. Thanks anyway. Mhhutchins 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The Atomic Story
In contrast with the cover credit, is the author credited as a "Jr." on the title page of this book? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 07:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch. No "Jr" on title page, either. It appears only once, in first use of Campbell's name on back of dust jacket. All other appearances of his name are sans "Jr". FWIW, the bio info on jacket downplays SF editing and refers to him as a "science writer", so omission of "Jr" appears intentional. Any recommended editing sequence to correcting the title record and the book record, and connecting them back to the canonical Campbell record? (Or, is this something you might do quicker than me? :) ) Markwood 19:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a multi-submission process, so it would be quicker if I did it. If you ever want to try your hand at it, here are the steps:


 * Edit the publication record to make the Author1 Field match the publication's title page credit. Because this is a non-container type record without any other publication records under the same title record, you can also update the content title record at the same time. Submit.
 * If there were more than one publication attached to the title record, or if it were a container type record (ANTHOLOGY, COLLECTION, OMNIBUS), you'd have to make another submission to "Unmerge" this publication record from its title record.
 * Once the first submission has been moderated, you go to its title record and create a variant title record using the "Make This Title A Variant Title" function, replacing the credited author's name with canonical author's name in the Author1 Field at the bottom of the variant screen. Submit.
 * Mhhutchins 19:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I added the Canadian price to your verified
I added the Canadian price to your verified .Don Erikson 05:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange Ports of Call
I'm holding your submission to change the Price field of this record. Shouldn't the stated price be given and then the stickered price be noted? (That's ordinarily the ISFDB standard.) In any event, it should be discussed with the other primary verifier before making a submission to change it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you left a message here, but if you will read the verifier's notification preference you'll see that page is to notify him if you've "added a COVER IMAGE or NOTES..." Any other changes to data fields should be posted on his talk page, and, as I said above, before submitting a change. Mhhutchins 22:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted note to http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Rtrace. I'm not clear on your comment that the $4.00 price printed on the jacket should be "given" and the $3.75 price which is often found stamped on the jacket should be "noted". Thought that's what I did. Can you please clarify ... or, if easier, just fix my edit? Markwood 01:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * By "given" I meant entered into the ISFDB record's Price field. By "noted" I meant that it should be entered into the ISFDB record's Note field. Mhhutchins 02:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The only thing that gives me pause about the edit is that Tuck lists the price as $3.75. Unfortunately, neither Currey nor Contento mention the price at all.  My copy is clipped with the stamped price, as you describe.  Because of the Tuck listing I could speculate that the intent was to sell the book at $3.75 with the %4.00 price being a misprint.  However, that's purely speculation.  I don't really have a problem with the edit, but we should probably expand the note stating the price in Tuck.  After Michael approves the edit, I can further expand the notes and mention that my copy has the altered price.  --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll accept the submission, but believe that the stated price should be the entered into the Price field. But it's not my record. I'll let you two decide, but make sure the notes make everything clear. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just submitted an edit to Notes with reference to Tuck. Agree it's not clear which price to put in price field. However, even if the $4.00 price was a mistake, that's what P&C printed on the jacket, and there are instances of the book with un-clipped jackets, so it seems clear the $3.75 price followed the $4.00 price. Markwood 03:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I remembered a few more places to research this, but unfortunately it muddies things a bit more. Derleth's own bibliography lists this book with the $3.75 price.  The review in the Spring 1948 issue of The Arkham Sampler has the #4.00 price, whereas the review in the November 1948 issue of Startling Stories has the $3.75 price.  I have one other of the reviews (from Amazing) but it doesn't have the price.  I'm going to expand the notes.  I don't have a problem with the $4.00 price in the metadata field.  --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Design
I've never seen dustjacket art credited in the interior of the book as "Design by..." as you've noted in this record. It always means the book design, not the dustjacket design. Is there cover art credit on the dustjacket itself? Mhhutchins 04:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have the same concerne with the cover art credit you've given in all of the last set of submissions. Mhhutchins 04:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reason I was submitting these edits are (1) I'd previously submitted 3 edits with art by Sidney Solomon noting "Design by Sidney Solomon", and they had been accepted; and (2) I noted that the art on all these jackets designed by Sidney Solomon are clearly by the same artist when you look at them side-by-side. However, if the ISFDB standard is "designed by ..." may not be used as art credit, then I'll go back and edit all of these to leave the artist blank. Your call. Markwood 04:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've deleted all art credits I'd submitted based on "Designed by". I apologize for making you do all this extra work. Note that the only "Sidney Solomon" art credit left is http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?42862, which is not my edit or verification. FWIW, I do have a copy of that book, and its only credit for Sidney Solomon is "Designed by". FWIW, that's why I originally entered a Sidney Solomon art credit for my BCE. In any case, thanks for the guidance on this. Markwood 05:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll accept the submissions to remove the credit and ask the verifier of the last credit about his reasoning for giving Solomon cover art credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that you didn't move the credit to the Note field to acknowledge the book's design credit. It's not required, but it might be a good idea in this case to avoid any future conflict in credit. Your call. Mhhutchins 17:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Saliva Tree and Other Strange Growths
Does the word Strange appear on the title page of [this] edition? A [discussion] about the Sphere editions shows it's there on a false title page but not the real title page [in the paperbacks]. Thanks for checking. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The full subtitle "and other strange growths" is not on the half-title page, but it IS on the title page, and the jacket front, and the jacket flap. Markwood 08:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Cover Image for "Away from the Here and Now", by Clare Winger Harris
The cover image for your verified Away from the Here and Now is (was) an impressive 1367 X 1534 pixels large. The ISFDB standards limit cover images to be at most 600 pixels in either direction, so I have scaled the picture (presumably from you) to the standard size and replaced the previous image. Chavey 19:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I posted a handful of uncompressed images in my early days on ISFDB, but don't have records to find and fix. Appreciate you fixing this one. Markwood 19:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to check, on the main "isfdb.org" page, menu bar on the left, the last item under the first section ("Logged in as") is "My Primary Verifications". If you go to that page, it will show you all of the verifications you've done. The list is deliberately in chronological order, oldest first, because many of us have wanted to go back at look at those early attempts and re-consider whether we did them right. It's a bit of work, but I know in my own case that doing that helped me clean up a bunch of mistakes I made that the moderators didn't catch. Chavey 19:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)