User talk:Bluesman/Archive6

Secret of the Black Planet
Hi Bill. You verified Secret of the Black Planet as a novel. I'm turning this into a collection, as it contains two novellas Secret of the Black Planet and Son of the Black Chalice. Can you agree with that? Tuck does. Thanks, Willem H. 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Even forced myself to read the last pages of the first novella and about two paragraphs of the second just to see if it was two parts of a serial. Now someone will want to make a series of it..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Permalink
I had to adjust the notes for as you'd forgotten a closing quote (caused quite an interesting display on the approval screen, actually!} but took the opportunity to put the LCCN number as the link title rather than "Permalink". It saves having to go to the LoC itself to see the number. Which may not be that important (is the number on its own useful?) but it's an option to consider. BLongley 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll bet it did!! Seems to me I remember a discussion about a field for the LOC #'s and future searches, though of course it would probably only work with the American numbers [?]. The Br. Lib. #ing scheme is different, as is the Canadian one. I added the first one as it was the source of a price, and think I may do that in the future rather than an automatic addition. Just one of those Sunday strolls down a new pathway..... "Oh, look!! A link!!" ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, we will add a new field for LCCN numbers in a few months and link LCCNs to their Library of Congress records. I wonder if British/Canadian library numbers are stable and can be similarly linked? I think German numbers are, but we may not have enough German pubs to justify adding a new field. Ahasuerus 02:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

John (E.) Stith
I approved your "Make Pseudonym" submission for "John Stith/John E. Stith", but then discovered that the only reason that we had "John Stith" on file was an Analog review of one of his novels which credited him that way. I changed the review to credit "John E. Stith" and "John Stith" magically disappeared, but we now have an empty "Used These Alternate Names:" line on the Summary page. It's a known bug and I hope to fix it in the foreseeable future. Ahasuerus 02:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wondered where it came from.... Doing SFBC entries and had one missing the "E" and made the pseudonym before realizing there are no pubs under that name. Look twice, submit once...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The software has been fixed so that all pseudonym associations are now removed when an Author record is deleted. Some 337 existing Author records have been corrected so they no longer display blank "Used These Alternate Names:" and "Used As Alternate Name By:" lines. Ahasuerus 05:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And an author record is deleted when there are no associated/linked pubs attached? ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right, every time a title/review/pub is modified, the system performs a check to see if there is any data left associated with each affected Author record. If there is nothing left, it deletes the record.


 * The problem was that that after deleting an Author record, the system wasn't cleaning up his pseudonym records, which are kept in a separate table. These defunct pseudonyms hung around like zombies, pointing to non-existing Author records and generating those empty "Used As Alternate Name By:" lines. But not any more! Ahasuerus 05:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As in that classic "Night of the Non-Living Edit" ??¿¿ :-) You're sure you've killed them dead/dead/dead? Wouldn't want them resurfacing..... ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on, what could possibly go wrong?.. Hang on, let me just check those noises in the basement and I will be right back! Ahasuerus 05:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, this is cyberspace... wouldn't the noises be coming from the attic??¿¿ ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I only worry about the noises when they come from inside my head. BLongley 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Moderator
Congratulations, you are now a moderator! The decoder ring and the Illuminati membership card are in the mail! Ahasuerus 02:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was expecting the decoder ring, but had no idea the Illuminati was the bonus..... and you guys said there would be groupies! Guess I really should read that Help page..................... maybe tomorrow! ;-) Thanks for the support, and the nudges, and the smacks upside the head. All part of the process. How does one frame a 'virtual' promotion??¿¿?? :-)  :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe create a virtual certificate from some of the ISFDB banners? How do YOU feel about the "bug-eyed peach"? BLongley 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think I've seen that one.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Co[ngratulations|mmiserations] from me too! BLongley 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks.... and the other shoe drops when???? :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations big man. Shall we now call you Sir Bill or Master Bluesman? :-) Willem H. 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Master Bluesman" has a nice ring to it!! We already have a Lord Longley, so a sir would be redundant... ~MB Bill, --Bluesman 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you finally got what you wanted, and I think you have developed the direction you wish to go with it. So, I wish you the best! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure I really wanted to be a Mod, but here it is! A direction still awaits. I look at different types of submissions and tackle those I feel fairly comfortable with, or regarding pubs I have. Still pretty pokey in approvals as I want to check each one as best I can until I get familiar enough with either the editor or the submission to get faster/better. Learning process. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't rush towards "can approve or reject edits flawlessly while half-asleep" status, we want you to be careful and nervous and double-checking and still willing to ask for help. Just having you approve your own simpler edits is a good easing on the workload for the rest of us Mods. But being able to cope with, for instance, Harry's bursts of uncontroversial cover-art merges is good too. We're really not trying to dump you into the deep end of the swimming-pool, lifeguards are still available! BLongley 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet I still feel that other shoe hovering......! ;-) I feel no pressure to approve at light-speed, nor want to. Have no fear on that count. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where the "other shoe" will come from - you're not doing Dubya impressions in front of Iraqi journalists are you? ;-) BLongley 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And don't worry about a direction either - we all start with what we know best, and ideally we'd all end up knowing everything about every policy/standard/rule we have. I don't, and so recuse myself from moderating things like title edits that put things into magazine column series. There's another Mod for that. I like to keep an eye on older British paperbacks, and feel useful on explaining older British prices, but I'm never going to be THE expert on ALL matters relating to such. If you find you have a speciality, claim it - you'll be challenged over it constantly, but it keeps you on your toes! BLongley 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hear, Hear!! A ton of title/series edits yesterday, and an author I thought I knew and still just a blank. So I left them for another! Still enough of a newbie to turn tail at any given moment. All egos are burstable, so I try and come at this without one. Thanks for the advice! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am forwarding all my emails titled "Hair Restoration:A Permanent Solution to Hair Loss" as your matriculation documents. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just forward the ones that will let me get rid of the rest permanently!! Hopes of a hairline died in the 80s.... !!! lol!  ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to verifed pub Fellowship of the Stars
This pub. Geo. rather than George.--swfritter 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Map of Compact Space
I would like to merge several title records which I believe refer to the same piece of interior art, entitled "Map of Compact Space", that is included in some of C. J. Cherryh's Chanur novels. You are one of the verifiers whose pub records ( and ) would be affected by the change. Before making the merge I need to make sure that all titles refer to the same piece of art. A scan of the map can be found here (link points to my personal website; once the issue has been resolved I will remove the scan so that no copyright is violated). Unless you think my proposal is a bad idea in the first place, could you please verify whether the scan matches the map you have in your publication? You may wish to read the help desk discussion leading up to this request. Thanks for your time, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ANd there are two more SFBC editions with the map as well. Can't get to the PB right now but the three I could look at are the same. Merge away! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Moderator Availability
Congratulations on becoming a moderator! I've added you to the list of moderators. When you get a chance you can add any relevant information about your status to moderate (or, Where No Traveller Returns.) MHHutchins 18:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Year's Best Science Fiction No. 1
A couple of questions about that you have verified. They are prompted because I own which is a variant title of yours...


 * 1) Does the short story 1937 A.D.! appear as by "John Sladek" or "John T. Sladek" (note the initial "T.")?
 * With the "T."
 * I edited your pub so that it now uses the "John T. Sladek" variant.


 * 1) Does the Chandler story title have a dash in it? I.e. is it "The Left-Hand Way" or "The Left Hand Way"?
 * With the dash
 * OK, nothing to do here.


 * 1) Is it reasonable to assume that the introduction title in your pub is the same as the introduction title in my pub? If you don't think so, please ignore the remainder of this paragraph. If you agree, though, I suggest that I merge the two title records. My only problem: Which one of the two titles should I use? My reflex answer to my own question was: Don't merge, make a variant title. On second thought, however, a variant title doesn't make sense: The actual title, as it appears in both of our publications, is both times "Introduction". Since they are the same there is not really anything to make a variant of. The variant comes into play only after the artificial suffix "" is tacked on. Do you know if there is a commonly accepted solution for this? I ask this because I would imagine that this situation has come up before...
 * If the logic of the DB is used then a variant title would be called for, even thoughWE have created the title in the first place. Each introduction is correctly named for the pub it is in. Since one pub title is (correctly) a variant of the other (they both came out in the same month, according to Currey, so the direction of the variant is a little arbitrary) it would follow that any titles within the books that are different would follow that same direction. It may not seem right to do so with an "artificial" title, but it is correct as far as the DB is concerned. Hope this helps. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a variant title.
 * Thanks for helping me with these questions. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On re-reading my post, I believe question 3 is not very well formulated. Let me know if you have trouble understanding what I'm asking, I'm happy to rephrase. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dozois' 2009 Annual
Does this pub contain both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13? The record currently gives the ISBN-10 as the root ISBN. Also, was it published under the St. Martin's Griffin imprint, as previous annuals' trade paperback editions were? Thanka. MHHutchins 16:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, contains ISBN 10 & 13 for both the HC and TP editions on the copyright page and the TP ones only on the barcode. Changed the publisher to Griffith. Can't remember if the record was there as pre-release or not (probably). Good catch! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd think publishers would just let the ISBN-10 die a quick pain-free death. They've been dragging their feet and delaying its demise for 5 years. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover credit - 1st edition of The Skylark of Space
Hi, according to this Wikipedia article the cover to this was by Alan Halladay Jonschaper 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good find! Will add the link to the notes. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Survival Margin
Hi Bill, can you take a look at this discussion and, if you agree with me, delete the double entry? Thanks, Willem H. 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub Operation Future
This pub. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is credited to Malcolm Jameson, not Colin Keith.--swfritter 15:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly is! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rocketing Dutchmen
I think that woulb be a typo in all occurrencies; Contento and my Italian source report: "The Rocketing Dutchman"--ErnestoVeg 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Discus edition has the plural form on the copyright page, TOC and title page of the essay. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Stitching images
Hi Bill, I've been following your search for stitching software a bit. Have you tried Paintbrush yet? It's supposed to be a clone of MS-Paint, which I use for stitching. I've been experimenting with this lately, and now I make three scans for paperbacks with a wraparound illustration, cut them to size and paste them together. is one of the latest, or look at. It's quite easy once you've done a few. I suppose you still want to use the software for the Ace-doubles. Perhaps we can make it into a project (maybe a new publication series). If we can get concensus about it, maybe it won't be neccesary to inform three or four other verifiers about every new scan (that's been holding me back). Any thoughts about this? I can do the stitching easily with clear images. It's the scanning, cutting and resizing that takes up a lot of time, not the stitching. Cheers, Willem H. 11:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Paintbrush is just a doodle pad, no way to import content to work with (at least not in the version I just tried). There are probably add-ons to do that. I'll explore further. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The cross-platform Hugin stitches images pretty much automatically as long as 1) each image in the series sufficiently overlaps with its neighbors and 2) the overlapping regions have a number of contrast-high key elements (so-called "control points") that the auto-stitcher can use to match neighboring images. I use Hugin to create panoramic photos, but I would like to think that it also works for any other type of image such as scans made from book covers. I guess you will simply have to try out if it matches your workflow... If you are going for it, please be aware that you will have to perform a manual extra installation step to get the control point generator utility to run. And trust me, to get a decently automated workflow you really want this utility! Download the latest version of Hugin, open the disk image and read the file  for complete installation instructions. Cheers, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 12:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nerilka's Story & The Coelura
Hi Bill, can you take a look here and add your comments / suggestions? It involves your verified Nerilka's Story and The Coelura. Thanks, Willem H. 21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Foundation
Both you and MHHutchins have secondary verifications on this publication. I just updated the SFBC edition and I'm running into a discrepancy between secondary sources for the first edition. Both Tuck and Contento give the contents under their original magazine titles "Now You See It . . ." and "...And Now You Don't", as does Chalker & Owings. However, Chalker and Owings also states that the SFBC edition was printed from the original Gnome plates. My SFBC edition has the two stories under their variant titles "Search by the Mule" and "Search by the Foundation" and the original titles are not mentioned. My suspicion is that the stories are under their variant titles in the original Gnome edition as well. Perhaps the secondary sources wanted to show the source of the stories (magazine titles) rather than how they appear in the book. However, I'm hesitant to edit the Gnome pub unless you and Mike concur. If I do change the pub, it would obviously require copious notes. I posted here since Mike is away until Sunday, but will link here on his page. I can wait until he gets back to see what his thoughts are. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My secondary from Currey is no help as he doesn't list contents for most collections. To further add fire, my '58 AVON, the first PB edition, has no section titles at all, just chapter titles. I have a later SFBC omnibus that has the sections as you submitted them. Contento frequently lists stories in collections by the magazine titles, frustratingly so as so many of our records were copied from those listings. OCLC, LOC don't list contents, considering this a novel. Doubleday, especially early in the life of the SFBC wouldn't alter any plates they were using, in fact they were making their editions too like the trades and that resulted in the "Book Club Edition" being added to the jacket so I would tend to agree that the section titles of the Gnome were probably as the SFBC edition you have. Mike has way more knowledge about the SFBC than I do and sources I don't have. This will give him something to do when he comes back!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My Tuck verification is based solely on his listing, which doesn't acknowledge a name change of the constituent parts. In fact, the listing calls it a novel based on the two original magazine publications (giving only their names.)  Anyone who can make physical verifications on any edition is free to make any changes in the records based on the book itself.  Personally, I'd change the first three books in the series into novels and give the source stories in the notes, just as we do with most fixups.  Does any reference give these as collections? (Reginald and Tuck give them as novels, Clute/Nicholls give them as fixups.) MHHutchins 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Contento lists all three Foundation books as collections, and uses the magazine story titles as 'contents'. I think this is the source as he really doesn't go into the 'fix-up' category distinction. The works really are novels. I certainly have no objections to them being changed. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Chalker and Owings describe the first book as a fixup and the other two as collections, without using either term (Actually, they have a major error in their description of Foundation and Empire listing the contents, with magazine titles, of Second Foundation). Neil Barron's Anatomy of Wonder indicates collections as well  (e.g. stories "collected as Foundation").  For now, I'm going to go ahead and swap out the titles of the stories, leaving it a collection.  This particular book seems like one where the stories are still fairly distinct which may account for the secondary sources disagreeing on how to list it.  --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A tangent perhaps..... the final thing should be "How does the book read?" It's been awhile but they sure read like novels to me. Sometimes I think we get so caught up in the 'process' that we forget the simple part - reading the book!! lol! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny that you should mention that. I'm currently in the middle of working my way through Asimov's overall Foundation universe series and attempting to read them in internal chronology order (though I've failed in getting all the robot stories in the right place). I've got a handful of robot stories left before I proceed to the Galactic Empire books and ultimately the Foundation books. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 05:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Internal chronology"? That sounds like way too much work!! lolol! My reading leapfrogs all over the place. Though the science in the fiction tends to remain 'hard'. And I like aliens, though Asimov seemed to ignore them totally. Keep slogging!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hellburner  multiple 4th printings or did I make a mistake?
Morning Master Bluesman! Yours this. I just slipped in and did this. . Cloning off this. . My reasoning being that this DCarson ver had "4th printing" in notation field. It also used 1993-06-0(4) in the date field, which I believe was Marc Kupper's attempt to straighten out the 0000-00-00 entries. That is how I read that ver, but maybe I missed something? Your ver is definitely a 4th. If I am wrong in my surmises I would/will happily delete mine and do a secondary. Since you are now an 'elite' mod, would you mind 'uncomplicating' my thinking here? Thanks, (with much mirth), Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is sound, young paduwan. Think I'll move my undated fourth notes to Mr. Carson's about-to-be undated 4th and all will be well. And I haven't even finished my first cup of coffee yet! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nerilka's Story
Hi Bill, in my McCaffrey edits I lost the pagenumbers for the contents of your edition of Nerilka's Story. Can you find the book and correct this? Thanks, Willem H. 19:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You lost what wasn't there!! The Coelura is not in this publication, just Nerilka's story. Got a little merge-happy did we?? Have removed that title from this record. Did you do it elsewhere? I just approved them all as you submitted so you wouldn't have to wait. Mayhaps a quick check??? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Darn, I was sure that was the one called a novel with the collection as contents. If the Coelura isn't there, it is connected to the wrong title (Nerilka's Story & The Coelura). I'll submit another unmerge, and check the rest. There should be at least one more (make "Nerilka's Story: A Pern Adventure" a variant of "Nerilka's Story"). Thanks for the lightning approval. Willem H. 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you did the unmerge/remerge yourself, so I won't do that one. Willem H. 20:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did some fiddling with the Dragonriders of Pern Series. That should be the last of it. I think this is it. Again, thanks. It could have taken days to get all the edits done. Willem H. 20:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe weeks!!! Anytime, and I just fixed the last little boo-boo, mine I think. There ended up two SFBC records, identical and the only way to fix it was delete the record and re-create it. No way to merge one record with itself. And no smoke emanating from the Db, so a success and I think I'll go for some lunch so if there are any fireworks I can do that little cat trick where you look over your shoulder and have that "Who, me??" expression. ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And a well deserved lunch it is. Nearly bedtime over here. I think your pub had some additional contents (the Edwin Herder illustrations?) and it's missing your primary verification. No fireworks or smoking computers on this side of the Atlantic yet. Willem H. 20:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction (The World of Null-A)
I have a publication of "The World of Null-A" which has an introduction by the author himself. I could simply create a new title record for the introduction, but in my tireless quest for an optimized database :-) I would like to prove that my introduction is indeed this title. My proof requires that I compare the introduction in my pub with the introduction in someone else's verified pub. "Someone else" in this case could be you since you verified contains the introduction in question. Please let me know, though, if you don't have the time for this, I am then going to pick another victim :-)

Anyway, the introduction in my pub is several pages long. It has the following characteristics: Since I am now the proud owner of a scanner, I could provide a scan of the introduction if you would like to see even more text. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 23:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The title is simply "Introduction"
 * The beginning sentences are these: "Reader, in your hands you hold one of the most controversial - and successful - novels in the whole of science fiction literature. In these introductory remarks, I am going to tell about some of the successes and I shall also detail what the principal critics said about The World of Null-A."
 * The final sentences are these: "The honest demands of the people with genuine grievances were instantly over-met on the basis of better-thought. But the conspirators don't even know today what hit them and why they lost their forward impetus. Such also happens in the fable of Gilbert GoSANE in The World of Null-A."
 * The introduction is signed "- A.E. VAN VOGT"


 * The Locus Index states that this edition used the 1970 introduction, so I have changed the date of the Title record accordingly. However, the Locus Index compilers have been known to make occasional mistakes, so double checking is definitely a good idea. (I also added the publication month from Locus.) Ahasuerus 00:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As my compadre has explored this further, and since my editions of the book have a large gap from the ACE F-295 to the third printing of the '74 edition, I bow to his researches. The introduction is as you have quoted in the '74 edition. Therefore you need to find someone with the '70 edition. (And if it had been in better shape I would have bought that one today - nice Powers' cover!) ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand both your comments correctly I can now make this title (the introduction in my pub) a variant of this title, correct? After all the two titles have the same year, and the title from Bluesman's publication matches the title from which I quoted above. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure! We can always apply the wrist-slap later! :-) ~bill, --Bluesman 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Luckily there will not be a need for any drastic measures - after all I am only a humble editor and all my deeds have been approved, I am certain after careful checking and double-checking, by one of the mighty moderators :-) Anyway, it is done now. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 01:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure not all of your deeds have been approved¿¿??¿¿ And though I am way less than a 'mighty' Moderator, Ahasuerus is THE Modfather!!! Beware the all-powerful..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that I am perfectly harmless. Why, I haven't eaten an editor in ages! Ahasuerus 02:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So that's where DES went!!! Indigestion City!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreword to the Second Edition (LotR)
I have started working on my Tolkien books. One of the first research items was the foreword in of LotR. Wikipedia's Tolkien bibliography has an entry on this where it states that the foreword to the second edition has been published in 1966. This title which appears only in verified by you seems to refer to the foreword that I am talking about. I would like to somehow link the foreword title record to Tolkien's author record instead of keeping it under "uncredited". I see two solutions: Do you think my proposal makes sense? If so, could you please check which title is used for the foreword in your copy of the book? Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the title with this title. This is possible only if the foreword title in your pub is "Foreword".
 * Make the title a variant of the the above. This solution is required if the foreword title in your pub is "Foreword to the Second Edition"


 * Definitely titled as stated in the publication record. I have changed it from "uncredited" to Tolkien, as it is written in the first person and after checking the copyright page more carefully also changed the date to 1966. The only revised portion from 1994 is a note on the text by Anderson. Think these changes will make your proposal easier to do. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I made a variant and added a note to the main title record which identifies the title as the foreword to the 2nd edition. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Artist identification
I put the following message in your verification section, probably by accident. So I am posting it here.Let me know which page is preferrable.

You recently added a cover for "Masters of Time", http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Image:MSTRSFTMCF1975.jpg. and "Empire of tha Atom". Both are by A. E. Van Vogt. Both covers are credited to Tony Destefano. I had these listed in my files as done by Bruce Pennington. Since I do not have those particular editions in hand, it probably came from some web site on SF art. Are the two artists that similar? I just need to know for reference sake. Thanks in advance. Sfbooks52 19:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Either section is fine, but anything in the verification section will not trigger the "New Message" yellow notice, so questions are better in this page. Both books give 'design' credit to Destefano. Since Pennington did British covers, I haven't seen very many to compare styles. Even these two covers are different stylistically from each other, totally different use of colors. There is the possibility that Destefano merely designed the layouts? Manor was not a major player, doing reprints mostly, so hard to say if they mean "artist" when they state "design". Not much help, I know but it's the best I have. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the butt in. Neither of the books' art appear under Pennington in Frank for Manor or anything else. Manor may have stole the art. But Icshi cites both as Bruce Pennington and Empire of the Atom cites the Christopher Priest novel "indoctrinaire" as getting the NEL art first and that is in Frank. Also, Destefano is NOT listed by Frank as an artist, which makes it probable that his field is design only. I just looked at Destefano's page and many of those are for Pinnacle books, which is notoriously lax on cover artist credit and probably most of the Destefano credits are for design and the design team gets the last go over on covers. Unfortunately "The Wizard of Linn" Manor/Destefano is not listed in Icshi, but Lord Longley vered it. The Bronze Axe is design, my ver, Undying Word is design, my ver, Jade Warrior is design, my ver, Jewel of Tharn is design, my ver, They Walked Like Men is design, Bluesman, Pearl of Patmos is design, my ver, Stonehenge is Willem H. My very humble opinion after reviewing the Tony Destefano page is he is NOT the artist of my ver books or the Van Vogt books. Up to you guys. Sorry again. Here is the Pennington, Indoctrinaire, . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd seen that hand somewhere else! Good catches Harry! That one for sure I will change. The other one is quite different. ISCHI isn't generous with their sources so will remove Destefano as artist with a note but not put in Pennington. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I really appreciate it. Sfbooks52 17:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Orion Arm - two verifications?
Morning! This. and this. The only difference I detect in your verifications is this "Copyright page states: "First American Edition: April 1999" but Locus1 claims the correct date is April 2000." I can understand that as a note on the first one, but creating a verification on a Locus statement, without some indicator in the books seems? It is either one thing or the other, but in all cases I believe the book information is the trump. Confused mightly, I cloned for the second undated printing which would have been approximately at the second one's Locus dating, maybe? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Must have been one of those late nights, judging by the times on the verifications. I even put the same image on both!! Deleted the April one and moved the Locus note. Thanks, Harry! ~bill, --Bluesman 18:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence P. Santoro submission by fsfo
this discussion. It looks to me like the submissions are correct. Lawrence P. Santoro is the canonical name and Lawrence Santoro is a variant spelling/credit of the name which, at least in our system, is the same as a psuedonym.--swfritter 15:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only listing for the story is in the one pub. All I want to find out is if the author's name is spelled with the "P." or not. If not then his submissions are correct. If someone just entered it wrong in the first place then neither edit is correct. Or am I missing something? ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to make sure. Hopefully he has a copy. If nobody has a copy it would seem that we have to go with the data as entered.--swfritter 18:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The only source for the contents is Locus and that's probably where the record came from in the first place. But we get two hits from Google!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And I agree it is highly possible that it is not as credited in the pub. Since none of the pubs the author appears in are verified I guess we can't be sure about any of them. Thankfully we can now undo pseudonyms at the author level so it is not as big a deal as it used to be.--swfritter 02:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Undo pseudonyms" ?? How is that done? I thought we were kind of stuck with them, even if one changed all the pub records that that was permanent, like series titles are at the moment. Part of the reason I didn't approve and then ask for clarification was thinking it couldn't be undone (at least the pseudonym part). ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * At the author level we know have the recently implemented the "Remove a Pseudonym" part of "Make/Remove a Pseudonym" in the Editing Tools menu. For an individual title enter used bring up the variant title. Click "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work", replace the parent# with a 0 and click Link to Existing Parent. Help, as usual, is a little bit behind. Since you are now a moderator you can play around with some practice data.--swfritter 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

JLaTondre merges on hold
FYI, I don't know why you have the submissions on hold, but if it's date-related, I just made mention of keeping the original publication date in conjunction with a couple of submissions I dealt with. --MartyD 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the merges are going with a later date. One goes with a generic (1950-00-00) as opposed to when the first appearance in a magazine is backed up by Locus (1950-07-00). One involves an odd merge of a story that seems to have been expanded considerably. I posted to Ahasuerus' page about that one and am just about to post to Jlatondre's about the others. Any suggestions? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just read the posting and these except for the one are all the same. Do you want to take these over? I've found that dealing with one Mod on similar things usually means a more consistent action/reaction than many hands in the one pot. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I may not get to them for a little while, but if you'd rather I dealt with them that's fine. My guess is it's a case of not realizing the original date should be kept (I know I had a problem with that when I started playing with variants).  At this point, I would do what I did with the others: note the proper date, approve the merge, then fix the date. Seems friendlier than rejecting the merges.  You could do it and just reply to that same topic with a note that you did the same on the other submissions.  --MartyD 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I found my learning curve steeper when doing/redoing mistakes myself. I never felt I learned as much by having other people fix things for me. He/she went right ahead and did new submissions exactly the same wrong way even after notes. Thoughts? ~bill, --Bluesman 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think those were all submitted at once (or at least, before I commented on them). I would be inclined to err on the side of tolerance/friendliness and only employ rejection as a teaching tool if it should continue to be a problem.  Having to redo work can be very discouraging.... --MartyD 21:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, kindlier, gentler..... fixed them all and left an extension of your note. The one I rejected as there was a duplicate pub involved. You get cranky at my age, sometimes, once in a while..... maybe that's why there's been no underwear tossed in my direction??¿¿?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you could point out what the issue was with the one you rejected, I would appreciate it. I like to know how to detect the problem so I don't do it again. --JLaTondre 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You, cranky? That's a good one!  I don't know why the groupies would be withholding their underwear, but that's surely not the reason.  --MartyD 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I made all of the changes prior to MartyD posting on my talk page. Instead of criticizing me for something I didn't do, could you please look at my response to what you guys posted on my talk page? You direction is confusing. --JLaTondre 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, please believe me: neither of us intended any criticism! We both appreciate the amount of work that went into identifying and posting all of those merges.  What you see above is a couple of new moderators trying to coordinate efforts while learning on the job.  --MartyD 23:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Help for magazine wiki and magazine series
Could you take a look and see what you think. If you want a little practice the Strange Stories issues for 1940 still need to be processed. The only difference from the screen shots is the year. Thanks.--swfritter 15:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the way it's laid out. But I don't understand, at the merge point, why the April issue was chosen for the merge? The February date is the earliest, so I see that, but why use the April magazine? If I saw that submission screen I would just back out of it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are going to change the merged title to "Strange Stories - 1940" anyway so it does not matter which title you use. I will update Help to make that point.I have to remind myself of that every time I do one. It is not absolutely necessary that you pick the first date but it certainly makes sense and I usually do it automatically. Thanks.--swfritter 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I think Ernesto would like to have a look, too. Think he's a little shell-shocked on the magazine end at the moment (and I'm not far off - the only ones I've done were about 15 OMNIs). Plus he entered the Strange Tales in the first place and would probably like to get them laid out. Oh, above you mentioned "practice data"? Is there some sort of sandbox for experimenting? I just created about a dozen chapterbooks and have no idea what will happen if they get merged with the original short story records. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated the Help and informed Ernesto about it's existence. Thanks for the Help beta testing. If you are creating practice data make sure it does not touch real data. What I usually do is put my initials in the data so I can find the entries later and delete them. Every once in awhile you may come across things like "swf title", "swf author", etc. in the database because I forgot to delete them.--swfritter 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Guinea Pigs 'R' Us" I still don't know how/where to do this 'practice' data experimenting... ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maps in "The Hobbit"
that you verified contains two title records (976250 and 976251) that, I guess, refer to the two maps traditionally included in publications of "The Hobbit". Your title records use generic names with suffixes "(map 1)" and "(map 2)". I propose to change the titles so that they use the labels used by Tolkien: What do you think of this?
 * "Thror's Map"
 * "Wilderness (map)". Here I add the suffix "(map)" to make a concession to ISFDB standards. With "Thror's Map" this is not necessary as it already contains the word "map".
 * The second one has "Wilderland", not "Wilderness".
 * How embarassing... you're right, of course, it's "Wilderland". I guess at 5am I shouldn't do any more writing...

In addition, I wonder whether your pub does not contain any of Tolkien's illustrations? I have created this title record to refer to the standard 8 illustrations, maybe you could use this? See for an example of how all this comes together. Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No illustrations of any kind. Not big into maps. Retitling is fine if there's one title each. Hopefully there aren't variants! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably obvious that I am a Tolkien fan :-) Trying to be objective, I would still say, though, that maps and illustrations are a distinct part of Tolkien's work, and therefore worthy of a bit of special attention. Anyway, since you don't object I am going to retitle. I hope we should be able to handle any variants that pop up - although I don't expect many as long as we concentrate on the artwork done by Tolkien himself, which is pretty canonical. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 14:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Attack of the Fluffy Bunnies
I see that you rejected Fixer's Attack of the Fluffy Bunnies earlier today. According to Amazon.com:


 * the twins expect a summer of marshmallows, campfires, and canoe trips. What they do not expect is to defend the earth from an invasion of sugar-addicted, murderous, seven-foot-tall rabbits from another galaxy.

Surely this is highly speculative fiction?! :-) Ahasuerus 02:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that blurb! Up there with Tolkien or maybe a Carroll 'alternate' Alice?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Harvey, definitely Harvey. Ahasuerus 03:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand hooking 'em young, but........ ;-) Did you rescue the little monster?¿? I swear my mouse did it!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the little monsters have been duly rescued and are now camped out in my basement devouring candy. I am sure they are nice sensitive bunnies, which have been horribly misunderstood... Ahasuerus 03:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Terror Tales
When you get a chance, can you look at this discussion. Some submissions for magazine issues were accepted with non-standard titles (volume numbers instead of dates in the title field.) No big problem, just a heads-up. Everything has been cleaned up. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had approved a whole bunch of covers only and honestly didn't look that hard at the title fields. Think I will stay away from mags, as I really don't get all the differences. When I have to scroll the queue to get to my submissions I try and help pare it down.... even to wading through some of the strange stuff Fixer digs up. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It will come in time. Thanks for helping with those submissions that you feel comfortable with.  MHHutchins 21:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking titles to records on the SFBC listing
I finished the year 2000 a day or so ago, and plan to finish where you left off in 1999, unless you'd like to finish it. There are notes that I want to add for the 90s about first editions, etc., but other than that, the light at the end of the tunnel is fast approaching (hope it's not a train!) Can you believe it's almost complete? The last time I checked we had more than 85% of the first printing gutter codes, and that's been awhile back. Don Erikson has been supplying some codes which I've been filling in the gaps. Even that task seemed to be impossible a year ago. If I count again, it's got to be over 90%. Thanks for the great teamwork. It won't be long before I can move the SFBC project to the completed section of my projects list. MHHutchins 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just have one more page to go and I'm finished with Currey and was going to complete 1999 then, but I'm in no way proprietary about it. If you'll notice there are still a few scattered ones (in a number of different years) unlinked as I just couldn't find any evidence a BC edition exists. Still created more than a few 'stub' records even if ONE was offered on AbeBooks. I still may go through and add an SFBC# column for years past 2000, as it may prove 'entertaining' at some point in time. I may actually have to make up a project list soon! That's scary..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Adams's Starship Titanic
Hi, please see the conversation here re the writing credits for this. Cheers Jonschaper 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill, I submitted the removal of Douglas Adams as author of our pub, and changed the title from "Douglas Adam's Starship Titanic" to "Douglas Adams's Starship Titanic" (added an extra "s"). Approval or rejection will probably be left to you, so take a look and see if you can agree. Thanks, Willem H. 14:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill will be away for a few days, so I have approved the submission to clear the queue. The change followed the decisions about Starship Titanic made else-Wiki earlier and the only difference was in the Author field, so it will be easy for Bill to check against his copy when he comes back. Ahasuerus 04:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Reed's "Flavors of My Genius"
In, there are two listings of Robert Reed's "Flavors of My Genius" - one as shortfiction and one as a novella. I believe the shortfiction version might be an error. I'm basing that on three factors: 1) it doesn't have a page number while the other content does; 2) the publisher's website doesn't indicate more than one version ; and 3) the verified has only the single version.

As you provided the primary verification for the tp edition and the Locus1 & OCLC/Worldcat verifications for this one, I thought I'd check with you. Do you have an opinion? --JLaTondre 16:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Problems here, and I'm not sure how to correct it. Tried to just remove the one title but for some reason the pub has no title record and I get warnings. This was created when the chapterbook category was a very unstable one, which may have something to do with it. Hate to have to delete everything and start over. I'll ask around and see if there's a better way. Thanks for noticing this. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed it. Just changed the SHORTFICTION with no length to CHAPTERBOOK type, thus providing a container title record: then merged that with the other CHAPTERBOOK title. Does it look right to you now? BLongley 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect! I'll have to remember that little trick. How does something end up with no title record in the first place? Or was this just one of those previous chapterbook problems? Much thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's trickier to do now with Ahasuerus's latest changes, but generally changing the pub-type or the container title-type within it so they mismatch will lead to a pub with no title link. Chapterbooks used to break when edited so that the container title type became an ANTHOLOGY (first on the list of remaining options) so that wasn't the reason here: possibly somebody changed a NOVEL content entry to SHORTFICTION, while the Pub title got converted from NOVEL to CHAPTERBOOK. Hopefully there's few of those left to fix, although I haven't seen DES work on those for a while.  BLongley 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hemeac or HEMEAC?
In your verified pub it is Hemeac but I have it as HEMEAC for the Galaxy appearance because it seems to be an acronym. There are various references in the story, including on the first page, to HEMEAC and it seems to me that all caps is the correct capitalization method.--swfritter 17:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In this particular pub all the titles are straight caps, so it didn't stand out. Looks like it needs a bunch of changes as it appears in multiple pubs uncapitalized. I have to go out right now, but could do them later? ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Clark - an editor of Star Trek anthology Shards & Shadows
Hi, Just to let you know that I have changed her to "Margaret Clark (US)" on your verified publication [here]. This is because, as far as I can determine, this Margaret Clark is not the Australian kids author Margaret Diane Clark (aka Lee Striker) who authored the non-Star Trek titles on the "Margaret Clark" page (plus several other in-genre titles that could be added when I get around to it). I have made the assumption that "your" Margaret Clark is US - all I've been able to determine is that she lives in NYC. --clarkmci / j_clark 10:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Horizons

 * I have three of your submissions on hold, awaiting .... 'enlightenment', as it were. The third adds a note "Complete version"; of what? The SFBC issued an omnibus edition containing two separate anthologies both edited by Dozois. There is a similar theme, but there is no mention by Dozois in either of the prefaces that they are companion volumes, issued separately for any reason. I re-read them just to make sure. If this had been a trade edition there would likely have been a new preface to 'explain' the bigger edition. The SFBC creates many Omnibus editions that never get produced in Trade versions. Is there some source I am unaware of that indicates these are 'companion' volumes that were originally produced separately but are intended to be one book? Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are these the explorers / horizons anthologies? I think I've discovered why I was confused. No changes need to be made. Ommadawndk 02:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Isabo's Shirt
Can you double-check the author of Isabo's Shirt please? OCLC says it's Beyer not Bayer. BLongley 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Checked and changed. Happy new Year! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncharted Territory
It turns out that 's Uncharted Territory has appeared both as a Chapterbook and as an eponymous Collection. The first edition, which appeared in July 1994 and which you verified in 2008, was a Chapterbook, but the NEL version, which followed a few months later, added 2 more pieces, making it a collection. I have moved things around and I think everything is OK now, but could you please double check your copy when you get a chance? TIA! Ahasuerus 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember a brief discussion about this book some time last year. The Bantam edition definitely does not have the additional content of the NEL edition and there is no indication that any of the material was previously released to make this a 'fix-up'. There are "interim" designations between various "expeditions" but that's about it. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributing to ISDFB
Hi Bill,

I see you'll be available again tomorrow so I thought I'd post. I did find the link you referred to in the email you sent me, so thanks!). My user name is simply my name "Rob Crausaz." Do fill me in on how you do things and I'll try posting to Ron's page as soon as I post this.

Rob

--Rob Crausaz 23:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reed's The Cuckoo's Boys
I'm verifying my recently obtained copy of this pub and saw the note about "Limited edition of 3000 copies". My copy states "Two thousand copies of this book have been printed..." I'm assuming this is a typo, but I'll let you check and make the correction if necessary. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Fixed. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Afterword in Q & A
Is the afterword in this pub truly fiction, or perhaps an essay? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Indeed an essay. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fancies and Goodnights
I identified & added the cover artist (Charles Binger) for this verified pub and adapted the notes. Thanks, Willem H. 09:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Interpreter title reference
I changed your 2-verified to use this title by "Brian Aldiss" instead of this title by "Brian W. Aldiss", matching the author credit on the publication. --MartyD 11:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarke's July 20, 2019
The title record for this pub gives it as NONFICTION, while the pub record gives it as NOVEL. When you get a chance, could you reconcile the two to one pub type? (There are three other pubs under the title record that may have to be changed as well.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Went with the non-fiction as that seems easier to back up than the novel designation. This one is sort of like the art books that have text. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tubb's Rogue Planet
Does the note from Curry placed on this record give the publisher as "Alan" or "Arthur"? I have the hardcover from Arthur Barker and it gives the same note (almost). Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Arthur it is! Changed the record. How do you find these things, especially in notes?? Have been adding some gutter codes to old SFBC editions as I picked up quite a few on my recent trip. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been going back and adding notes and cover images to my verified pubs. (Finishing S-Z hardcovers, they're right next to my computer. A-R are a few more feet away so they'll have to wait!)  When I saw the statement on the copyright page of my copy of the Tubb novel, I thought it would be a good idea to mention it on the Futura (Orbit) paperback's record also.  That's when I saw you'd already recorded it there with Currey as a source.  The "Alan" popped out because I'd been working on some books published in the thirties (by Thorne Smith) and "Arthur Barker" had come up several times.
 * I've noticed the additional gutter codes. Looks like we've got more than 90% of first printing gutter codes, a figure I never would have imagined when I began recording them.  Now I can see a time when we've got them all.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never doubted for a moment we'd get them all! But that was then.... Been a fun project. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Universe                2nd printing number line vs 2nd printing dated no number line
Afternoon! This. . I have a second printing August 1982 w/o number line. I have a 3rd printing with number line and no date which should follow your second number line printing. So one with date, one without, but you could date to my printing. I will have to clone to show difference. Any other thoughts? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At a bit of a loss on this one. At first I thought maybe I had a Canadian printing, but ACE never did those. All other information matches? It is a paperback and not a trade pb? Definitely should be two records if there are two different printing records, which kind of makes me think someone screwed up at ACE which might mean the date on yours wouldn't necessarily apply to mine? Think mine must post-date yours as once ACE went to the numberline they stuck to it. Back to you! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparison 3rd number line (nl) to 2nd w/o.
 * 3rd Title (over) copyright (over) LCC# (over) ISBN (over) story credits (over) All rights reserved blurb. (over) An Ace Book (over) First h/c (over) First tp (over) Published simul (over) First m m (over) Printed in us (over) 4 6 8 0 9 7 5 3 (over) Manuf. I bet yours looks like this.
 * Yes it does
 * 2nd Story credits (over) (half way down page) title (over) copyright (over) All rights blurb. (over) An Ace Book (over) ISBN (over) LCC# (over) First h/c (over) First tp (over) First mass m (over) Second printing August 1982 (over) Publish simul (over) Manuf US (over) Ace books address.
 * My guess it is simply different printing machines.
 * Or different typesetters...
 * I think the printing date would be the same. Still if you use mine then it would be directly comparable. I have a 6th with a slightly different copyright page but the date is there not a number line. Enjoy! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess ACE just couldn't get good help! Maybe the same nitwit who thought up their numbering 'scheme' decided to go down to the presses for a day! But think you have the cart before the horse as your copy would be the source that I can't cite until it's got a record. Then a simple link in the notes. Grenade lobbed back to your side of the court! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Submitted for your review. Numerous changes. BTW horse pushing cart, it just needs total blinders. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Linked to your record and added the date with note. Thought the comment on the Tunguska photo a little redundant... after all the blast covered many square miles and even more square kilometers so wouldn't any picture be "severely reduced" ?¿?¿ ;-) Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyright page from my pub is here. Looks very different I think. I'll watch the edit, and maybe clone it for mine. Willem H. 14:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same as mine. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Harry's edit looks ok to me. Weird publisher, Ace. Willem H. 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] After the recent discussion concerning the use of pseudonyms in single-author collections, I may be the last person to bring this up, but...  There are two stories (here and here) that are credited to two of Heinlein's pseudonyms. Are they credited to the pseudonyms in all of these editions of Expanded Universe? (Some have been verified by Bluesman, Dragoondelight, and Kpulliam.) Perhaps this is a situation where the error duplicated itself because of pub cloning. This one is the only pub that doesn't credit the pseudonyms. Mhhutchins 00:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed those two in the one pub and a third in another (tp) I'd verified. There's no mention of the pseudonyms even in the acknowledgments so a clone from the original (and Contento was the likely source as all three pseudonyms are used in his record of the hardcover) is most probable. The third one is the story "They Do It With Mirrors" - Simon York [here]. Harry had caught that one. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no pseudonym recognition in book. In fact, I am suspicious that RAH might have made small changes in both essays and stories. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kate Wilhelm's The Dark Door
I've removed my primary verification of this record as I discovered that my copy was a second printing (alas). I've come upon a few of these because I wasn't looking at printings when I first started verifying records. Please feel free to move your verification to the primary position. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't you just hate it when that happens! Verification switched. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Back when I was a reader having a second printing meant nothing. But now... Mhhutchins 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

title date for The Peregrine
I changed the date of the title in your verified from 1978 to 1956 (did it to my 3rd edition, too). While reviewing an error in my verification, I noticed in the Introduction (which I added to the 3rd printing -- you're welcome to do likewise ) Anderson states this is pretty much unchanged from the original Star Ways. --MartyD 11:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Podkayne of Mars  Oddity?
Morning! This. . I have a copy and wondered if your copy stated "Printed in Canada". Seemed odd considering the dating. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dating did not come from the book (which has only ©1963), was already there. It is printed in Canada but not really relevant to the dating. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't put the note about the third printing, which may have been the source (I don't have one). ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the "Printed in Canada" that made me edgy. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Strugatskys' Far Rainbow / Second Invasion...
According to Locus #228 (December 1979)., this edition was published in November 1979. Mhhutchins 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me! Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Playground of the Mind Froms?/Excerpts?/Dates?
Afternoon! This. . I just cloned the second printing but think there are many problems with things. First it is either "From The Green Lantern's Bible" or "The Green Lantern's Bible" neither you or the other copy verifier caught the The. Bigger problem is if it is an excerpt from what. That leads to all the other excerpts should be dated to their original publications. Otherwise Harry spends time looking for an Inferno short story excerpt while he needs to look for a novel Inferno excerpt. I could find no Green Lantern's Bible with or without the's or From's. I think that all three printings should be congruent. Your thoughts? Off to message Mhhutchins. My mind is bogling at the problem. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion was moved to the Rules and Standards discussions page. Mhhutchins 17:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nebula Winners Fifteen
Did you miss adding the last number of the number line that made this edition into a first printing, or is it really a second printing? Random House is the only publisher I can recall who didn't put a "1" on their number line, simply adding the "First Edition" statement (and removing it for the second printing.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My oops! Must have gotten tired by the end of the line...?? Fixed. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Asimov's Mysteries
Harry brought to my attention a title ("What's in a Name?") which was missing the final question mark in our later printings of this title. Does the story have a question mark in your verified copy? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It does now! Odd I would catch it for the Foreword but not the story.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Baxter - The Time Ships
Hi Bill. You verified this first printing of the HarperPrism paperback. It states First HarperPaperbacks printing: January 1995 whereas the third printing states First HarperPrism printing: January 1996. Is one of them a typo? Or the publisher's mistake? I'm not saying one of the pub entries is wrong. I'm just curious to know. 1996 seems more plausible because the HarperCollins hardback from June 1995 is supposed to be the first release of the novel afaik. What do you think? --Phileas 13:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither is a typo, at least from the editor's standpoint. The book does have 1995. That is definitely a typo and I'll put a note in the record. Very good catch! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruadhan entry
Since the submission is on Hold you will have to approve the entry before I can work on it.--swfritter 15:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Six Great Short Science Fiction Novels
Adjusted to credit Algis Budrys for Chain Reaction rather than "John A. Sentry". BLongley 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch! ... and I just went through those not long ago... ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

duplicate Tarzan the Untamed?
It looks to me like the inactive-Gloinson-verified and the active-you-verified  are the same edition of Tarzan the Untamed. --MartyD 12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Transferred the notes/verifications and deleted the dup record. Up until U2005 the Canadian and American editions were different in the printing statements, this one, and I'll check U2006, may have been created with that in mind. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicker's Guide to Next Generation Trekkers
Can you check to see if this SFBC edition retains the ISBN (0-440-50571-2) of the Dell trade edition? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does, but just on the copyright page. Back cover has the SFBC# only. Amended the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Astrosaurs
I've just noticed your reject of "Astrosaurs: The Space Ghosts" with a comment "if the first 18 of these aren’t here, then this one shouldn’t either". Coincidentally, I acquired that very same title this weekend and it is definitely SF, albeit very juvenile. I've actually asked Fixer to submit the rest at some point as I don't fancy doing them all manually. If you don't like them, please leave them to me and I'll whack them into shape - I don't mind dealing with kid's books. BLongley 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured Fixer must have entered at least some of them at some point in time, and when I couldn't find any, assumed the series had already been rejected. Sometimes that's all there is to go on. I'm sure all the 6 year-old sci-fi buffs can hardly wait for the series to appear here! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how they got here, but I whacked the first few into shape, just didn't feel any urgency in adding the others. I don't know how young our users get: even I don't tend to read pre-teen stuff. Anyway, the real question is "What made you miss the existing titles?" BLongley 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I searched by author and "Astrosaur", though I didn't check all the others on Amazon for authorship. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Series search" should have found Astrosaur - I routinely remove series from title if we have them in a series. Author might be the problem - Steve Cole for children's books, Stephen Cole for more adult stuff. Although Doctor Who still seems to have a "kid's TV" reputation. BLongley 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do remember Doctor Who turning up in the search, maybe that's why I assumed the pre-school stuff had been previously rejected?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and we might not have the first 18, but we do have the first six, although "Astrosaurs Academy" looks to be a daunting new series. BLongley 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dinos can matriculate??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course - you don't change from Dinosaur to Astrosaur without some severe education, it seems. It'd be like humans becoming Trekkers without going to Starfleet Academy, or something. BLongley 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that I entered the first 6 manually when they came out in 2006, but then our priorities changed when we allowed external submissions and I stopped following this (undoubtedly very worthy) series. Ahasuerus 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to wonder how many users, editors and moderators have young children that these would appeal to? The average age of the moderator seems high, the editors with kids may be too busy to edit as much, and we have no real idea of what kind of users we actually have. Are we just creating the ISFDB we want? BLongley 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is always selection bias -- how many vampire shaggers or self-published books would we have without Fixer? -- but our robots should help fill the gaps. Ahasuerus 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

SFBC edition of Beyond the Beyond
Can you see if this SFBC edition of Anderson's collection mentions the Signet imprint? The paperback version (of which this is the first hardcover) was published under the Signet imprint. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not Signet per se. At the base of the spine of the book and jacket is NAL. On the title page, at the bottom is New American Library/New York. Nada on the copyright page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. The reason I ask is that I was re-verifying this pub and noticed that I'd only credited New American Library because that's what the spine gives.  The title page credited Signet.  So I went back to SFBC editions that reprinted Signet paperbacks (not NAL hardcovers), and yours was the only SFBC edition that was originally a Signet pb credited only to NAL.  I see now they omitted the Signet imprint from their hardcover reprint.  Mhhutchins 06:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Alpha 5
I believe I have as you, but there's a few problems: George Alec Effinger should be Geo. Alec Effinger, Gardner Dozois should be Gardner R. Dozois, and "Baby, You Were Great" shouldn't have an exclamation mark. It doesn't appear to be a lazy "details from ToC" problem as the copyrights and ToC agree with the content title pages. Can you double-check? BLongley 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right on all counts. Amended the contents accordingly. Think I'll reschedule that physical and go for an eye exam, instead..... ‡\ ~Bill, --Bluesman


 * Let's just blame DES for leading us astray for now, while he's not around to defend himself. ;-) . BLongley 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I really should get my eyes checked again - I'm at least a year overdue - but as I'm using all my spare time set aside for physical health stuff on checks on my heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, etc, some organs are a little neglected. And I have to do other stressful things like buying a car of my own before they reclaim the company one. BLongley 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's see.... heart is repaired, still breathing so lungs OK; only tipple beer on Fridays so liver should be good for another few kegs and it eventually comes out the other end so kidneys are tip-top; brain is on the fritz [as usual] no known cure...... and the eyes still know the local barkeep is a 38DD, each keg adding a D.... Right as rain! Don't forget to buy something with an oversized boot for the buying road-trips!! ‡)) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SFBC edition of Pohl's Beyond the Blue Event Horizon
I'm doing a second round of verifications, adding cover images and notes, and saw that my copy of this printing has a gutter code of "V13" on unnumbered page [281] (the page with the "About the Author" piece). This would indicate a printing in March 1980, too early for an October selection unless it was a misprint and should have been "V31". And I'm certain it was an October selection as I have the SFBC announcement flyer laid in the book. I made a note that it may have been available earlier to other Doubleday book clubs, but I find the possibility unlikely as Pohl wasn't a big enough name to become a selection of one of their other clubs. Does your copy have the "K36" on page 278? (I left that in the record as I found it.) Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 23:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not my note. My copy is later with "O44" on page 278. A typesetter making a typo???? Surely you jest! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At least the page number matches the "K36" one, but it's strange that they would move the gutter code to another page. I guess we just have to set it aside as one of those pubs that just doesn't "fit".  I'll add a note that "O44" has also been verified.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not the first time I've seen different pages for a gutter code from printing to printing, though not more than 3-4 times, if memory serves. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Taine or Bell?
In this pub. Just got through making John Taine the canonical and this one looks like it may have been the only one actually credited to Eric Temple Bell.--swfritter 00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Eric Temple Bell in Acknowledgments, TOC and story title page. Clean sweep! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--swfritter 14:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Science Fiction Stories
Re the second printing of - I believe it should be H. L. Gold rather than Horace L. Gold for "The Man with English"? (I think it's "The Man With English" too by current standards, but I'm not a fan of that.) BLongley 23:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * H. L. indeed! And to me "with" is the same as "from", capitalized or not... ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll make the changes. And as the 3rd and 4th printings agree with our 2nd, might as well adjust the 1st and hc too. BLongley 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And for, I believe that the title "Critical Fatocr" is worth a note? Or have I got a rare misprint? BLongley 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My copy is so fragile, if I open it that far it will fall apart! Only partly kidding; that is probably the worst typo I've ever seen! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's my volume 1 that is in an awful state - there's probably more rust in that book than on anything else I own. :-( The only book in the 100 or so I've processed so far from that last small shopping-trip I went on that I'm a bit unhappy with. BLongley 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll leave a note rather than put it as stated, nobody is really going to search for "fatocr" are they? (Except for that drunken typesetter maybe.) BLongley 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Through Time and Space with Ferdinand Feghoot"
According to Contento, the Feghoot story in your verified Never in This World is "Through Time and Space with Ferdinand Feghoot: XII" (1959-03-00), which matches the date of the story as currently recorded. Could you please check the title to see if we could merge it with the other "Through Time and Space with Ferdinand Feghoot: XII" by "Grendel Briarton" or whether we need to create a new variant title? (I swear I have that collection somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment...) TIA! Ahasuerus 04:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Afraid this offshoot of the Feghoot clan got out without his number. Bill C. must have been hallucinating! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, but does the text start with "Ferdinand Feghoot was a close friend of the Very Reverend William Ralph Inge" the way Feghoot XII starts? Perhaps it just wanted to venture out into the wilds incognito... Ahasuerus 05:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't: "It was Ferdinand Feghoot who discovered Yip Quong..." The Very Reverend William Ralph Inge is a complete no-show! And the story is only six paragraphs, so he can't hide! ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh! And does the story end with the word "wishy-washy"? If so, it's Feghoot X. Which goes to show that it can run, but it can't hide! Ahasuerus 06:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And we have a WINNUH!!!! Wishy-washy indeed. But still no appendage of numeration... ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Avon Fantasy Reader #1
I added the page numbers for the stories and some notes to this publication with info from Miller/Contento, when I noticed that you'd already verified it with Miller/Contento, as well as Currey, and OCLC. I wasn't aware that Currey listed magazine issues or that OCLC records individual issues (I've seen records for periodical runs and volumes on OCLC.) Just wanted to double-check to make sure there'd not been a mistake. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Currey does list all 18 of the Readers and the two paperbacks. The OCLC verification is a mistake. Though they have records for the periodical run the only individual issue that has a record is #14. No idea why. I'll remove the OCLC.
 * Also added page numbers, notes and the Shelley poem in AFR #3, which was supposedly primary verified by Alibrarian, whose verifications I trust only slightly. You missed the poem which was listed in Miller/Contento.  Mhhutchins 17:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can get the contents to the Mags? All I've ever come across are the checklists, which I never thought much use. How/where can you get the contents?
 * Added page numbers to AFR #9 and noticed that half the stories listed in this issue were actually published in AFR #11. Maybe these were added after you had verified the issue through Currey and Miller/Contento. I'll remove the extra stories after you get a chance to look at the record.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Currey doesn't list the stories at all. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Story by Simak and Jacobi is listed twice (once under it's original title) in AFR #13. I'll remove the wrong record later. Mhhutchins 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I understand. You're using the online checklist as the verification source.  The reference is actually for the Miller/Contento Index, which I recently purchased on CD-ROM from Locus.  It is very much like Locus's online index for books but includes contents for all issues in the checklist (more than 16,000 issues of 1,100 different magazines from 1890-2007).  I didn't think you had the Miller/Contento Index, as we discussed it earlier in the year when you'd received the CD-ROM for the 1984-2007 Locus Index.  I was surprised to see that you'd Miller/Contento verified those issues when there was much information in their index that was missing from the ISFDB record.  It all makes sense now. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At the time it was just called "Contento (zine or mag or maybe just 2)" . ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Alpha One
I've just verified the, but as it's supposed to just be a reprint of the you verified, I wonder if the same differences I noticed apply to the original? In mine, "Poor Little Warrior" has no exclamation mark, "A Triptych" is by Barry Malzberg with no "N.", and "The Doctor" is by "Ted Thomas" rather than "Theodore L. Thomas". Maybe these changes did need to be made for the UK version, but I thought I'd check. BLongley 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two editions are identical. Corrected the US one. Guess I have to stop assuming other Mods get it right... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only difference between Mods and Editors are that Mods get to do more work, and are expected to be a bit better at editing. If a Mod starts acting as though all their edits are perfect, it's probably time to de-Mod them. And the retired Mods weren't necessarily worse, it's just that standards have risen and I don't think any Mod now knows all the ins-and-outs of editing - which is why I don't do Magazines (except when nobody else will touch a small British series), or Perry Rhodan, or Foreign Language editions, or... well, frankly, I'm scared to go into many of the dark corners of ISFDB now. I still stick around for the bits I DO know though. And there's still the Albatross (the Stableford Collection) to work through. BLongley 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we need "Here Be Dragons/Albatrosses/The Great Unknown" signs for those dark alleyways? Or maybe just "Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here"..... :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Practice Effect - 6th edition Locus wrong
Morning! This. . I just got the 6th printing and Locus was wrong for ISBN and price. Added notes to that effect, but thought you should be told as you did Locus. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

SFBC edition of The Left Hand of Darkness
I've updated the notes on this edition, indicating which of the gutter codes has been verified. When you get a chance, could you note which gutter code is on your verified edition? Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just did another one here. My copy was a later printing, and I'm not sure if your copy may have been a first.  Check when you get a chance.  Thanks again. Mhhutchins 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done and yes mine is the G 07. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo
The cover artist for this should be Nick Bantock. Cheers Jonschaper 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it should! Corrected. Good catch! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Poul Anderson's A Circus of Hells
According to Locus #233 (May 1980), this printing of the title was published in April 1980. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gracias! Entered as such. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Last Starship from Earth
Added Paul Lehr as cover artist and a note to The Last Starship from Earth, source is Jane Frank. Thanks, Willem H. 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent! And another one bites the dust! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pawns of Null-A
I believe your verified record is the same edition as this record which I created a while back from a Locus listing. You can date your record, using Locus as the source, and then delete the latter record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Does the Locus issue specify the printing#? ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, just that is was a "reissue". Very seldom do they give the printing number. They will mention if it's a reprint or reissue.  The latter term usually refers to a new printing from a new publisher, which is not true in this case. It's really a reprint. Mhhutchins 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks!. I went the opposite way on the pub record, though, transferring the notes and re-loading the image to the record you created as the tag for the record and image are tied to the date where the other one has all 0000s in the tag. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthony's Total Recall
You can take over the Primary 1 verification of this pub record. Turns out mine is a second printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hate it when that happens.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Butler's Mind of My Mind
Can you check to see if your copy of this title has a gutter code? I'm trying to determine the difference in time between the printing of your copy and my later printing. I'm thinking the stickered price on mine may mean it was warehoused for quite some time, even if it were printed close to the first edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. "H 26" which puts it end of June 1977. Oddly, it doesn't state "First Edition". ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Woh! That means we must have the same printing! Compare your book with my record and see whether there's any difference other than the sticker on my copy.  If so, then neither one of us has the first edition.  Doubleday may have been cheap but it was pretty consistent in marking first editions.  Does Currey have listings for Butler? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Lloyd missed her, unfortunately. I checked ABEBOOKS and there were quite a few stating First Edition, so I e-mailed one seller who has four for sale about a gutter code. My copy isn't price-clipped, but is otherwise identical to your record. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Turns out the seller has six copies and he checked them all! And we have "H 19" in each. Guess I'd better go and move a verification and add some notes.... I'll leave it to you to decide if the price stays as-is or not. Feel free to adjust the one line I added to the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Think I'll change the price to $6.95 and have yours being the "primary" primary, with a note that a copy exists (mine) that was price clipped with a raised price.  I'll remove my primary verification and let you take over.  Once you've done that I'll do a primary 2 verification.  Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At least there was a gutter code to check! Would have been quite different if it was another publisher. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also good to know that gutter codes are useful even for non-book club editions. Mhhutchins 03:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Dreamfall by Vinge
Can you check to see if the publisher of this book club edition is credited as "Time Warner" or "Warner Books"? And is the "Aspect" imprint mentioned. The reason I ask is that this is the only pub in the db that lists "Time Warner / SFBC" as the publisher. Rtrace has the trade edition and he has it as "Aspect / Time Warner", though it's possible that was inherited from another editor. In either case, I believe yours and his should probably be identical (other than the "/ SFBC" appendage to yours.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Title page has Aspect® then Warner Books and finally 'A Time Warner Company'. Copyright page the same minus logos. Aspect at top of spine jacket and book, Warner Books bottom of spine jacket and book. Trade ISBN present on copyright page only. I'm never quite sure what to pick in these cases. ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At times when there's a conflict between title page and cover, I usually go for the title page or, as a fallback, the most common usage in the database. In this case "Aspect / Warner Books" is the stated publisher on the title page, and also happens to have the most titles. If I were Harry, I'd add "/ A Time Warner Company" to the end, but I usually only enter the first two levels ("Imprint" / "Publisher") and not go all the way to the corporate level. (Those executives don't much care what's going on down in the offices where the real people work.)  I'll add a note to Rtrace's page to see what he thinks of the conversation.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mine agrees with Bill's except for the copyright page which only lists the publisher while talking about who owns the trademarks and logos. It also looks like my copy currently has "Aspect / Warner Books" which I think is probably the one to go with.  I'm a little loose with publishers and try to match what seems to be used most often without going into long chains of who owns who these days.  --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Travelers of Space
Hi Bill,

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you about the Best SF cover. I think I may have a way to reduce its size (if that doesn't work I'll email it to you).

I received a copy of Travelers of Space [] through interlibrary loan. I updated the table of contents for this book because there was nothing listed before page 53! Interestingly, "The Interstellar Zoo" by David A. Kyle is not an essay (which is what Kyle's s page lists it as []but a "special descriptive story" written solely to accompany 15 full page (and full color) illustrations of aliens by Edd Cartier. The story begins: "'BUT MOTHER,' said Mrs. Murray's nine-year-old son, 'won't the creatures be embarrassed by our visit?'" Clearly NOT an essay. Will Kyle's page be automatically updated once the table of contents are?

Rob --Rob Crausaz 22:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Only if it's the only pub that 'essay' appears in. If it is shown as such in any other publication you would have to go to the title record for that piece and change it there. That would change it in every pub that it appears. I believe your submission is on hold as there are some other issues with the way you entered some of the contents. Are you typing in your signature manually? The link that shows goes nowhere. At the top of the edit box are a series of 'tabs'. The second last one with the 'squiggle' in it will automatically put in your signature and link it back to your talk page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I don't know why my signature/timestamp didn't work that time as I always use the tab and never it enter manually. I'll try it again here. Rob --Rob Crausaz 00:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, still doesn't work. I'll make an enquiry. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Han Solo at Star's End or ...Stars' End
Can you check out the placing of the apostrophe in your verified edition? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hate it when punctuation just won't stay put.... ;-) Fixed! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Similar cover art
While browsing through the Kennerh Bulmer section, I noticed some cover art credited to two similar names. In the Hook section, #3 Star City by Pinnacle, lists the cover art by Dick Coufield. #4, Virility Gene by Pinnacle, lists the cover art by Dick Kohlfield. Although #1 and #2 are similar, neither is credited with any artist. Can you advise. Sfbooks52 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about posting this in the previous section by accident. Sfbooks52 15:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since both were verified by the same editor, I would suggest asking him. I don't have the books, so have no other data to go on besides the existing pub records. When you say neither is credited, I assume you have the books. Harry (Dragoondelight) doesn't make specific mention where the credit he uses comes from. I am not familiar enough with Pinnacle's practices. Some publishers put artist credits on the back cover, some on the copyright page, some on the title page.... Wish I could help more. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't credited in the listing. I don't have the books. I'll contact the contributor. Thanks. Sfbooks52 16:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Silverberg's Book of Skulls
Can you see if Currey gives the publication code for this pub as "A—12.71" or "A—12.72"? If it's stated in the record correctly then the publication date is wrong. I'd ask the verifier, but you know that'd be futile. Mhhutchins 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "A—12.71" I put the notes in and didn't even notice the discrepancy.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So either Currey is wrong, or the book was published in December 1971, which contradicts the LCCN date of 1972. I'll ask an Abebooks.com dealer to verify the number.  Hopefully, it won't be a dealer I've asked questions of in the past.  Some of them have stopped answering my questions, because I've bugged them and not bought books from them! Mhhutchins 23:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't be the first LOC# to be later than the published date. And haven't these sellers figured out yet that without us they'd have less to refer to.... ;-)  ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * re LCCNs: Actually, for me, it's usually the other way around. Publishers apply for the LCCN before the book is published, and many times the book is published the following year.  I don't think I've seen any LCCNs for books that were published in a previous year, or I've missed them.  Look at my contribution to this discussion about the LoC's "interim" period (1969-1972).  Could the books you've seen with LCCNs later than publication date actually be those years when the first two number didn't have anything to do with the year of publication? Mhhutchins 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Off the top of my very bald head [not much sticks anymore...] I can't put my finger/mind/memory on one in particular. It's not a number I pay a great deal of attention to. I know I have seen a few that seemed higher than they should [a verified Feb date with a five-digit number, like 60-98765] but not enough to remember where/when. I'll file this discussion and see what comes up [my memory is quite good with something to focus on]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just got a response from an Abebooks.com dealer. He actually sent me a scan of the copyright page, and there it is in black and white: "A—12.71".  But after all this I should have noticed that the Signet paperback was published in September 1972, so it wasn't likely that the Scribner hardcover would have been published three months after the paperback.  I've corrected the record. Mhhutchins 02:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Forests and trees...... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Martian Rainbow
As you seem to be an duty and because you verified this pub, I have a doubt about the page count. I found on my copy ix (or x depending if count the last blank page) (acknowledgements) + 290 (novel proper) +18 (spoof guide), which is different from the pub : x+308+18. Hauck 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm never quite sure whether to count those blanks or not. When there's one at the end of text and then more material, whether excerpt, index or whatever, it gets counted so I tend to count them in the front too. I don't know if there is any hard rule one way or the other and I'm not stuck on it in either direction. Help notes "Pages without numbers that fall between the two types of page numbering can be ignored." Changing the count to "ix" is no problem. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear, what bothers me is the 308+18 part (I have 290+18). Hauck 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't see that! You're right it should read 290+18. Did the change. It always amazes me that some little things can slip by, in this case, three sets of eyes before getting noticed! Good catch! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Alien Murders
Would collection be more appropriate for this pub? Thanks!--swfritter 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! Did I accept this as an Omnibus? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't get away with anything these days. I will change it and notify the editor.--swfritter 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Crystal Gryphon
Hi Bill, I'm a bit surprised by your notes on this pub. I have a copy that looks identical, except for the "First Printing, October 1953" statement. Mine sais "First Printing, October 1973". Is it possible that yours is the Canadian edition? My copyright page sais "Printed in U.S.A.". If so, I can clone, if not I'll havve to add another note. Thanks, --Willem 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, my copy is Canadian. Since yours has the statement different, I'll add a note and a "C" in front of the price. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank! Cloned yours and adapted the notes. Weird publisher, DAW. --Willem 17:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wollheim's 1980 Annual
I added a note about a source for the price and date of publication to this printing, and changed the printing date from September '80 to August '80 (based on the gutter code "K32"). Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Human Body: Its Structure and Operation
You may want to double check the artist credits for. You have the cover artist as Anthony Ravielli and the note "Illustration credited to Ravielli on the cover and title page."

I have a where it looks like the cover is a photograph by Ray Cicero and the interior artwork is by Anthony Ravielli. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that photo credit is for the pic of Asimov on the back cover. The credit to Cicero is directly beside the pic on my copy. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My ninth printing has "Cover photo: Ray Cicero" and the credit is moved over to the corner away from the picture of Asimov. Please see Image:THHMNBDTSS0000-back.jpg.


 * The copyright page mentions it's a reprint of an hc edition. I have added a for this. While I could not locate an image of the first edition cover the 4th and 5th printing use this cover which has contains no artwork and the seller listings are crediting Anthony Ravielli for the interior artwork.


 * I'll assume Signet contracted with Ray Cicero to create the cover for their pb edition though both your 1st printing and my 9th are ambiguous. I'm not sure when publishers started using "Author photo" credits. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Nelson edition is British, BLIC #000129591, from 1965. Wonder how long before the links to sellers' will be valid? Sooner or later those copies will be sold. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks on the Nelson. Good point on the links. I re-did the publication note. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Art of The Empire Strikes Back
Just added price from Locus for the tp of this title. They didn't list a hardcover edition, but I saw that the record for your hc edition doesn't give a price. Is it unpriced or price-clipped? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clipped! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * MELVYL and half a dozen other catalogs claim that the price of the hardcover edition was $25.00 and the tp was $12.95. I wonder if Locus reviewed a later version of the tp?.. Ahasuerus 19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! Added price with note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

They Walked Like Men
Hi Bill, could you check this pub again? I think the ISBN is wrong. My copy has 532*95390*095 on the spine, the closest thing to an ISBN I can find. The pub has 0-532-95930-2. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite correct and corrected! We seem to be following each other again as my desk is overrun with Simak! Only had to move one book to find that one! And I seem to remember a discussion about the legitimacy of Destefano as an artist as he seems to get credit only for design... ? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You got a bad checksum with 0-532-95390-2. I submitted the right one (0-532-95390-8). Nasty little critters those ISBN's. I vaguely remember something about Destefano, but at least he's credited for something. The notes say it all. --Willem H. 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that! Still can't figure out how transposing two numbers can give a different checksum.....¿¿¿ Personally, I don't think the record's field should even have one as the book doesn't, no matter how 'searchable' it is. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't do the checksum myself (yet). The rules are here, but it looks difficult. I'll make my own ISBN calculator in Excel one day. The easy way if you have the first nine numbers is this site. You enter the nine numbers, and receive the tenth for free.
 * I think I read somewhere in the rules that a self made ISBN is ok, if it gets lots of results on a Google search. 0532953908 only has 8 results, so removing the ISBN is ok with me. Willem H. 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, any book 1968+ should have an ISBN, but the implementation seemed to vary by publisher, the American ones lagging the most noticeably. It will be good when we get the extra field for 'derived' ISBNs... best of both sides then. [Though the go-through to split out the existing ones won't be fun or easy!!] I might just move it to the notes when it's my turn to edit it!!! Still going through Silverberg's anthologies and it's golf-season so it might be a week or more.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done checksum calculators in Excel and have one available in JavaScript at http://marc.kupper.googlepages.com/isbn That said, the calculators should be used with care. What I do in case like this is I'd have the publication record with a catalog # of 95390 or #532*95390*095 and a publication note that the ISBN 0532953908 / 0-532-95390-8 could be derived from the SBN 532*95390*095 but that Amazon is not using this ISBN and that a Google search (May 2010) finds that very few sites are using the ISBN for this publication. I state the ISBN in the notes so that if someone does a Google search for that ISBN they will find the ISFDB record and the note about it.


 * My main decision point is if the ISBN is being used on Amazon.com for this publication. If so, then I know I can use the ISBN as the catalog # and the Amazon US/UK/etc. links on left navigation bar for an ISFDB publication record will work. If Amazon is not using the ISBN then I stick with the #95390 or #532*95390*095 catalog number for ISFDB.


 * Regarding "Still can't figure out how transposing two numbers can give a different checksum." The checksum algorithm is position sensitive which allows it to catch common transpositions such as 93 for 39 in the middle of the field.


 * Willem, you noted "The pub has 0-532-95930-2." If you have a publication that states "0-532-95930-2" then it sounds like a different publication than the one that Bill has and it should get its own publication record.  That ISBN is not on Amazon nor other book seller sites. Google only finds this talk thread meaning you would have a rare edition. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Read that as "Pub record". The book doesn't have an ISBN on/in it. --Bluesman 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Digits and Dastards
I started with Frederik Pohl, and came across this pub. Cover is credited to Richard Weaver, and according to the notes nobody knows why. I think our pub was cloned from this one, and the artist was left in. Richard Weaver was sort of a house artist for Dennis Dobson (I think he did nearly all their covers from 1966 to at least 1977). I don't know who did the Ballantine cover. Not Powers, this one isn't mentioned in "The Art of Richard Powers", but it could be anyone inspired by Powest (Jane Frank doesn't mention this cover for Vincent DiFate, Jack Gaughan, Paul Lehr of John Schoenherr, but she's far from complete. I do think Richard Weaver should be deleted. What do you think? --Willem H. 14:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are probably correct. Though I love the clone function, it's probably responsible for the vast majority of 'ghost' artist credits. Especially here when the link seems pretty clear. If there was no other edition credited to Weaver I'd be tempted to leave it as is but think it can be deleted without any qualms. Just checked your progress on the ascension to Mod status, thought maybe you could do the deed yourself. Soon!! I'll delete the credit and the note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pohl's Demon in the Skull
Because this record is for the Canadian edition, perhaps the price field should contain the Canadian price. As it stands now, in the publication listings, it looks like a duplication of the US record. Mhhutchins 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite correct. The Canadian price is $2.95. Changed the field to that with a 'C' ~Bill,--Bluesman 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing it to my suggestion. Not sure what you mean by "not quite correct", but it's obvious now from the publication listing in the title record that they're two different printings. Before your edit the listings (not the records) were identical. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tempo Books
You have a copy of one of the earliest books published by Tempo (Invaders of Earth). Is there any mention in the book of that this is an imprint of another publisher? I know titles later in the 60s gave it as published by Grosset & Dunlap. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Under the Tempo logo on the title page is Grosset & Dunlap, then New York. Nothing on the copyright page. On the bottom of the back cover, again under the Tempo Books logo, is Grosset & Dunlap, Inc., Publishers over a full address of 1107 Broadway, New York 10, N. Y. ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now I know that Tempo was an imprint of Grosset & Dunlap from the start. Mhhutchins 18:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Poul Anderson's Flying Mountain collection
Hi, as per my conversation here we need to figure out if the interludes, etc, written for this collection should be treated as separate shorts or as one interstitial story, so I'm seeking your assistance as a verifier. Thanks Jonschaper 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cover: Way Station
Sorry, Bill, clicked too fast and approved your merge of two "Cover: Way Station" titles :( Ahasuerus 00:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite all right. :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Rakehells of Heaven
That may have been the fastest "flesh out" operation in our history! :) Ahasuerus 03:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just happened to see your edit and "investigated". Was so surprised to see a new pub for that title! What's COPAC?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * COPAC is your friend! Fixer has already sucked in all of its readily identifiable SF (about 50,000 items) and is slowly digesting them. Ahasuerus 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hence all the blood-sucking results?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just the extruded product :) Ahasuerus 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The epitome of euphemism...... yet apropos as with the vampire/paranormal romance 'stuff' I always feel like I'm following a dog with severe diarrhea and attempting to clean up the 'extruded product' with a sieve.... LOL!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Angel vs Angela Arnet
I strongly suspect that Angel and Angela are the same person and noticed you did some verifying for both books. Are you able to double-check if these are indeed variants? Jonschaper 03:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the Silverberg book and can say the credit does read "Angela" [no signature, unfortunately]. The Laumer edition is owned by Ahasuerus, and my verifications on it were secondary with no artist credits involved. The styles are vaguely similar. Drop a note on Ahasuerus' page, linking here and maybe something will peek out to link the two together? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, will do. Jonschaper 02:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, it says "Jacket design by Angel Arnet" on the back flap. I have updated the pub, but I have no idea whether it's a typo or they are two different people. Ahasuerus 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps the "strongly suspect" statement needs some 'flesh' on 'dem bones...?? What leads to that surmise? ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, the cause of my suspicions are the very strong similarity in names (and they aren't common names), the books are only a few years apart, and both artworks consist of black humanoid blobs. In other words, an educated guess vs access to arcane knowledge. Jonschaper 06:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A cursory Google search found two (non-SF) 1967-1968 books done by "Angel Arnet", so at least the spelling of the name in the Laumer hc is apparently correct. Ahasuerus 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Silverberg wasn't until 1972.... any mention of a sex change?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dozois' 26th Annual Collection
Just picked up the (remaindered) hardcover of this volume and cloned your trade paperback for contents. There are a few discrepancies. My copy gives credit to "Paul J. McAuley" on page 217 and "Maureen F. McHugh" on page 341. (Even though the second McAuley story on page 390 drops his middle initial.) All of the credits on the contents pages drop the initial, so that may be where the credits for your record came from. If you agree I can go ahead and make the changes for both editions, as it would be easier to do both at the same time. What do you think? (I chose to go with the stated month of publication for my edition, not the onsale date.) Mhhutchins 00:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! And I changed the date for the TP [note works either way!]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Mhhutchins 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Boxed Set: Episodes I-VI
In, is it really Ryder Wyndham or Ryder Windham? BLongley 12:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The latter, though I thought a 'y' in each name much more aesthetically pleasing! ;-) Fixed and merged the culprits. ‡)) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brain Rose
It's quite practical that you seem to be on duty. For this version of novel here, it seems to me that the title is _Brainrose_ (in one word) on cover, spine and title page (it's _Brain Rose_ only on top of the text), do you think it's right to change the title in the database ? Hervé Hauck 17:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This one has been discussed previously, and the conclusion was that the apparent lack of a space was just so the effect of the 'arced' title would match the art department's wish. The proper split of the two words on the page headers in the text was the clincher [and all other editions have it that way as well]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That was also my first idea, but as the lettering on the spine isn't arched and reads _BRAINROSE_, I thought it was interesting to ask, but I don't want to redo an ancient discussion. Hervé Hauck 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

held Rimworld series edits
Hi Bill. See User_talk:MartyD, which is behind some of those submissions you have on hold. Astromath is moving them into a sub-series (I did not actually investigate the sub-series, just helped with mechanics). --MartyD 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some major fixing of this series two years ago, the sub series is a good idea, I should have created one back then. I even have the books!Kraang 03:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have most of the books. I put them on hold because Astromath wants to number Omnibus editions and the stories don't work that way. I don't have a problem with a subseries, just with the numbering scheme. ACE didn't put them in any kind of series order that I'm aware of. Pulled them all off the shelf yesterday and was going to delve more into them today so if I could make any suggestions at least I'd have an idea what to say!. Thanks for the link, I'll check that out. Please chime in on this, Sean. All input welcome, especially with a new editor. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The books themselves are labeled "Book 1", "Book 2", etc. That's the numbering scheme the publisher used, so that's the scheme I used. --Astromath 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Trust an ACE numbering scheme?? :-) I have all of the ten books, but only one of the later doubles being split out for this sub-series. The Gateway to Never/The Inheritors, ACE #37062, and there is no mention in/on about any numbering or series. Where/when does ACE give this information? Spartan Planet, by Grimes rank alone would be before Inheritors. The re-titled Commodore at Sea [originally Alternate Orbits] is a collection which was previously issued as half of another ACE Double with Dark Dimensions, already part of this 'series'. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the double novels are numbered. As far as I can tell, there is no numbering scheme for the individually named novels within the double novels.  I have all 5 double novels.  It seems to me that the numbering scheme has no relation to the when the individual novels were published.  Only when the double novels were published.  --Astromath 19:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But where are they numbered? I have the one mentioned above and there's nothing.... just the catalog# ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, found the images of the five 'designated' books and now I see where you're getting the numbers from. My double edition is the first printing which is a true double with two covers, dos-a-dos style. No mention of this "Saga" at all. Looks more like a marketing ploy by ACE to sell more books than a definite subseries. The main series has all the Grimes books, but obviously ACE doesn't have copyrights to all of them. Wouldn't be the first series created this way, even within the Grimes one. Since Kraang did the series work, I'll unhold the submissions and let him deal with this.  Perhaps the series name should somehow reflect that it's an ACE series as opposed to an author's series? Something like what was done for all the SFBC omnibus editions? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(unidented)Ok, I've approved the changes and changed the series title to thisKraang 01:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That works! Thanks, Sean! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Quest for the Well of Souls image
The image link for this pub is no longer valid: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?QSTFRTHWLB1980 --Astromath 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It's a better idea, especially in this case, to let the Primary Verifier know, as there could be small differences in the covers between printings that I wouldn't be able to spot as I don't have this book. I let Kraang know about it. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Boxed sets
How do you add a boxed set? For example, I have the boxed set of The Moonshae Trilogy and it has its own ISBN. --Astromath 00:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done them as an omnibus. See [this] Star Wars boxed set as an example. I'm not familiar with the trilogy you mention, though. Who is the author? I can help you set this up with a little bit of data. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's what I have: Title: The Moonshae Trilogy; Author: Douglas Niles; boxed set contains Darkwalker on Moonshae (© 1987), Black Wizards (© 1988), and Darkwell (© 1989); Publisher: TSR; copyright date: 1989; ISBN: 0-88038-924-9; Price: $11.85 US; Item #: 8410GS; no publishing date. Is that enough?  --Astromath 02:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be enough to get started. The individual page counts would be needed, and I couldn't find an image, assuming the box has one? Some don't. First thing you want to do is, from the editing tools in the bibliographic page for Niles, is select "Add New Omnibus" and just fill in the upper section the same way you would for any publication record. Title is that of the boxed set only. In the page count field put the three separate counts, in order, like this A+B+C, no spaces before or after the "+" signs. In the binding field, type in "boxed set", lower case, no quote marks. Don't worry about any notes just yet. In the contents section, put the three individual novels and the author for each. You do not need to fill in any of the other fields: page/date/length. What is going to happen is that the software will create three new novel records and they will need to be merged with the existing records. I'll walk you through that step once we get the first record set up properly. Also to get the omnibus in the correct series with the correct display can't be done until this record exists. ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it tomorrow. It's past midnight and I'm tired. But that's enough to get me started.  Thx.  --Astromath 04:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Done. BTW, the cover art is identical to that of the first book of the series. --Astromath 11:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So far, so good, though you must have been tired still, or not enough coffee yet as the author was entered as "Doublas" in the main title. Fixed, anyway. :-) Next steps: go back to Niles page and you'll see a couple of things. Three new novel records and a new Omnibus record. The omnibus needs to get into the series "Forgotten Realms: Moonshae". Open up the new Omnibus' title record and enter the series name. If you look at the fields of a title record, there doesn't seem to be a place to put in which numbers of the existing series are connected to the omnibus. What we do is use the Storylen: field [bit of a cheat but it works and displays properly]. What you want to enter, in this case, is /1,2,3 in that line. Normally that's all you would enter as usually an omnibus is a single binding format. But here, after the previous entry and on the same line, add Boxed Set, then submit. Now the fun part: merging. Those three new records have to be merged with the existing ones. Go back to Niles' page and under "Editing Tools" select "Check for duplicate titles". That will take you to [this] page. For each pair, one set at a time, click the boxes under the Merge and hit "Merge Selected Records". Doing the first pair will get you [this] page. As you can see there are four sets of conflicting data that you have to choose between. This is why I said to not enter anything in the contents of the Omnibus other than the title and author. Here the choices are obvious, but that's not always the case, so by entering the minimum of data the differences stand out and the choices are quite clear. Go ahead and click on the correct options and submit. Then go back to the first page and do the other two sets. You don't have to wait for one set to be approved before doing the others. Once all the edits are approved you will have successfully entered a boxed set! ~Bill, --Bluesman 13:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I did it right. --Astromath 15:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And now it's complete!. If you look at the contents record for the Omnibus, you'll see that the merge has now put the correct dates into each of the novels lines. Almost painless!!! :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Weapon Shops of Isher August 1977
I have a slightly different cover for this novel. The cover I have does not have the maple leaf beside the "Back in print at last!" line. The cover I have can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Shops-Isher-E-Van-Vogt/dp/0671813544/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274670217&sr=1-1 Since you're the one who did the verifying, I thought I'd let you know. I wonder if the maple leaf may indicate a Canadian version. --Astromath 03:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a Canadian edition. We're the only ones who put that little Maple leaf on the cover, almost exclusively on Pocket editions of the mid-70s to early 80s. The verification date is almost a year and a half ago. Today I would automatically make a separate record. Then, since the price was the same for the US and Canadian editions, making two records seemed redundant. That is also my image there, wavy lines and all, and tomorrow I may dig it out and redo the whole thing. I'd get to it in a couple of months anyway as I'm doing a pass though my collection and am currently up to "S" in the paperbacks. But definitely not until tomorrow!!! Too many hours on here today already. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions
I don't know if you are the person to give this suggestion to, or even if this has been suggested before: Adding an input line for LCCN. A lot of the books have one. Another suggestion would be to allow a book to belong to more than one series. Examples: 10 Doctor Who books belong to the Pinnacle series while also belonging to the Target series. Star Trek Invasion is the same way. --Astromath 16:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd be about number 2-300 on the list for both suggestions! ;-) The second one will require significant software changes, from what discussion I've seen, so might be awhile. The first one will probably happen sooner than later, but there are only three or four who can do the changes and I believe there are other projects as yet incomplete. I'm not really sure if we have a 'suggestion box' per se. There is always the [Community Portal] page for general comments. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Currey
Hello, regarding this famous book here I was wondering if the title shouldn't be entered as "Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction and Selected Nonfiction" as on title page. What do you think ? I also updated the pagenumber. Hervé Hauck 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is rather famous, isn't it! You are quite correct as to the title. I did the book cover to cover last year and not once looked at the title page. Have amended the record and title and also added the Roman Numbered prefatory page count. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Logan's Run
I found a website that has a bunch of cover images for some of the editions. Since I flubbed up on uploading an image once, I'll let somebody else handle it. Here's the website: http://www.tonystrading.co.uk/galleries/tvscifibooks/logansrun.htm --Astromath 14:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Stardroppers
This is just minor, but you have the date in the notes being October while the year of publication is 1979-09 which is September. Which is it? --Astromath 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The October date is for the issue of Locus. --Bluesman 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Menace from Earth 1979 edition
There seems to be 2 identical records for this edition. One has a date 1979-00-00 and the other has 1979-07-00 and both say they're the 11th printing. You verified one of them, the other was verified by Dragoondelight. I don't know if they need to be merged or not. --Astromath 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading the notes again. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Collection vs Omnibus
I'm wondering what's the difference between a Collection and an Omnibus is. The reason I'm asking is I have The Best of John W. Campbell by Lester Del Rey (Editor) and the present record indicates a collection. None of the interior stories are listed in this record. I don't want to edit the present record without knowing more. Or should I clone the pub and relabel it as an omnibus? I just don't know right now. I need guidance. Thx. --Astromath 04:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All three of the records under [this] title have the contents listed. Though without a link I don't know which one you are referring to. From [Help:Glossary], an Omnibus is a publication which contains within it at least two works which could legitimately be regarded as independent works. Two or more novels usually, sometimes a novel and a collection and very rarely more than one collection. Collections are almost always just that: multiple stories of less than novel length by a single author. A collection of short works by multiple authors is an Anthology. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx. Based on that info, this book is indeed a collection.  I was going to edit it until I realized I was looking at the wrong record.  My bad.  --Astromath 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thebes of the Hundred Gates
Hi Bill, I changed the artist for this pub from "A.I.R. Studios" to "Jim Effler" and adapted the notes after this. Thanks, --Willem H. 06:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Starless World Nov 1978
Price change to $1.95. This also matches the price on the front cover of the image presented. --Astromath 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Covenant of the Crown Dec 1981
Price change, added first addition line to notes. --Astromath 18:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Prometheus Design Mar 1982
Adding missing price and added to notes that this book is a first edition per number line. --Astromath 18:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This note should go to the primary verifier, [WeAreGray] as I don't have this particular printing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, no prob. --Astromath 03:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoyle's The Molecule Men
I'm wondering if perhaps it was you who placed the note on this record that it's the first US hardcover edition. It would be unusual for the SFBC to use a hardcover publisher's imprint unless it was reprinting that publisher's edition. This made me start researching an earlier Harper & Row trade edition and found it on OCLC, with ISBN and all. Only trouble is, it's not dated (typical of H&R). I strongly believe it would have been published in 1972, regardless of the 1971 copyright which represented the UK publication. If it were published by H&R in 1971, it would be unusual for the book club edition to take more than a year to be published. What do you think? I'll hold off on creating a new record for the H&R trade edition and changing the note on the SFBC reprint until I hear back from you. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember putting that note, and can't think why I might have without some source. Currey only mentions the Heinemann. Your reasoning makes perfect sense, so that note should be removed or amended to "First SFBC edition...". That may have been the intent but a little brain vacuity intervened?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added the H&R trade edition, and corrected the SFBC edition. Mhhutchins 03:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ship Who Sang Series by Ann McCaffrey
According to Ann McCaffrey's own website (http://www.annemccaffrey.net/index.php?page_id=30) this series is actually called the Brain & Brawn series. I will not edit unless you say its ok. One other thing, according the Ann McCaffrey, this series is part of the Crystal Universe or at least the setting is in the same universe as Crystal Singer. --Astromath 12:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Subseries Wild Cards: The New Cycle
This subseries does not have any pubs listed underneath it. Is this a new subseries or an old one when the pubs got moved to the other subseries? --Astromath 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea, never heard of the series. --Bluesman 19:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a new series called "A New Cycle" (see books 13, 14, & 15). I was just wondering if these books used to be in "The New Cycle" subseries before they were moved to the main subseries. If you never heard of it, I will mark this subseries for deletion. --Astromath 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of the WIld Cards series in any shape or form, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps someone who has verified a few of them might know. Since a series can always be re-created I have no problem deleting an empty one - no data would be lost.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Blood Red Game by Michael Moorcock
I just cloned this and forgot to delete the image because it is not the edition that I have. I have the $1.95 edition. I'll try to find an image for it later. --Astromath 17:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pebble in the Sky series edit
I made a mistake. It is supposed to be first in the series, not third. Sorry. --Astromath 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the top left portion of the editing page, under the SEARCH box, you'll see a bunch of links starting with "My...". If you make a mistake, just check "My Pending Edits" where you can cancel a bad/mistaken/errored submission yourself assuming a Mod hasn't seen it yet. We also have a [Moderator Noticeboard] where things can be brought up concerning specific edits. The latter option probably means the quickest response. I'm not on here 24/7, though it seems like it some days, and some things might go unnoticed for a couple of days. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Never noticed. Shows what a noob I am. :)  --Astromath 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

From this Day Forward
Hello, you asked me a question on my talk page but, being confused by a concurrent edit problem (the page refused to be edited ;-)), I probably erased it. I don't remember it exactly. Hervé Hauck 17:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I erased it as the edit above answered the question. I had slightly misread the submission anyway. No worries! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Point Ultimate cover artist
Hi Bill, I just cloned your Point Ultimate for my second printing with the same cover image (I'll scan & upload it one of these days). The signature is from Sandy Kossut, not Kossui (I uploaded his from another publication (ripped from this internet page). The same signature also happens to be on Galactic Pot-Healer, where we thought it was Kossin (they all look alike). I suggest we change that to Sandy Kossut too. Objections? Thanks, --Willem H. 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it! ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done!!! --Willem H. 20:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Cancer Machine
Could you please double check whether Currey states that The Cancer Machine appeared as by "Earl Binder and Otto Binder"? The cover scan says "Eando Binder" and I don't think the brothers used their separate names at the time. TIA! Ahasuerus 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Currey just lists the pseudonym 'Eando Binder', listing Earl in only three publications. Interestingly, two of those are from 1940, but with both brothers writing under the pseudonym of John Coleridge [Martian Martyrs; The New Life]. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It looks like we will want to change the publication level credit to "Eando Binder" and adjust any Title level links that may get disturbed.


 * Briefly, Earl dropped out of the field to write westerns and such ca. 1936. Otto kept the pseudonym and persevered for a number of years -- eventually decades -- although the center of gravity of his work slowly shifted to comics. In the late 1930s, Otto spent much of his time rewriting their old "trunk stories" and rejects and, since he used the same pseudonyms on all of them, it can be hard to tell how much "Earl content" a particular story has. At one point Swftiter spent many hours sorting things out, including reviewing the brothers' business letters, so the current pseudonym tapestry is probably as close as we can get. Ahasuerus 02:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since we don't have much data about this story, I have set it up as a collaboration. Also added the missing CHAPTERBOOK Title record. Ahasuerus 04:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)