User talk:Hauck/Archive1

Kraang 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The War Against the Rull
I accepted your submission for this new publication of the title, but had to make a few changes to make it conform to ISFDB standards. (See the link in the Welcome section above to go to the help pages.) Thanks for contributing. If you have any questions, you can add them to this one by choosing the [edit] function, and adding your comment at the bottom. Use a colon (":") to separate your comment from mine, and sign using four tildes ("~"). Thanks again, and hope you enjoy your time here on the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 18:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a number sign (#) before the catalog number to indicate that it's not an ISBN or SBN (incomplete as such).
 * Removed the "photography" credit in the cover artist field. This creates an artist by the name of "photography" (I'll delete the record which is created for cover art.)  If there is no credit for either art, design, or photography, leave the field blank.
 * Adjusted the notes field concerning pre-decimalization of British money, and added a note about the cover.

British pricing
Price of "70p" should be entered as "£0.70". I've changed the the record. Similarly, for US prices, 50¢ would be entered as "$0.50". Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. I'll try to improve. Hauck 18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Hauck


 * I've been here several years, and discovered that the learning curve is rather steep the first few weeks and gradually levels off after a few months. (But it never stops growing.) You've already learned how to add cover images.  Sometimes that takes new editors more than a few tries to get right.  You seem to have already mastered the process.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And you've found the Wiki talk pages. There have been editors who never knew they existed! Mhhutchins 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're placing a space between the pound sign and the first number of the price. There should be no spacing in the price.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing verified pubs
I'm holding the submission that wants to change several fields of this publication. Looking below the pub record you'll see a section titled "Verification Status". If the "Primary" reference indicates a status with an editor's name and date, it means that this publication has been physically verified. If you have a pub that you feel is the same as this one, you should contact the verifier of that pub and let them know that you believe there may be a question about the data in that record. Looking at the changes you propose in the ISBN and prices field, there seems to be a difference of opinion on how the data should be recorded. I suggest you contact Dragoondelight to discuss the difference, before I can accept the change. I've accepted the submission adding the cover image. In the future, should you add a cover image to a verified pub, please let the verifier know so that he can check it against his copy of the book. I'll do it this time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Weapon Makers (NEL, 1970)
I wonder about the note you placed on this record. By 1970 most UK books had begun adding ISBNs. Is 0-450-00444-9 printed anywhere on the book (usually on the back cover but without dashes)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * in fact only 450004449 is written in the book (as usual with these british pbs. I suppose that the first zero is implicit but I wasn't sure.Hauck 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Hauck


 * Also the record you just added for the 1974 printing is missing a number in the ISBN. Could you recheck? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry for the mistake, it's 450015270 (implicit initial zero ?) Hauck 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Hauck


 * In the first few years of ISBNs there wasn't a clear-cut standard for how the numbers would be recorded. (Kinda destroys the meaning of the "S" in ISBN!) It's OK in these instances to add a leading "0", and sometimes even to create a number by adding the checksum digit.  If you do this in any case, you should mention in the notes field how it actually is recorded in the book itself, and place the derived ISBN in the ISBN/Catalog # field. Thanks. (Also note that when you add a comment to a wiki page, you should place an additional colon to those that were used in the comment above.) Mhhutchins 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, "SBN" predated "ISBN" - it took the rest of the world sometime to catch on that the British had a good idea. ;-) A lot of past editors have automatically added the leading zero for British pubs with SBNs (should always work), whereas US publications of the early 1970s that claimed to have (I)SBNs actually omitted the checksum and added a price code - not intuitive unless you can do the Luhn check-digit calculation in your head. (I still can't, and I come across it every day in IMEIs and other long numbers.) So notes about what's actually there are always good, even if you derive a more useful link from that information. For instance, Marc Kupper can convert DAW numbers to ISBNs at times, but I wouldn't do so myself. And you've already seen that most British publishers that found SBNs forced on them just put their old serial numbers into the new ranges - e.g. #028005 for became 0-586-02800-5 for . BLongley 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway, enough waffle from me, thanks for your contributions and keep editing! It looks like you have some books/editions I still want (or used to have while I was growing up).BLongley 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Image link for W&N edition of The Weapon Makers
The URL you placed in the update for this record was for the wiki page, and not the image itself. This is a common mistake for new uploaders. The one way I avoid doing this is to immediately click on the image from the wiki page in order to get the URL. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Saliva Tree and Other Growths
I think [this] record is the same pub as the one you submitted? Perhaps check with [Mr. Longley] to see if they are the same. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, i deleted it. Hervé Hauck 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fourth printing of The Long Afternoon of Earth by Aldiss
I accepted your submission adding this pub, but see that you used a method of dating based on a failed experiment. One of the editors decided it would be a good idea to enter the printing number in the day field of the date and use the month and year as recorded in the first printing, and add the printing to the publisher field. Well, turned out not to work so well. Creating new publishers as "Signet (4th printing)" doesn't work well in a database environment when you want to search by publisher and have them all come up together in one search. So he abandoned the idea, but there are still pubs in the database that use this method. We've decided that it's best to keep the pub record as undated (0000-00-00), and record the printing date in the notes field. When, or if ever, we add a field for printings, we can always go back and populate the field. Until then, these pubs should be considered undated. I'll correct the record. Thanks and sorry for the confusion. Maybe one day he'll go back and correct all of those pub records... Mhhutchins 20:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that Stephensen-Payne, in its bibliography of Aldiss (2nd edition) gives 1979-07 for this edition ($ 1.75, 08575). This is not strictly confirmed by the other two Aldiss biblio (Item #83 and the Borgo Press volume) although they indicate a 1979 printing (in 3rd place). Hauck 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then it must be the same printing as this record. You might want to either update your record giving Locus as the source of the date, or delete it and verify the Locus-dated record with added notes. Mhhutchins 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, the image you added to your record was for another Aldiss title (Who Can Replace A Man?) Mhhutchins 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the correct image. For the Locus-based data, I'm not sure. I've got the physical book and the data is correct (it's presented as a signet book on the spine and cover). My source is not Locus (although I have this issue but am too lazy to extract it from its stack).Hauck 14:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashes of Worlds
Accepted your submission for [this] and then made a couple of changes. Most notably adding the book's title in brackets to the two 'generic' contents titles. "Glossary" could be in the contents of thousands of publications. To help identify which one is actually referred to, we add the book's title. In this case, all seven books in the series have a Glossary and if they were all the same then the series name [The Saga of Seven Suns] would be appended to each one. I checked the set I have and each glossary does add new terms with each book, so each should have only its particular book's title added. Things like appendices, glossaries, etc. can also just be noted in the Notes. "The Story So Far" I changed it from an essay to shortfiction as it is a synopsis, in-universe, not really an essay. Most often these don't get put into the contents separately as they are part of the story, on-going in this case. If included, again because of the generic title, the book title should be added. Six of the seven books in the series have the same pre-amble and are all titled the same but of course are all different in their contents. "The End of the World" is an excerpt/extract? I have the hardcover which does not include it. Since these are not really stand-alone pieces, the convention is to add (excerpt) if that's what it is, to the title, in brackets. Have a look at [this Help page] for an overview of the guidelines. Also note the paragraph on "Case", as all but a few words in titles get capitalized. A little different from the European standard of capitalizing only the first word. Thanks for adding all the scans! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * added (Extract), in France we don't have all this problems with capitals in titles, it's much easier. Hauck 16:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you! There was a French librarian doing a thesis on Sf and using the ISFDB as a source and she commented the same way. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an international standard for librarians regardless of their language. Only first word and proper names are capitalized. Mhhutchins 17:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not know that! So we're just renegades??? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rebels with a Cause? Nyah, just obsessive compulsives. I would have thought that you, being the biggest user of OCLC/Worldcat other than me, would have noticed how titles are capitalized. Mhhutchins 17:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In one eye and out the other ‡-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing tags
You made a submission that wants to change the tag because the date was incorrect. It's OK to change the date field, but changing the tag field can be problematic. Even though the year is in the tag, it's not really used to date the record. The tag is automatically generated by the system when a publication record is created, and the system adds the date in order to make distinct tags for every record in the database. The problem with changing the tag is that there's a possibility that there may be a link to the record based on the tag. Changing the tag breaks the link. Most links from this wiki to the records in the database is based on the tag. Unfortunately, there's no way (at least that I know of) to search for what links to a particular record in order to change the link when the tag is changed. That's why it's best to just leave it alone. I'll reject the submission and then correct the date in a separate submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and the correction (and your time), i also have the scan here Hauck 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Horn of Time
Hi, and welcome! In your addition of a cover to, I noticed you added a note about the full catalog number but left the other notes alone. I can see from the number you provided that we now know the price is indeed $0.95 (in 451-Q5480-095, 451 is Signet's publisher number, Q5480 is the catalog number for the book, and 095 is the price in dollars) so you could remove the comment about what the price is "believed" to have been. It looks like someone originally entered this record from a printing history in a later edition and was guessing about the price. It is always ok to adjust notes along those lines based on what is actually seen on/in the book. --MartyD 11:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. The meaning of the note wasn't entirely clear to me (which edition was concerned) so i chose to left it untouched.Hauck 11:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

date for The Long Night
Hi. I approved your submission of, but I have a question: Did you deliberately set the date to 0000-00-00 instead of 1983-05-00 (your note says the book says "Second printing, May 1983")? Sometimes the software wipes out dates if they are mis-formatted or illegal dates, so I can't tell what really happened. If you did blank out the date, is there a reason not to use the May 1983 stated in the book? Given the $2.95 price, it seems reasonable it might have been published in the same month as the first printing. Thanks. --MartyD 11:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a mistake (i've just corrected it), there is just "second printing" stated on the copyright page (the may date is for the first one).Hauck 12:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

excerpt of Fallen Angels in People of the Wind
Sorry, it seems my goal this morning is to fill up your talk page! :-) Lucky for you, I have to go to work soon....

I noticed your note about Fallen Angels in. If you are interested, you can -- and we do -- record excerpts as additional content. The way you would do this is edit the publication, then scroll down to the "Content" area. There, click on the "Add Title" button, which will give you a new blank set of fields to fill out. We give extracts/excerpts the title of the book + "(excerpt)", so in this case the title would be Fallen Angels (excerpt). We give these a type of SHORTFICTION and either leave the length blank or set it to "shortstory". You can add as many authors as appropriate, using the names as listed on the excerpt.

You do not have to do this. I only mention it in case you did not know you could do it. --MartyD 12:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. There are some more sophisticated actions that i do not dare to try now, e.g. the second volume of the collection _The earth book of Stormgate_ of which I have two different editions. Hauck 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Any 'sophisticated' attempts that don't work will be caught [hopefully ;-)] by a Moderator, and you'll certainly learn more from a couple of flawed submissions than from none! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Time and Stars
You've added an image to [this] which matches the record but the note added "Second Sphere printing", did you mean to type Panther? ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, corrected. Hauck 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a question : Is it better to replace scans from Amazon by ISFDB-hosted ones ? I do this when they seems to malfunction but I was wondering what was the policy about this (stability vs. cost of storage) Hauck 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On-site images are always preferable to off-site ones, especially the Amazon ones that have all the ZZZZZZZs in the URL, as they disappear after any update in Amazon's records for that publication. Those I replace without even thinking about it. All others I simply weigh if the image I'm uploading is at least as clear as the one I want to replace. As long as the file size stays under the 150kb size, storage isn't a problem. I also 'doctor' bad covers in my photo program to get rid of creases, splotches, etc to try and put the best image possible next to the pub; after all, we're not selling any of them! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't we? I could be persuaded to part with some of mine. Of course, "minimum order" and "buyer collects" rules apply, but so far nobody's approached me about anything I've verified... is my entire collection that unwanted? BLongley 20:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If I had money, I would bid immediately. Just the cover art would be worth it. Would you exchange for cactus plants or tumbleweeds, those I have in excess? I have tracked several down after seeing what you had, though belated, my super profound thanks. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From the descriptions of the move, would it require one container ship or two? And just for the hardcovers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, the hardcovers wouldn't fill the boot of my car (if I had the car at the moment, it's currently having a blown alternator replaced). I'm mainly a paperback man. Those took rather more effort... BLongley 18:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle Circle
Accepted [this] but not sure what the note means about "Canadian price listed first". If the pub has dual pricing, as nearly all North American pubs from the early 80s on do, we always list the US price and mention the CDN one in the notes. In general the price listed should be for the country of printing, or distribution [many UK pubs are printed in other countries but intended for the UK market]. There are some odd exceptions, of course. In the early 80s Baen would black out the price on the cover, but not the spine, and print a new price beside the blacked out one for the editions intended for Canadian distribution. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just meaning that the Canadian price is mentioned first. It looks like "$ 5.75 (CAN) $ 4.50 (US)" which strike me as unusual as it's generally the price in USD which is first. (peraphs a canadian market edition ?).Hauck 19:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay! I personally think all things Canadian should be mentioned first, being one myself!! But I think I'm outnumbered here..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like "(Canada $5.75) US $4.50" to me, and I'd normally consider the bracketed price as the oddity. If it wasn't bracketed I'd list the Canadian price as main price and put the US one in notes quite happily - I'm not defensive over pricing and always go by the order of prices unless some look like exceptions. Of course, most of my books are either British editions (with up to 7 other prices listed, sometimes in currencies that no longer exist) or US editions with Canadian prices as secondary ones, but there are a few with USA, Canada and UK prices in that order where I've left the UK price to notes. And I think I have an Australian publication or two somewhere that was priced for Australia first and UK second - a bit of a rarity in my collection though. I've probably got more "Printed in Canada - not for sale in Canada" publications, which always looked a little odd. BLongley 21:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just a side remark on something (the canadian price first, as it is also on the spine) which was odd. As I'm French, i'm not partial about this ^_^. Hauck 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * French from France rather than French Canadian? (You haven't told us much about yourself so far - which is fine, I haven't told people which planet I'm from and just pass as an Anglo-Centric creature of some kind. ;-) ). BLongley 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From France, precisely Nantes (which may explain some time lag). I wrote a few things about me on my user page. Hauck 17:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Line Breaks
Just an FYI: if you want your notes to read as separate lines instead of just one run-on sentence/paragraph, it is necessary to type in an HTML break  as the software does not recognize a 'carriage return' as a break. In the few submissions of yours that I've checked, I did notice that the notes are put in as separate lines, but without the breaks, so I've added them. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My HTML knowledge is close to zero (I'm of the FORTRAN generation and quit the computer field long ago). Hauck 18:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When I started on this site, mine was less than zero!!! Now it's maybe 3%. I just learned by looking how other editors got the effects and copied. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to verified pubs II
Hi. I approved a couple of submissions replacing Amazon images with your own, matching scans. That's a good thing to do. But if a publication is verified by someone, our practice is to let them know about such edits on their talk pages (or according to their instructions on those talk pages). Even if you think you are providing an identical image, you should still let the verifier know. Sometimes the old Amazon link (especially the ones with the LZZZZZZZZ in them) may no longer be pointing to the same image it was at the time of verification. We have had cases of different covers on the same printings of books, too. I left notes on User_talk:Kraang/Changes_to_Verified_Pubs for the first two, but I see there are more in the submission queue, so maybe you could take care of the notes for those. Thanks, --MartyD 16:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought that changing amazon-based scans by similar ones was a trivial matter. I was wrong. Hauck 17:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is trivial, and it is a very good thing to do. I should have started by thanking you for doing it!  The notifications are annoying extra work, but every once in a while a mistake or incorrect information gets caught.  I have had it happen to some of my verified pubs, so I know it does happen, and I was happy I had been notified and could correct the problem.  --MartyD 18:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm learning. Hauck 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rx for Chaos
How can you get 437 pages into a pub? I suspect the overall page-count needs updating. BLongley 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very small typeface ? (corrected). Hauck 18:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. BLongley 18:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Fox
Approved the submission for [this] but put the price back in as the source was likely Tuck (that verification is done for this pub). The notation of secondary sources for data has undergone many changes and it wasn't always noted where some information came from (cover artists quite often). You could always double-check with [Mike] or [Willem] as they both have the Tuck volumes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can even have a look in my own copy of the Tuck (I have the whole set) -> which effectively indicates a price of 9/- for this edition (as does Benson & Stephesen-Payne in their Anderson bibliography). This raises an interesting point : I have the book just here and can say positively that 1) there is absolutly no price on it and 2) my copy has a complete dust jacket (not price-clipped as it's sometimes the case). So does this book can be said to have a price ? BTW, it's a frequent problem with french books that very rarely have prices printed on them, especially pbs. It works by a system of classification (a number of stars ou lozenges or a category) on the book coupled wtih a price table in the bookstores which allow to calculate the final price. Apart from being a bibliographical nightmare, it's also very practical for the publishers to rise their prices. A marvellous invention. Hauck 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You did the correct thing of noting that there is no price in/on the book, and you could add that it comes from Tuck. At some point in time the SFBC UK would have had some flier or ad or something with a price for it (Tuck got it from somewhere). I only have a couple of their editions but both note prices of at least one other book or give the current general price of selections. With any book club edition pricing and/or publication dates are almost always derived. As long as the notes cover those gray areas....! Speaking of gray, did the SFBC UK ever do a cover that wasn't shades of gray?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're cruel, there are nice violet ones here Hauck 19:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand suitably chastised!!!  ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I've got ! But of course, NO SFBC UK covers are gray. Grey maybe... BLongley 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Engineer Re-Conditioned
Found the publication date for [this] on [Locus] so added that with a note. Any record that has a day in the date, 2010-03-01 for example, that last number came from Amazon and is utterly unreliable (their software doesn't allow a date to end with double 00s; also their pre-release data comes from the publishers many months before the actual release date and could be wrong by weeks or months). If/when you run across these and the publication/book-in-hand doesn't corroborate that, just change it. In this case the [Locus Index] for 2006 would not have been put online yet so the date was left as it came from Amazon. We have two data-mining robots that go after all this 'stuff' so at least we have 'stub' records. Since the Locus Index is one of the Secondary Verification sources, the dates from there can be used and noted if the book doesn't have the specifics. Same for prices. So many used hardcovers are price-clipped..... FYI! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-publisher's Ads
I rejected the edit for Brian Ball's "Regiments of Night" as the only change was adding a note about a cigarette ad. There are times when a publisher's ad has been used to date a publication, and thus deserves a notation. In general no bound-in non-publishers' ads are noted at all. They are not bibliographical and really don't add any additional identifier to the pub. Plus there's no way to be sure they were present in the entire printing. It is fun to see the old SFBC ads of five books for 10¢ though! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that was interesting from a strict collector's viewpoint. Hauck 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DAW #
In Barrett's "Karma Corps", is the DAW # called a "Collectors No."? Just curious as there was some point where DAW started referring to them like that, and I have narrowed it down to somewhere around the number 600. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it's "DAW collectors' book No. 604". Hauck 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To narrow it down a bit, Demon in the Skull has DAW Collectors' Book No. 585 on the copyright page, The 1984 Annual World's Best SF (#581) has nothing. Willem H. 20:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Though that kills my theory that the change happened when DAW quit the yellow spines. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mendoza in Hollywood
Added a note and link re: cover art credit to [this] ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bear's The Serpent Mage
I have your submission adding a new pub to this title, but it seems to be very similar to this existing record. The one difference is that yours is undated. It appears that the existing record was based on the Locus listing which gives a date of publication regardless of whether it's stated in the pub. You can verify the existing record, noting that the date is from Locus, and not stated in the book itself. Or we can delete the existing record, keep yours as undated, and note the date given by Locus. The first method is preferable because Locus is considered a reliable source for dating (though you should always note the source if the book itself is undated.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's effectively what I thought but the date on the book is really 1988 so perhaps it's Locus that is wrong, particularly considering the fact that's it's british book and that they usually are less reliable about those. Do as you see fit. Hauck 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If the book has a stated publication date it should be entered into the date field. I assumed that it didn't, because that field is zeroed out in your submission (0000-00-00) leaving it as an undated pub.  There's no record of this ISBN (0-09-953700-1) on OCLC or BLIC.  It does show up on Amazon.co.uk with a publication date of 19-Jan-1989.  I'll reject the submission, and ask that you update the current record to match your pub in hand, and do a primary verification.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to do exactly this (update the existing publication). I forgot to change the 0000 to 1988 in my initial edit. Hauck 09:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Links in notes
Hi. In your newly submitted, you have included a Wiki-style link in the notes. Unfortunately, the main database does not use the Wiki software, so that style does not work as you intended. To embed a link in the notes, you need to use HTML:

here

For this particular case, rather than linking you might attach the cover image. For covers that look the same but have minor differences (such as a price or catalog number or the placement of the logo), it is ok to attach the cover from a different printing and to describe the differences between that and the actual cover in the notes. For example, you might say "Cover is from the first printing; actual cover has "Arrow" logo at bottom left instead of bottom right" if the logo had moved. In many cases, the cover will not change at all from one printing to another, in which case using the same image is fine -- it does not matter that the image was scanned from another edition if it looks the same. --MartyD 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact I was (badly) trying to link to _21st Century Foss_, abook of Foss artwork. Hervé Hauck 14:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

binding on The Star Dwellers
Hi. Your submission of had a binding of "p". I assumed you meant this to be "pb" and changed it to that. I apologize if that is not correct, in which case please change it to whatever it should be. --MartyD 14:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're completely right. Hervé Hauck 14:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bloody Sun
Checked my ACE edition of [] this and there is a sketch by Jack Gaughan [JG] on the first page of text. Three people looking out a view-port at a sun. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the same one. Hervé Hauck 17:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fall of Tartarus
If [this] is a second printing, should the date be 000-00-00? ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're too fast ! I've seen and just corrected this mistake. Hervé Hauck 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Think you and I are the only ones here, so who else would I watch!! :-) ~Bill --Bluesman 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New York Blues
Changed the source for the month to Locus for [this]. A clue to the source is that the page count ended in an odd number. No Amazon record has an odd number. The [Locus Index] is invaluable, and currently runs, online, to the end of 2007. The Eric Brown book is here: BROWN, ERIC (1960- ) (stories) (chron.) * *New York Blues (Orion/Gollancz 0-575-07301-2, Sep 2002, £6.99, 309pp, pb, cover by Chris Moore) [Virex] SF novel, book two in the “Virex” trilogy after New York Nights. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd better do also this for the two others Virex. I know the value of the Locus index (I started my sub in 1986 and have also the all the hardbound volumes, in addition to some CDs). Hauck 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I caught those two as well. I didn't know there were hardcovers. Year's best kind of thing or one per year collections? I just got the latest CD-ROM in December which includes all the way into early 2009. Has been quite helpful. I copied it onto my hard-drive (ssssh!) and keep it open in a tab at all times. It's actually quicker to check than our DB. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One per year between 1985 and 1991, like here. Hauck 19:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Brunner's Not Before Time
Re: your verified pub. I've removed the title record for "Children in Hiding" and merged "Seizure" with the pre-existing record for that title as a variant of "Children..." Mhhutchins 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Furious Future and ''The Unexpected Dimension content
Hi. After approving your submission, I merged the content titles in your. I see you already marked the publication as verified, so you may want to look that over and make sure everything matches.

Do you know about "Import Content"? It is like "Clone Pub", but you can use it to copy contents into an existing publication, such as you were working with here. You can import just the titles, or you can import titles and page numbers (either way, you can also edit the page numbers during the import process). This saves you from typing all of the content information and doing much merging. All you have to do is find another publication with the same content and copy its tag or ID. --MartyD 10:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did the same for the content of . --MartyD 11:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, it will save me the time spent in copying the titles (and with the proper capitals per your anglo-saxon usage ;-)). Hauck 13:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

artist signature help
I saw your note about the unreadable artist signature in. People often post signature identification requests to ISFDB:Verification_requests. Especially where you have a scanner, you may find that resource very useful. There is also an Artist Signature Images category with a small library of signature images -- I am sure more contributions to it are welcome. --MartyD 11:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like Ralph Brillhart to me. Willem H. 15:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I compared it with my copy of _Ten from Infinity_ and the signature is the same. Hauck 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

New Amsterdam changes
Hi. Your proposed changes to lost the cover image. From your note on WimLewis' talk page, I assumed you intended to replace it with your scan, which I found you have uploaded. So I have tried to save you some work and have put that in. I cannot tell what happened with your original edit. Apologies if this isn't what you wanted. --MartyD 13:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Probably bad manip from me. Hervé Hauck 13:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

proposed Moving Mars cover change
Hi. I have put your proposed cover image change to on hold. Why do you want to change it from Bluesman's full cover scan (see ) to your own front cover-only scan? --MartyD 14:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the present scan is the cover of the SFBC version (note the number in bottom of back cover which matches with this one), I know, it's only nitpicking but the two covers are in fact different (the Tor HC doesn't have this number, of course). Hervé Hauck 14:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a very good reason! Change accepted.  Thanks, --MartyD 14:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg Bear's Early Harvest
The link you provided to the cover image for this pub was for its wiki page, not the image itself. Mhhutchins 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For once the image was immediately displayed (usually there's a kind of error message), that's what troubled me. Corrected (I hope). Hauck 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You get the error message when the image is larger than 600 pixels high or wide. You can bypass the message by clicking on "my preferences" (top left of this page), and changing the setting under "files" (Limit images on file description pages to ...) Willem H. 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Hervé Hauck 15:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Brown's Time-Lapsed Man
According to the notes you placed in this record, two of the stories are differently titled. There are two methods that can be used to correct this. The db currently only has "Pithecanthropas Blues" being published in two editions of this title. If we can determine that the title in both is "Pithecanthropus Blues", then we don't have to use the first method above. We can edit the title directly through its title record. Locus1 gives the spelling in the Pan edition the same as yours. Because that edition hasn't been verified I suggest that you use this method to change the title of the story. The only other publication for "The Girl Who Died for Art, and Lived" is in a verified issue of Interzone. We could ask the verifier to recheck if there is a comma in that printing, but he is currently inactive. Locus1 gives a comma in the title for both its Interzone appearance and its publication in the Pan edition of the collection. So we have to use the first method to correct your pub method. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You could delete the current titles using the "Remove Titles From This Pub" function in the Editing Tools menu. Then edit the pub record by adding two new content records for the two stories, recording the titles exactly as they appear on the stories' title pages.
 * 2) You could go directly to the stories' title records and change them there. CAVEAT: you must be absolutely sure that all printings are exactly the same before using this method.
 * As I have a complete run of Interzone, I can look at #22 => just doing that : the title is with comma on TOC but without it in the title of the story proper (page 51). Hauck 19:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone entered from the contents page. :( Good for us though.  You can use the second method to change the titles of both stories to match that in your collection. Mhhutchins 19:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Brunner's From This Day Forward
About the note you placed on this pub: I believe your copy is a later printing. Doubleday almost always gives a "First Edition" statement on the first printings, usually below the copyright information or the Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data. It most cases they also print a gutter code that indicates the week of printing. It can be found on or near the last page of text and consists of a letter and two numbers (usually). We can use this to date the printing, but not the publication date. Also check the dustjacket for a price. If it's missing it may be a book club edition, which in 1972 was indicated at the bottom of the front flap. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also intially thought that it was the SFBC edition (it has the number #5282 on back flap of the dj), but the price (also on dj) is really $5.95 (with F.T.D.F. written just on top of it) and page count is wrong regarding to verified here. There's no mention of SFBC anywhere on the book. Hervé Hauck 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, we know it's not a bce. Does it have a gutter code? Mhhutchins 19:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not any that I can find, sorry. Hauck 19:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes they're not on the last page, and sometimes they can get buried deep in the gutter. If there's not a visible one printed in the book, we can make a note of that also.  Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Budrys' Blood and Burning
I have no intention of overwhelming you so much, but there's one more comment. When you do a primary verification on a pub record, especially for collections and anthologies, it is understood that the contents have also been verified. I noticed there are no contents currently shown for this pub record. Perhaps you intend to go back and add the contents and I saw it before you got the chance. Thanks and sorry for being so attentive to detail. Mhhutchins 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering how to enter the titles of the stories without creating problems (with wrong capitals) as i can't import an existing collection. Hauck 19:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually you can import the contents from the Berkley edition. (Make sure to uncheck the page import box.) After that's accepted, you can use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function for any that are missing or don't exactly match.  Then do an edit to add new contents and the page numbers for the stories.  Mhhutchins 19:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Entering / updating SFBC editions
I'm holding your submission updating the SFBC edition of Algis Budrys' Hard Landing. You want to change the field containing the SFBC ID number into the trade edition's ISBN. Ordinarily we would record the ISBN in this field, but the ISBN in this edition actually reprints that of the trade edition. In these cases we use the SFBC ID number. See this help page about special circumstances required for entering SFBC editions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, follow your usage, as far as I'm concerned it's just that, bibliographically speaking, it's quite a strange custom to disdain what's really on the book (like the ISBN) or add information which isn't in it (like the price) but it's just my narrow way of practising bibliography which is strictly book-based. Hervé Hauck 20:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why we have special instructions for entering these non-standard publications. Usual standards just don't apply.  Otherwise, every book club edition would have so many blank fields that they become useless under ordinary circumstances.  Can we both agree that when a book club reprints another publisher's book, using that publisher's assigned ISBN, that it is an unusual situation?  You are free to record in the pub record's notes the ISBN that is stated in the book.  We're only trying to distinguish the book club edition from the trade edition so that there will be no confusion of the two.  There are several more exceptions we make in entering book club editions, adding information that is not stated in the book itself.  The notes field can be used to explain which data is not printed in the book, and there we can record the source of such data.  Thanks for understanding. Mhhutchins 21:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW the link you added for the cover image is to its wiki page, not the image itself. Also, the reason the copyright page gives the wrong artist is because it reprints the copyright page of the trade edition which had a cover by Mattingly. Another reason not to trust the copyright page of a book club edition. Mhhutchins 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Armageddon
Approved [this]. What's a "kind" portrait?? As in flattering??¿¿?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 12:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as in "strange", it depict the face of the author on a sort of eggshell (broken on the egdes) floating in space with astronauts and spaceships hovering by. Do you want scan ? Hauck 12:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I just hadn't seen that description before, so asked. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 12:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Black Star Passes
I edited the author credit on your verified pub to match your note. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

artist on The Star Tablet
Your guess about Christian McGrath's doing the cover art on seems to be correct. See his website, column 6, row 3. I can adjust the notes, but since it is your verified pub I thought I would see if you wanted to do it. --MartyD 11:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Modified. BTW, I saw that there is a Chris McGrath (e. g. on the Troy-Castro books) and a Christian McGrath (like on the Caselberg books), as they are evidently the same, perhaps they can be merged (note that I have strictly no idea as how can this be done).Hauck 11:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not mean take away the note entirely, but rather say something like "Cover art matched to artist's website". For the cases where we record information not present in the publication (the publication date and the cover artist are where this happens most often), we use the notes to record where the information came from.


 * As for Chris and Christian, yes, they do appear to be the same. We handle this just as we do author name variations: we make one a pseudonym of the other, and then we take each coverart title by the pseudonym and make a variant using the canonical (primary) name as the "author" so that all of the works appear in that bibliography.  Normally we would make the name used on most of the titles be the canonical name.  Here the volume under each name is almost the same.  If you would like to do this, I suggest you first post a note on the ISFDB:Community Portal and ask if anyone has a strong opinion about which (Chris or Christian) should be the canonical name.  Then make the loser a pseudonym of the winner.  Variants for the pseudonym's titles do not have to be made immediately -- those can be fixed over time.  --MartyD 11:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Downtiming the Night Side
I put this submission on hold. There is nothing wrong with your proposed note, but it suggests we do not have the title recorded correctly (we go by what is on the title page). I've asked Kraang to take a look -- he is also primary verifier on the only other publication using that title. --MartyD 12:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I approved the submission. Kraang is going to do some tweaking of titles and notes.  Thanks.  --MartyD 16:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Man-Kzin Wars X: The Wunder War
Approved the edit for [this]. Now, the four stories need to be merged with their counterparts in the hardcover edition. By entering them separately, the DB creates new title records for each one. As you can see from Colbatch's [page] the four stories are entered twice, once under shortfiction and once as part of the Man-Kzin series. From the same page select from the Editing Tools "Check for Duplicate Titles", which will bring up [this] page. Just click a pair of boxes and hit the merge button. When you hit the merge another screen will appear. If there are differences in data between the two titles, as there will be here, you need to choose between them before submitting. In this case, each story exists within the series Man-Kzin, so you want to keep those options; also, always pick the earliest date. In one case there is a conflict between designations of the work: Novel - Shortfiction. The length in the HC edition would seem to make it a novel. Once you've done the options then hit submit. You do not have to wait for one to be approved before doing the rest, just back up a couple of screens and pick another pair until you've done the four. Any time contents are entered manually, this merge process needs to be done, if the stories exist anywhere else. There is a shortcut, however, that you can use in future. By opening up the hardcover edition, in this case, [here] you can see the pubs 'tag' of MNKZNX2003 in the URL. Copy this, then back out and open up the record for the paperback. In the Editing Tools is an option to "Import Content" which would give you [this] page. Enter the 'tag' from the hardcover. You also are given the option to import the page numbers or not. This process will automatically merge the records, prevent misspellings (you had typed the one story as "Wonderwar" instead of "Wunderwar"). Way less typing. One caution, though. If there had already been say one story listed, the import does not overwrite it, just adds so there would end up being two stories the same in the one pub. Getting rid of the duplicate can be a pain. That doesn't happen very often, though. FYI! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just done. I knew of the import pub procedure (i'm as lazy as others) but I didn't see the HC (even if I knew that there was one as I had to wait to buy the pb). Hervé Hauck 17:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked previous discussions to see if it had come up before posting the above. Learned from my too-numerous-to-count mistakes to never assume what an editor knows. ~Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, bibliographic verification is quite a (intellectually) tiring job where you can too easily forget what you learned yesterday. i must confess that, in this case, I'm always troubled by the way texts in series are presented separately, leading (falsely) to believe that Colebatch has not write short fiction. Hervé Hauck 17:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

pages in Ancestor's World
Hi. A couple of things related to pages in your recent submission. One of these I did not know until a couple of weeks ago myself....


 * 1) If material appears after the last numbered page (as your note about the Afterword suggests is the case), we count forward from the last numbered page and use that count as the page count, rather than the last page number.  Here, it looks like the page count should be at least 305.  See Help:Screen:EditPub.


 * 1) If material appears after the last numbered page, we count forward to get the starting page and use that number in square brackets ( "[" and "]" ) in the contents list.  Here, you would use " [305] ".  See Help:Screen:EditPub.

Obscure little details! Thank you for all of the edits and scans you have been doing. --MartyD 10:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tried to do just this. The page count problem has a lot of different solutions. In my own work, I use what I privately call the "Stephenson-Payne rule" which states that the number of pages of a book is the highest page number printed in it. It's more of a book-collector's habit (easiest identification) than a bibliographer's as it leaves lots of the books in my own database a few pages short :-). Hervé Hauck 10:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction/Foreword in The Best of John W. Campbell
For, where you have noted that "Introduction" is actually "Foreword", the content entry should be corrected. In looking at the title, I see the only other verified publication is this, and there Bill has it as "Foreword".

In a situation such as this, you have two choices. If your copy uses one title and another copy legitimately uses a different title, you should: remove from the contents the one your copy does not use, add to the contents the one your copy does use, and make one of these a variant of the other. If your copy uses one title and another copy seems to have an incorrect title, you can edit the title record itself and change it to reflect the proper title (all publications using the title record you edit will reflect the change). You have to be careful with this latter change, but moderators are here to double-check and prevent mistakes, so don't hesitate to do what you think is right. You can always ask on ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard if you are unsure of the proper way to correct something (that also helps moderators know what it is you are trying to do).

This is all just for future reference. Here, I will change the title to "Foreword" and merge it with the existing "Foreword", since it is easier for me to do the multiple edits required. Please check that it looks correct when I am done. Thanks. --MartyD 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Thanks for the manipulations. That's my main worry as I wish to avoid creating double entries, so I thread lightly on title modifications. Hervé Hauck 11:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"A Plague of Change" in The Quicksilver Screen
Should this A Plague of Change in your modified and now verified be an excerpt ("A Plague of Change (excerpt)"), or is it a bonus story? --MartyD 11:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're absolutely right, it's a excerpt of another "Discovery" Tittle, I updated it. Hauck 17:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Airmont dating
Quite often later Airmont printings will have a date on the bottom of the last page of the book, which is usually just a blank end-page. Sometimes they don't, but it doesn't hurt to look! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry to disappoint you :-), but there's just no end-page on this one, last page is #128 (last page of text), no date that I can see. Hervé Hauck 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Anderson's Rogue Sword
According to Locus #236 (August 1980), this printing was published in July 1980. You can use this to date the record, and record the source in the notes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Hauck 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Two Georges
Just checking that the date submitted for a new pub under this title was correct: January 1997. There's already one with a November date and that's the only PB that Locus lists. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed the november 1997 edition but supposed it was a mistake or a later printing. I confirm the January 1997 date ("First Mass Market Edition : January 1997"). For Locus, even if I'm a subscriber since the mid eighties, I have had sometimes reservations about the bibliographical data. Hervé Hauck 18:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With paperbacks they didn't always get the first printings, and just note what comes through the door. Thanks for checking! ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I think Locus was much more into when a book hit the market, and sometimes there are delays in publication, though 11 months would be extreme!. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ω
Just approved [this] and the one part of the note (348, unnumbered) can be done just by placing the page number inside square brackets, thus [348]. It's how libraries do page counts and it's used here too. This short form can be used in the page count field as well when there are excerpts, etc. on unnumbered pages. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The note about the summary is fine as a note, but the summary itself isn't "Contents". Nearly every paperback has such a publisher's blurb at the beginning but they're not considered contents. Odd for a hardcover to have/repeat something from the jacket in the front or back thus a good note. Definitely not contents, though. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can delete my edit. I was also surprised by this blurb (alone between blank pages at the end), that why I put this note.I thought you wanted me to change the contents. Hauck 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was just noting a shorter/less typing way of saying the same thing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hauck 16:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Early DAWs
Two records, [this], and [this]. They are the same book/edition. The notes on the one with the date are misleading, and I'll let the verifiers know. The Canadian editions of the early DAW books, from 1005 to about 1023 have the first printing statement, while the US ones just had the copyright date. That's because the New American Library [of Canada - never been able to figure that one out] printed the Canadian editions from the US plates but added the First Printing statement and "Printed in Canada" [the NAL addess is on the title page as well]. Then, from roughly 1023 to about 1047-8 the US editions used the First Printing statement but used a spelled 'number line': First printing/Second printing/Third printing/.../Tenth printing which the Canadian editions did not, sticking with a normal number line. After that both used a normal number line. So, what I would ask you to do is move your verification, and image [which is better than the one that is there], to the other dated record. Then I'm going to delete the undated one. I'm also going to create a new record for the US edition. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Hervé Hauck 17:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And it turned out Willem has the US edition, so now we have records for both. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact my copy is visibly the US one (just the copyright date). I modified the "primary" markers accordingly and upload the cover instead of the amazon one. Hauck 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed price to Canadian, added NAL (canada), Retained printing date, removed note someone else put about later printing. IMO this is a 'simultaneously printed' in Canada situation. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * this one still needs to be deleted. --Willem 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Hauck 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

artist credit on The January Dancer
Hi. I have put on hold your submission that would add "Nicholas Bouvier/Sparth" as the cover artist on The January Dancer. Nicholas Bouvier and Sparth are the same person, so it seems we should be using one of those names or the other, and not both. How is it credited in/on the book? Thanks, --MartyD 10:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. I've thought along the same lines and verified on his site here(the more so because he's -i think- a french artist) but the credit is (strangely) to "Nicolas Bouvier/Sparth". I don't know how you wish to proceed (perhaps make this a pseudonym of Nicolas Bouvier). Hervé Hauck 10:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I brought this up as a Rules and Standards discussion, but there were no strong opinions. Swfritter pointed out there's a value in capturing the reference as-is (so someone seeing and searching for "Bouvier/Sparth" will get a result).  So I am going to accept the submission the way you have it and make that name be a pseudonym for Sparth.  --MartyD 10:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. IMHO, the transcription of exactly what is on the book is the way to follow.Hauck 10:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reunion and Robert Hunt
Hi. I've placed your submission of the changes to Reunion on hold. You propose changing "Robert Hunt (artist)" to "Robert Hunt". We sometimes use parentheticals (in this case, "(artist)"; sometimes years) to distinguish people with the same name. So in this case the Robert Hunt who did this cover is NOT one of the other Robert Hunts we have in the database. See versus  versus. That said, I think perhaps something isn't quite right with our Robert Hunt entry. I will check on that. Does anything about your publication suggest the cover is by a Robert Hunt other than the one we label "(artist)"? --MartyD 10:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Robert Hunt of the Foster covers (either (artist) or not ) are by the same person, as I have most the Foster titles and they're coherent with the same person. I thought that it was a mistake and corrected accordingly, misled by the fact that in french, "artist" is applicable to a painter or a writer indifferently so "Robert Hunt (Artist)" is, for me, a kind of oxymoron. Hauck 11:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you (the Foster covers look like they are done by the same person). Bill Longley pointed me at this site, which does NOT show any covers looking like those Foster ones.  So I let your change go through as you had it.  We can fix those covers later if we can figure out whether this Robert Hunt is the same or not.  --MartyD 10:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll put Robert Hunt for the Foster pbs which I plan to attack soon. BTW, i gave a look in the Weinberg and found no entry on "Robert Hunt", sorry. Hauck 12:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wind Whales of Ishmael
Except for the price, the pub you want to add seems to be the same as [this]. Since it is basically a stub record, there's no telling what sources were used to create it, so no way of knowing if it is correct. If yours is the first printing then it is unlikely a lower priced printing exists. By overwriting/changing the existing record the image could be added at he same time. Thoughts? ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be frank, that's exactly what I supposed. Having no way of knowing when (or by whom) the first pub (diverging by the price) was entered, I prefered to add another one and see what you'd say about this. I'm going to : 1) delete my sub and 2) update the existing pub. Hauck 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And approved! Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think is the allegedly non-existent lower-priced one with the Bob Habberfield cover. What makes you think the 40p one is a first printing? BLongley 19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's actually a very good online bibliography for PJF. See here for what they say about your edition. BLongley 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For your question "What makes you think the 40p one is a first printing?", simply that it is "The first edition of 1973 according to the book" as says the site, meaning that my assessement was based on data present on the book. Note that the Galactic Central Biblio on Farmer even lists another Quartet edition at 35p. Also note that Bishop in here is also in favor of the 35p edition.Hauck 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What exactly does it say on the copyright page of your edition? The website seems to have determined it is actually an April 1974 reprint, but doesn't say why. And whatever the copyright page says seems to mislead. As you have the (possibly) misleading edition I'm wondering what the problems are. I can't honestly say mine is any clearer, just that mine has an artist credit and the website says mine is earlier. BLongley 21:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The copyright page states : "First published in GB by Quartet Books Limited in 1973" without any additional data, which I take to mean (like for most british publishers) that it's supposed to be the first printing. There are a few other 'recent' (as it says) Quartet titles listed at the end : The english assassin, Chamiel with correct prices and which seem to be 1973 titles. My conclusion is that yours is probably the first printing because of its price (have we ever saw publishers lowering their prices ?) and the data given by Bishop here and Stephensen-Payne & Benson (strangely not in ISFDB). My copy is a subsequent printing (2nd ?) but non datable, which means that in fact my first submission was correct. If you're OK with this analysis, let me know, I'll modify the relevant data on my verified copy. Hervé Hauck 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think your 1st submission was better. Mine also has the same "First published in GB by Quartet Books Limited in 1973" and the same details of "The English Assassin" and "Chamiel" so I think that internally the book didn't change between printings, only the cover did. I'd remove the artist credit from yours as it's plainly different: whether you want to accept the PJF site's dating is another matter. It must be approximately 1973/74 from the price - by 1975 they were mostly 50p - but that may not be an authoritative enough source for your taste. I'd note the suggested date's source whether or not you make your pub 0000-00-00 or 1974-04-00. BLongley 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Modifications done. I'd rather stick to the 0000-00-00 (Book data first !) but put the site date in the note. Hervé Hauck 18:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Replay
Approved the submission for [this] and am thinking the note could be clearer as to what draws the assumption of a second printing. If someone else has the same book there's no way to compare just from the record. A clear statement of what's there, even if it's not conclusive, could prevent duplicate submissions in the future. Up to you. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Di Filippo's Emperor of Gondwanaland
I've updated the notes of this verified printing. I also added the hyphen and changed the ampersand to "and" in the title of "Time-Travel Blasphemies I and II" as it appears on the story's title page, not in the TOC. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Structura: The Art of Sparth
I added a colon -- it looks like "The Art of Sparth" is a subtitle. If you're interested, Amazon has an entry with a Look Inside of the first edition. --MartyD 10:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think that's better with a colon, no problem. I'm always ambivalent with all this subtilte business, particularely in reference books where I sometimes wonder where the title proper really ends. Hauck 10:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cover upload for Bill, the Galactic Hero
I see you fixed the link. After I reverted it (and while I was typing here), I realized what you had done. Sorry, I am not truly awake yet.... --MartyD 09:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The sad effects of time zones (here it's about 12:00 AM, time to have breakfast). Hauck 09:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Plague From Space
I have approved the changes to Plague From Space, but I wondered if you meant to overwrite the original comment -- "Price from the British Library Integrated Catalogue" -- or to add to it instead? Ahasuerus 02:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I effectively wanted to overwrite it as I have the book here and can verify the price directly. Hauck 05:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, thanks! Ahasuerus 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers
I approved the addition of the 5th printing of the Orbit edition, but I note that the date is set to 0000-00-00. According to the 1992 reprint, it may have been published in 1984, but you will probably want to check with the verifier. Ahasuerus 02:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I verified in the Tomlinson and so added data. Hauck 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 14:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rebel in Time
I approved the changes to the Granada edition and then used "Unmerge" to make the publication into a separate Title record. I then created a Variant Title relationship between the two -- see Help:How to unmerge titles for details. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions about the unmerge process :-) Ahasuerus 16:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for now it's a bit too complex for me, glad that you did it ;-). Hauck 16:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, one step at a time! :) Ahasuerus 17:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I should probably check my own copy (that art looks familiar). I'm still not sure if I can unpack, or need to repack fast - I've suddenly reaslised that renewal of my current lease may not be as automatic as I thought. BLongley 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope it won't be a major problem to you :-(. Hauck 05:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Other Log of Phileas Fogg
Have a look at [this] discussion as it might affect your verification. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's OK, my copy is with the stack of Xth printing. Hauck 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Colossus
I approved your edit of Colossus, but you entered the ISBN as 330-02110-9. I added the 0 (0-330-02110-9) to make it a valid ISBN number. --Willem H. 19:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I hesitated to add the first zero. Hauck 20:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Soft Targets
I had to hold your edit for this title. It looks like you're trying to change this pub to an undated second printing, that looks remarkably like this one. Can you explain this? Second, you added the to the cover illustration. You probably know that the illustration itself should be linked. --Willem H. 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here also I hesitated as my copy is clearly a second printing (line "24689753") coherent with the note here but not with the other data. For this one, I wasn't sure that the note was correct (I think that the printing line is usually concerning only one type of book, pb or tp) so I thought it wrong and referring to the first printing of the pb which wasn't my copy. I deleted the sub but don't know whah to do. Hauck 20:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you can safely add a primary2-verification to the 1980 printing. If you want to be absolutely sure, you can ask Michael Hutchins (who did the primary verification) to compare his copy with the notes you want to add. You're right about the printing line usually referring to only one type of publication, I think Ace discovered it's mistake with this title when they reprinted the book in 1986. --Willem H. 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Hauck 09:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Grimsley's The Last Green Tree
Added notes to your verified pub of this title. Mhhutchins 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This level of detail is impressive. Hauck 08:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Odyssey
Approved the image change for [this] and noticed there is a difference in the date/month in the field and the notes. Locus has March and is probably where the original record came from. Does the pub have February as the note suggests? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, the date indicated on the book is February 2002. I toyed with the idea of changing it but I thought that you usually value Locus a lot, so supposed it's one of this case where they (Locus) usually explain that the real publication date is when the book is for sale, not what written on the it ;-). Hervé Hauck 17:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As valuable as Locus can be, book-in-hand is the ace to their king! Their data may be inferred in this case as there is no 'seen' date in their record. In this kind of data conflict it's best to use the book and note that the secondary source is different. That way a later editor doesn't [hopefully] create a duplicate record. Even with an accuracy rating of 95%+, Locus is still a secondary source, and some day I hope they'll "explain" how they enter data!!! Keeps us on our toes, if nothing else... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Corrected. Hervé Hauck 19:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Monitors
Noticed your edit to Laumer's book in the queue. See that you left an appropriate message for Ahasuerus. Unfortunately, any notes left on the 'auxiliary' page that some of the editors have set up do not trigger the yellow highlight letting us know that there is a message. That's the whole reason behind having a separate page for minor edits. If you ask a question, it's a good idea to post the note on the user's main talk page so it gets seen more quickly. I only check my secondary page every few days, and others do it at varying intervals. Just an FYI! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I moved my question to the main page. Hervé Hauck 17:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Years in the Making: The Time-Travel Stories of L. Sprague de Camp
I made a few minor changes to this verified pub to match my copy.
 * Changed the publication date from 2005-02-28 to 2005-02-00. We usually delete the day (mostly entered from Amazon) when verifying a pub.
 * Changed the pagenumber for Aristotle and the Gun from 94 to 93 (the story starts on page 93)
 * Changed the title of the poem on page 159 from "Reward of Virtue" to Reward of Virtue. There are no quotation marks on the title page (or on the contents page)
 * Changed the pagecount from 381 to 377, the last page of text. Counting forward to 381 for the acknowledgements is generally not done (we do count forward to the end of the text if the last page(s) is/are unnumbered. Thanks, --Willem H. 11:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Image for The Big Time
I had to reject your submission for this cover image, you added a link to the. I corrected this to the image. Result is here. --Willem H. 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Hauck 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cherryh's The Faded Sun: Shon'jir
According to Locus #241 (February 1981), this printing was published in December 1980. Mhhutchins 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This data is confirmad in the Cherryh biblio by Stephensen-Payne, update done, thanks. Hauck 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Keepers
Turns out the story has been entered incorrectly right from the start, in the magazine and previous anthologies, so I accepted your submission and removed that part of the note. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vector 163
I've finally got up to 1991 issues, so if you're that you can enter your bio in the database proper. BLongley 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm now unmasked !.Hervé Hauck 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your new-found celebrity status. Now get back to work! :-) BLongley 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Immediately ;-).Hauck 18:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler Has Won
Found the price for [this] at [this] site. Added to the record with note. ~Bill,

Flight of Honor
At least the misprint got moved to the notes [].....! Was going to fix it, but thought I'd just leave it for you to see. ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 12:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Shame on me. ;-). Hauck 13:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Brunner's From This Day Forward
I was updating info for a book that I verified and was published by Doubleday in 1972. It didn't have the "First Edition" notice, so I started to wonder if perhaps Doubleday had not yet started making that statement, or if there are some titles that they mistakenly omitted the statement. In doing the research I noticed that you state in the notes of this record that your copy doesn't have the statement. This may indicate a later printing of the title. Does your copy have a gutter code on or near the last page of text? It can be used to determine the week of printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It has indeed gutter code "N38" on page 238. My copy is interesting as it has a "full" price ($5.95) followed by "F.T.D.F." (don't know what it means) but also "5258" on dj back flap BUT not the gutter code specified here, a possible later SFBC printing ? (but what of the price ?)..Hervé Hauck 07:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "F.T.D.F" is the initial letters for From This Day Forward. Doubleday did this for all of their titles on the front flap above the retail price.  The description of your copy leads to one of two scenarios:
 * If it still retains the ISBN of the first printing, your copy is indeed a later trade printing (printed in September 1972). Even though it has the same identification number as the book club printing on the back flap, it has the retail price without the "Book Club Edition" statement on the front flap. When they reprinted the dustjacket for this reprinting of the trade edition in September, they removed the "BCE" slug but forgot to remove the ID number.  I would suggest that you clone this record, dating it as September 1972, giving notes describing your copy, verify this new record, and remove your verification from the original record.
 * Now if your copy doesn't have the ISBN on the copyright page, it is most likely a second book club printing with a misprinted dustjacket. You would still have to create a new record for it. Mhhutchins 15:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed my verification and created a new publication, my copy partakes of both possibilities. Amusing. Hervé Hauck 17:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Astounding Checklists
The first update was fine, but how did you start the other two submissions? On the screen I see the DB wants to Auto-Merge parts 1 & 2 with part 3, which doesn't seem right, even to having part 3 as the contents for all three. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I used "clone publication" (IIRC) but twice from the #3. Hauck 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha! Short-cuts!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since parts 1 and 2 don't exist [yet] in the DB the only way to avoid them being Auto-Merged is to start with a New Non-fiction blank edit page. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'm a bit slow on the uptake ! It's not strictly speaking a cloned publication but a new one. Hervé Hauck 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Credit for cover art to The Mind Master
The art for your verified copy of this title matches this which is credited to Lisa Falkenstern on the hardcover (original title) edition. Mhhutchins 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, modification done. Hauck 10:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tenth Planet by Edmond Cooper
Re: The Tenth Planet The SBN that is found on the copyright page can be searched for as an ISBN by adding 0 to the beginning of the number. Edited. --Astromath 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Flight of the Horse
I approcved your submission for a new printing of The Flight of the Horse. The result is here. Can you have another look at the publication date? 1985-10-00 is the same as the tenth printing. Maybe you cloned this and forgot to change the date? Thanks, --Willem H. 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw this but I can only confirm the date as stated on copyright page : "Ninth printing : October 1985". Hauck 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It just looked a little odd. I asked Ahasuerus to re-check his tenth printing. Thanks, --Willem H. 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a data entry problem - my copy is the ninth printing. I have corrected the verified pub and deleted the duplicate. Could you please cross-verify the surviving record? TIA! Ahasuerus 14:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Done (cover added). Hervé Hauck 15:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Mote in God's Eye
Approved [this], but should the date in the notes be "1978"?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, corrected with link to 1977 printing. Hervé Hauck 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Day Million / Day the Martians Came
Approved your edit to [this], then did a little research into the story. The contents were probably cloned from the first UK Gollancz edition. Fortunately, the SFBC UK edition has been verified and "...After the Day..." portion of the variant title is not present. The SFBC editions were always just reprints, so the original entry of contents for the Gollancz is probably wrong [OCLC lists the contents without it], as well as the second Pan printing. So I changed all of them to omit the variant title, and dropped that portion of the note from your copy's record. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it caused me problems already for my own database. Hauck 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow Times Seven
Glad there's at least one copy of [this] out there that has the signature! The scan isn't truncated, the actual cover is 'shifted', quite common with 50s & 60s US/CDN covers. I re-did the note slightly to reflect this. You could upload your image if it can show the signature. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Hervé Hauck 17:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You must have cut off the scan, it doesn't show the bottom of the cover, thus no signature. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That one got it! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Gradisil
One question about your edit of Gradisil. You change the number of pages to 549, but your new note states page 551 is "About the author". Is page 551 numbered? If so, the number of pages should remain at 551. As the help text sais, we generally use the last printed page number. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page is numbered, but it seemed to me that, depending upon the moderator, the rule about the number of pages indicated was quite variable (highest number printed, highest number deduced from context, etc...), particularly, as is the case here, when we're dealing with paratext. Hauck 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it shouldn't be variable. To me the help text is clear. I approved your edit, and then changed the pages back to 551. That makes the notes a lot clearer i.m.o. --Willem H. 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all right. For my own uses (book collecting mostly), I use the Stephensen-Payne principle : the number of pages is the highest number physically printed on the book even if it is technically not the last page, it's not an accurate mesure but in undiscutable. Hauck 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Polystom
I approved your edit of Polystom, but then added a note about the price mentioned in Locus1. They seem to have the wrong price. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Years of Rice and Salt
The price for [this] probably came from Locus: ''The Years of Rice and Salt (HarperCollins UK 0-00-224679-1, Mar 2002, £16.99, xi+669pp, hc) Alternate-history novel set in a world where plague kept Europe from developing as a world power. Simultaneous with the US (Bantam) edition. A trade paperback (export only) edition (-225748-3, £10.99) was announced but not seen.'' Since the export trade paperbacks could go to many countries, they usually only have a sticker with the local price and the UK price [odd when you think they weren't for sale in the UK]. I have a few of them and none have a printed price, just a sticker. Don't you hate those covers that just don't scan worth a hoot?? I've given up trying on some of them, even to the point of just downloading the Amazon one and then re-loading it to the Db from my computer. Gets rid of the ZZZZZZZs and at least the artwork can be seen. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a "Best of" that I never manage to scan properly (one published by i-books), but wait until I attack the french books. There are some that seems to be wrapped in aluminium foil with a little (1/4 of the cover) illustration. A pleasure. Hauck 14:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dome
I just approved your edit to Dome, and noticed it has the same illustration as my edition. The cover is credited to Ron Miller (visible on the scan). --Willem H. 10:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Modification done. Hauck 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And approved. --Willem H. 10:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Marrow
There is already [this] edition in the DB. Seems odd to have another first printing four years later, and the same price/artist/ISBN? --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember what I wrote exactly but my copy is in fact a fourth printing published in 2005 as stated on copyright page. Hervé Hauck 20:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes said First Printing, I'll accept and just change the "First" to Fourth". Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, sorry. Hervé Hauck 20:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dark Benediction
I added pub series data to your verified pub. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 21:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Publication Series NCP?
You've created a new publication series "NCP" - was this intentional? I suspect it might be more of a Title series if anything, but I really have no clue what the other entries in the series might be. BLongley 23:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. 1) It was indeed intentional. 2) As there's nothing (that I can find easily) in the help screen about this (perhaps because it's a new evolution), I took the liberty to understand that it's a concept akin to what french publishers term as "collection" (a generally numbered line of books). 3) In fact all the NewCon volumes that I have are serially numbered (this one is NCP 008, _Time pieces_ is NCP 001, _Conflicts_ is NCP 25, etc.) sometimes on spine or on copyright page. 4) Even if NCP probably logically means NewCon Press, I thought that the information was valid and that this field was the one to house it. If I was wrong don't hesitate to modify the data. As I plan to attack my french books, I very interested in learning if these fields can be used that way because most the vast majority of french SF book belongs to a "collection" and because publishers can have more than one collection. Hervé Hauck 05:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect title-level series would be more appropriate, unless the different editions of a title have different numbers - e.g. are the hc, tp and limited editions of Conflicts all NCP 25? BLongley 11:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No they have different numbers (here 024 for the HC, 025 (25 on spine) for the TP (there seems to be no limited HC in this case), same for all the NewCon titles that I have (quite the whole lot). Hauck 16:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the numbering of the books would automatically mean it's a publication series. Golden Gryphon numbers all of its publications but I wouldn't consider it a series.
 * On the other hand, I've felt that the "collections" that European publishers use were closer to imprints than publication series. So a book published in the Presences collection by Denoel would show the publisher as "Presences / Denoel". Same for "Folio SF / Gallimard", "Anticipation / Fleuve Noir", etc.  The addition of the publication series to the database throws a monkey wrench into the works and my way of thinking.  Most of the collections are numbered which would lend itself perfectly to the new publication series field.  Perhaps it would be best to bring this to the Rules page for discussion before preceding. Mhhutchins 15:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In France, the notation "Anticipation / Fleuve Noir" as publisher is not the way it's done. The publisher is indeed only Fleuve Noir and Anticipation ou Super Luxe, or Angoisse is the collection, see here. The "collection" concept is logical for us because there is a much more coherent look to the books belonging to the same collection (see here or here). For example, for a frenchman, the (three ?) Bantam Spectra titles "The next wave" looks remarkably like a collection, ditto for the Tor Doubles (homogeneous, numbered). Hauck 16:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to say that "Anticipation / Fleuve Noir" is how the book is published. It would be how we would record it on the ISFDB if "Anticipation" was considered to be an imprint. (e.g. "Del Rey / Ballantine", "Timescape / Pocket", "Signet / New American Library").  I go on to say that the European idea of collections would work in our new publication series field.  In other words, I agree with you, as far as "collections" go.  But not the numbering system used by certain publishers, which is closer to a cataloging system than a publication series.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly not the best examples to give, as I for one am still sore over having all my "Del Rey"'s reclassified as "Del Rey / Ballantine". :-( I feel additional suffixes should only be there for disambiguation - and Del Rey and Timescape don't need that (the French Pocket imprint/publisher probably does need some work though). Still, without publisher disagreements we'd probably have to go back to lengthist arguments to get conversations going. ;-) BLongley 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Back on track - I think the NCP numbers are probably best recorded in notes until we get a second Catalog number field. (Which would be useful for DAW Collector's numbers etc.). But I own none, so have no real problem with attempts to make them useful. BLongley 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not wishing to cause lenghty arguments about a field whose definition that doesn't seem (at least to me) very clear, I modified my data. When I'll do my French books, I plan to use it to store the collection. Hervé Hauck 09:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I accepted the change (removing the NCP series), since in this case it does sound like a second catalogue number. FWIW, I agree with the sentiment that recording "collections" as Publication Series looks like a good way to go. --MartyD 10:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems (to me a novice) to be the consensus. Hauck 10:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

publisher on Agent of Vega
I just accepted your submission, and I was going to change "Mayflower/Dell" to "Mayflower / Dell" (the help says to put spaces around the slash), but I noticed in looking at publishers that there are many pubs entered using "Mayflower-Dell", some with notes citing that as the publisher name used on the copyright page (e.g., "a Mayflower-Dell book" or "first Mayflower-Dell printing"). Does your pub by any chance have it that way? --MartyD 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it has (on copyright page) : "Published by Mayflower-Dell", i'll do the change. Hauck 10:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Fugitive Worlds / The Wooden Spaceships
You added a note to The Fugitive Worlds and The Wooden Spaceships about Ian Miller. Well, you're right I think. Ian Miller is mentioned by Jane Frank as the artist for both in this pub. You can use this as reference, or do you want me to make the change? Thanks, --Willem H. 14:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can make the change. Hauck 14:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Willem H. 14:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 14:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Le Livre d'Or de la Science Fiction: Clifford Simak
I'm holding your edit to this pub for one reason. You want to create a publication series called "SF". I don't think that's a good idea. There will be countless publication series that could be called "SF" (in the Netherlands we have at least four). To separate them, we should at least add the publisher (in this case Pocket or maybe Presses Pocket. It could even be called Le Livre d'or de la science-fiction, it seems to be a sub-series in the Pocket collection (see here). What do you think? If you have a sugestion I can approve your edit (the other changes are valid) and change the series title. --Willem H. 20:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with the various subdivisions of the Pocket SF series. Technically, "Le livre d'or de la science-fiction " (which became later "Le grand temple de la S-F" starting with the Poul Anderson volume IIRC) is not a separate collection from Pocket SF collection (e.g. it's not separately numbered). Calling this collection "Presses pocket / SF" seems a bit redondant ("Presses Pocket / SF edited by Presses Pocket") but if it allows a kind of disambiguation, why not. It's not my own practice (I usually work with the two fields "Publisher" and "Collection" linked but without duplicating data like the publisher's name, which effectively has the result of a lot of collection named "SF") but I'm not dogmatic about this. Hervé Hauck 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you're the expert on French publishers. In our database, there can only be one pub series called SF, so for the Dutch publications there will be "Meulenhoff SF", "Born SF", "Bruna SF" etc., or all series from the different publishers would be in one publication series, which would look like hell. I released your edit, and changed the pub series to "Presses Pocket SF" for now. If you have a better name, you can always change it. Cheers, --Willem H. 21:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As usual, the technical details take precedence over bibliographical elegance ;-). Hauck 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. The Americans have no idea of European publishing (grin). --Willem H. 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Demon Breed
I added The Demon Breed to the Ace SF Special 1 pub series. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 04:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Date of First Lensman
Can you check to make sure that this pub gives 1973 as the publication date? The price seems too high for that year, and there's another printing in the same year that's two-thirds lower price. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just corriged, it's a 1982 printing. Hauck 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Spinrad's The Iron Dream
Another question about dating. This pub's date is inconsistent from the price, as you point out in your notes. Perhaps it would be best to record it as undated? Also, this has the same artwork used for the US Equinox edition which was credited to Bob Habberfield. You can credit your pub accordingly and note the source. hanks. Mhhutchins 17:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the publication date is clearly stated on copyright page, I'd rather stick to the 1974 which, IMHO is the real date of fabrication. Other modifications have been done. Hauck 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Traveler in Black
I added The Traveler in Black to the Ace SF Special 1 pub series. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 10:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 16:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Growing Up in Tier 3000
I added Growing Up in Tier 3000 to the Ace SF Special 2 pub series. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Eternity's End
I added notes to for the Canadian price, statements of bibliographic interest from the copyright page, and OCLC number. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Gollance ed. of Knight's The Dreamers
I added the month of publication to this pub, based on the Amazon.co.uk record, and the listing in Locus #245 (June 1981). Ordinarily I would have left this up to the verifier of the pub, but I failed to see that you had verified it. Sorry. Mhhutchins 17:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)~
 * No problem here. Hauck 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hall's SF Index
There are currently two near-identical pub records for this title. The pub you verify gives the author's name as "Hal W. Hall", while the other (unverified) gives it as "H. W. Hall". Can you see if your copy's credits the full name? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No (my mistake), the series editor is just listed as H. W. Haal (even for the preface), I updated the name and proposed the other item for deletion. Hauck 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Empire of the Atom
Scanned in a new image [old one still in the log] and expanded the notes slightly for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This Fortress World
Is really by James E. Gunn, or just James Gunn as the cover shows? BLongley 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)~
 * It's James Gunn. Name Changed. Hauck 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've unmerged it and put it under the correct parent. BLongley 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There Will Be Time
Added a new image to [this] and found a signature on the cover, just can't quite make it out. About 2cm from the bottom, on the left side, running vertically. Tousaint? --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here (even with a magnifier and the help of my children), the first letter is even perhaphs a F and the last a D. Hauck 18:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Last Amazon
Does [this] edition make any reference to "DAW Collectors' Number"? Would be on the copyright page, if present. Have so far narrowed the first use of the term to between #582, #583 or #584. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's no explicit mention of a "DAW Collectors' Number" (even on copyrigyt page), even if the cover sports "No 583" as can be seen from the scan. Hauck 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking! And the one above, too. --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Purple Pterodactyls
Added sub-title, added page counts for unnumbered pages, expanded notes. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your submission of a new pub of Noninterference
I am about to approve your submission for a pub of the 3rd printing of Noninterference by Turtledove, but there seems to be a less complete pub on file which looks to eb the same, specifically. That pub should perhaps now be deleted as we don't want two records for the same publication. In future it is often a good idea to look for an existing pub matching the book-in-hand. Had you found, you could have edited it to add the more detailed info, this would save some typing and avoid the duplicate record issue.


 * In fact I saw but the lack of data (specifically the printing rank) leaded me to choose to add another pub as  could parfectly be a 2nd or a 4th printing. Hauck 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Every data field in matches your pub, so it would not have been illogical to update that record with the remaining data.  Any moderator would have accepted the submission.  If any field did not match your pub, the moderator would have understood why you chose to create a new pub.  Otherwise... Mhhutchins 16:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have deleted as an apparent duplicate of . -DES Talk 16:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have approved your submission, it is now. Please check it and mark it verified if it is correct and you have the book at hand. Thanks for contributing. -DES Talk 15:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Hauck 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -DES Talk 16:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vance's Dark Side of the Moon
I accepted the submission updating this pub. Are the title corrections stated in the notes concerning how the stories are titled on the contents page or on the first page of the stories themselves? If the title doesn't match the story's title page, remove the record for the mistitled story, and add the correct title in the content area of the pub edit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vance's The Narrow Land
Sorry, I don't understand the note you placed on this pub. Does "overwritten manually" mean hand-written (holographic)? If so, it shouldn't be part of the notes. Or am I missing something? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous owner of the book (Ralph M. Vicinanza, Vance's agent at the time IIRC) has manually overwritten and corrected the title of the story to _Where HesperuS Falls_ replacing the letter at the end of Hesperus by a S. It means that the title as printed was wrong. Alas, it's corrected in blue marker and I can't precisely figure what is really printed (it looks like "Hesperur"), I was hoping that another future verifier would be able to determine the exact (and misprinted) title. Hauck 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Was the change made on the contents page or the title page? Mhhutchins 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the title page making it a potential vt, that's why I thought it worth mentioning. Hauck 20:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Checked my copy of the book. The title was printed as "Where Hesperut Falls". Obviously a misspelling, since the story is about someone/thing called "Hesperus". Funny thing is, the Coronet edition has the same mistake. --Willem H. 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably used the same plates (or a kind of facsimile ?). Hauck 19:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the story is titled "Where Hesperut Falls" on the story's title page, then the record should be corrected and a variant record created. Mhhutchins 04:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to disagree on this one, since it's an obvious misspelling on the story's title page, and both copyright and contents page have the right title. The help text sais the distinction is not too important, and if you know that one form of the title is the usual one then use the one you know is standard. I searched for a rules and standards discussion about this subject, but couldn't find any. --Willem H. 10:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll let you sort this between you. Hauck 10:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion on the rules and standards forum. Mhhutchins 15:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Star King
I recently approved your addition of a of Jack Vance's Star King. Unfortunately you made it a publication of the parent title The Star King, rather than of the variant title Star King. I have adjusted this, as the process (unmerge and remerge) takes multiple submissions and is a bit tricky. (See Help:How to unmerge titles for details.)

When the title has a different form than the main canonical title and there is an existing variant title, please try to make a new pub a publication of the proper variant. When a title has a different form (or a different author credit) than the main canonical title but no variant exists, one should be created. See Help:How to record a variant title. Thank you. -DES Talk 10:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I didn't create a new pub but used an already-existing (my sub appears a "PubUpdate")one and did not modify (IIRC of course) the title. Perhaps that this advice will be more useful to the real creator of the pub. Hauck 11:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My error. In that case i don't know who created the pub. If you should be creating new pubs in the future, this advice may apply -- Vance has more alternate titles than many authors, and you seem to be doing a fair amount of his works. In any case, thanks for editing. -DES Talk 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for it. Hauck 12:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Might have been Bluesman, who has admitted a lack of understanding with variants and yet seems to have added a lot of missing editions. I keep meaning to do some Help Updates with Pictures to explain the reasons for and/or against variants - but it is a huge subject and I don't have enough examples for all possibilities. Maybe the "missing leading article for a title" would be a simpler example to start with before going onto reminding people that Dean Koontz doesn't always have an "R." in the middle, nor does Stephen Lawhead, and Brian Stableford and Esther Friesner sometimes have middle "M." and sometimes not... then we can get on to the "writing as" problems that plague people like "Nora Roberts" aka "J. D. Robb"... I suspect we have hundreds of publications going against our "record what's stated, figure the rest out later" rules. :-( BLongley 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Guilty! I get the variants, I just don't catch them all. Vance was several days work cross referencing between various sources and his official website; created many new records. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'm glad to have them. More Data is always good. BLongley 00:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Improved help is always good, although I think the current help does cover the ground fairly well, albeit without pictures, if everyone were to read it. I have verified several of the "J. D. Robb" novels in the "In Death" series, and i have chosen to use Robb as the author name, despite the "Nora Roberts writing as" on the cover, for what I think are good reasons. But any extended discussion of this probably belongs on a public page, like rules & standards or the Portal. -DES Talk 00:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Nora Roberts writing as" is not a speciality of mine by any means, nor a priority. If you're going against current help, or wish to change help pages, feel free to bring it up on those pages. I suspect there is a UK/US difference worth noting, but I'm not really that interested in that one. I can pick up 10 or 20 books of those at Charity shops if people are really interested. BLongley 00:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thread started on R&S. -DES Talk 01:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Year's Best SF - 27th
Expanded the notes for [this]. For some reason it was released here [Canada, west] only last week. Can't wait to start on it, the one I wait for every year! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Personnally, even if I read all the various "best-of-the-year", my tastes (somewhat classic) usually makes me prefer the Hartwell volume even if I feel a certain convergence between Dozois and Hartwell, the former being this days a bit less "slipstream" in his selections. Hauck 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Star Surgeon publication
Hi. I am rejecting your proposed deletion of. Its notes include "Printed in USA", while the notes in the other one you cited as duplicate include "Printed in Canada". --MartyD 11:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, mine is the USA-printed one.Hauck 12:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Remake by Willis
In your submitted update of, you add the note: "Unumbered excerpt at the end of the book." I don't understand this note. Are the books's pages not numbered? Or what? Please clarify. I have the submission on hold. -DES Talk 16:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The pages are not numbered after page 140 (last page of _Remake_ proper).Hauck 16:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Sorry for the confusion. -DES Talk 17:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Fifth Head of Cerberus artist
In your update to, you add the note "Artist not credited." but you don't say how the artist is known. If the artist is not credited in the book, please indicate the source of the artist's name, whether from a signature or a secondary soruce. -DES Talk 17:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This info was already present in the entry. Its creator can probably tell you more about this deduction (even if, to be frank, the style is recognizably Pennington's). Hauck 17:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the approval screen appeared to indicate that you added this comment. It also shows you as having added a similar comment on . Are you sure you didn't add a comment "Artist not credited." on Shadow? if so we have a bug in the approval logic somewhere. -DES Talk 17:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's me who's sorry, I wasn't clear. I effectively added the comment "Artist not credited." but the indication of Pennington as the artist was already in the entry. As I dislike to suppress data (and in both case the data was likely valid), I left it but added this comment. Hauck 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok now I understand, thank you. I agree tht suppressing data or removing probably correct but unsourced data is bad. In future in such a case you could add a comment such as "Artist not credited. Source of artist credit unknown" or "Artist not credited but style matches that of Pennington" or some such.
 * Thanks for all the scans you are doing. You might want to activate a descreening filter (if your software has one) when you see diamonds or lines on a scan. -DES Talk 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. Alas my scanner is quite old (more than ten years, IIRC) so there are sometimes strange effects, as I'm not a specialist of image manipulation, I have to live with them. Hauck 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That happens. My scaaner is about 5 years old, part of a not too expensive printer/scanner combo. it's built-in software has a check box for "descreening" which at the cost of a little extra time seems to eliminate many of these artifacts. But we'll take what we can get. Thanks again. -DES Talk 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) On the subject of images, [this] one needs 'work', LOL! The best way to get rid of lines/check-marks/moire effect is to scan at higher resolution [descreening helps but not always]. This, of course means larger image sizes and larger file size. Newer scanners have compression settings that allow one to scan at high resolution but the compression brings the file size down without losing the sharpness of the image. Unfortunately doing that has no affect on the image size. There is a way around the problem, regardless of the scanner's settings. I scan at medium-high resolution [150-200 DPI], which, for a normal paperback gives a file size of about 1-2 MB and an image size around 1000 pixels on the long side. Great image but both file and image are way too large to upload to the database. I'm sure you have some sort of photo program on your computer, with the MAC it's i-Photo. I move the image to that program. From there, and with virtually any photo program, there is an option to e-mail the photo. Within the e-mail setting I can pick the size of the outgoing photo [there's four settings for mine: Actual, Large, Medium, Small]. The Medium one reduces the photos to 640 pixels on the long side, but more importantly automatically reduces the file size to about 125KB, perfect for uploading to a pub record. I don't actually send the e-mail, just copy the image from it into my documents/downloads folder [whatever source you now upload from] and do the normal upload. I've scanned files of up to 5-6 MB and they still reduce just fine and no nasty 'effects' show. FYI! :-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I "worked" (via Photodraw) on this one as you requested but you must understand that all the scans that I upload on ISFDB date are my own existing ones, created each time I buy a book. As they were intented for my own use and considering the age of my scanner and problems of size, I don't have now the time to do this for a few thousands of covers. Hervé Hauck 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally scan at about 350dpi, but I then "rescale" to reduce the largest side to 599 pixels. As suggested in the help, I pretty much never upload a cover image with more than 600 pixels on any side. Scanning at high res and then rescaling can also eliminate lines when descrening won't do the job. Many image editing programs, even cheap ones, have a resize or rescale option without needing to go though email. (Irafanview is a good free one.) But again, any image is better than none. -DES Talk 18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bio Rescue
Think the page count for [this] might have been a left-over from a likely Amazon source. Both OCLC records have 400, Locus has 391 [but usually ignores excerpts or material past the last page of the novel]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Corrected. Hauck 09:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Genetic Soldier
I added some notes to this verified pub to match my copy. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 19:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

ISBNs and SBNs
Hi. I approved your submission of and saw the note about the SBN. In a situation like this, where the SBN would form a valid ISBN by adding the leading zero, it's acceptable to do that and record the derived ISBN instead of a catalogue number (noting, as you did, that the book presents only an SBN). It can be helpful in cases where earlier editions used an SBN and later editions switched to an ISBN -- then searching by ISBN will find all of them. You are not required to do this, I only thought I would mention it in case you did not know you could do it. Thanks. --MartyD 10:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just did this. I also proposed to delete this sub which seems to me (after reflexion) a duplicate. Hauck 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Halo - changes/notation
Morning! This. . I added printing month and Roman numeral count to pagination and note on artist signature after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Second topic. You do excellent cover scans, which are much appreciated, please continue and if I have a scan already in the db if you feel yours is better, go for it. Most scans that I place in db are a reaction to losing them at Amazon, etc. I am not vested in them, other than to have one always available for the users. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm also not very vested in my scans which are only a working tool for me (not surprisingly, I don't enjoy the shifting of stacks of books to have a look at a particular cover). Hervé Hauck 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I make copies of the covers, especially the new ones you have done and keep them a folder for slide viewing. Your scans are very good. My putting what I find at DB level is caused by the frequent loss that Amazon has. Also some are from vendors, and once sold the image may be lost forever, or till someone scans a new one. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Voyage of the Space Beagle
I have a question about your edit of The Voyage of the Space Beagle. You add Chris Foss as artist, which is probably correct, but no note where the credit comes from. Is Foss credited in the pub? I ask this, because the pub is verified by Dragoondelight, who is known for very complete notes. There is also the good habit of informing previous verifiers of changes to their pubs. I put the submission on hold for now. --Willem H. 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I forget to advise Dragoondelight this time. To the best of my knowledge it happens quite rarely as I learned this point early. I also have to juggle with a big time lag between subs and validations which gives me quite a lot of work. Sub deleted so the case is closed and the info is lost (but you can have a look on page 76 of _21st century Foss_ or on the french pbs of _Rendezvous with Rama_).Hauck 15:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no need to cancel your submission. It was only unclear where the credit came from. I added Foss again, and a note. Also informed Dragoondelight (I know you do this all the time). I do remember the time lag between submission and approval. It was worse when I started editing (sometimes took days, depending on how busy/available moderators were). I used to write myself notes about follow-up edits that were necessary (like title merges). Life does get easier once you qualify for moderatorship. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Weapon Makers
Approved your edit of The Weapon Makers, and added a note about the cover artist. --Willem H. 15:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The same for this printing. --Willem H. 15:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

price on The Weapon Shops of Isher
Hi. Should the price on be £0.75 instead of £0.76? £0.76 seems a little strange.... --MartyD 10:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right (probably due to the automatic entering feature on IE). Corrected. Hauck 10:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

SFBC reprints
We have a special help page for instructions on the entry of SFBC editions, because they are so different from trade printings. In the conclusion, it states that new records should not be created for individual printings unless there is a more substantial change (publisher, catalog number, cover art, etc.) If your printing has a different gutter code but is otherwise identical to the first printing, it's best to record the code in the note field of the first printing (see here and here for examples.)  You can update the notes in the record for the SFBC printing of A Tale of Two Clocks giving the gutter code of your printing, indicating that it's verified. Then do the Primary 3 verification. If the rules change in the future, requiring the creation of individual records for each gutter code, it will be simple to clone the original record. But at the moment we don't see any value in creating additional records for SFBC printings of titles like this one which had at least four printings. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Personaly, I find this rule quite strange as it seems that all the printings of very popular and multi-reprinted pbs (e. g. like those by A. D. Foster) must be entered without much added value. But, as in Rome do as the Romans. Hauck 18:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There wasn't much debate when the decision was made. At the time I was the only one interested in adding SFBC printings to the database.  All other editors (with the exception of Bill [Bluesman]) left it up to the few of us who cared.  My purpose was to record the fact that there were non-trade printings of the title, so at least one record was sufficient for each title.  The gutter code was dropped in the eighties, so there's no way to tell if any book club edition in the past 20+ years have had reprints unless there's noticeable changes in the areas I pointed out.  Feel free to bring it up on the rules and standards page if you have a counter point of view.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just expressing my own surprise. I collaborated to enough bibliographical enterprises to have learned to avoid launching debates on the already-existing particularisms of each one. Hauck 19:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an oddity, but we have few people specifically interested in that series and it's easier to let those interested go their own way. If such practices were extended to things like the UK SFBC we might have a few more opinions (Hoddy has entered a few now), but it's getting more and more difficult to change practices around here as we have more and more Editors. Which is fine if we get it right in the first place, not so good when we're shown to have been doing things wrong. :-/ BLongley 21:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd much rather see separate publication records so the SFBC records align with how the rest of ISFDB is done. Plus the gutter code allows the reprint publications to be dated. I agree that once the gutter code was dropped we lost the ability to easily distinguish (and date) reprints and those all would go in one publication record. I'm assuming the standard was created to make it easier to manage the Publisher:Science Fiction Book Club in that you only need one link per title rather than linking to the publication record for each gutter code.
 * Another benefit of separate publication records is that it allows people to primary-verify specific gutter codes. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Telzey Amberdon
I added some notes to your verified Telzey Amberdon. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And the same notes (except this one is volume 2) for T'nT: Telzey & Trigger. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hub: Dangerous Territory
Discussed this pub with Dragoondelight, and then turned it into a collection. Can you agree too? Thanks, --Willem H. 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it an Omnibus before ? IMHO Collection is better regarding the percentage of shorter texts vs novels. Hauck 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Best Science Fiction of E. C. Tubb / merging titles
I approved your addition of a new collection, The Best Science Fiction of E. C. Tubb. I'm wondering if you're familiar with the concept of merging title records. Perhaps this could be helpful. The easiest way is to go to the author's Summary Bibliography and use "Check for Duplicate Titles" under editing tools. If you don't want to do this, I can do it of course. Another thing is the capitalization of words. The standard used (at least for English publications) is quite different from the French standard. The help text is here, under case. You will see that Death-wish, Read me This Riddle, J is for Jeanne and Time and again should be different. If you need help, don't hesitate to ask. We all learned the hard way. --Willem H. 13:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew that the entering of short stories was tricky, you (alas) confirm. I'm going to try to merge manually. For the capitalization, except for _Time and Again_ (where I miss the A), all the other titles are spelled exactly as the appear on pub (it was quite long to enter), so who's right and what do I have to do ?. Hauck 13:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not so much who's right or wrong, but more like "these are the rules", it's one of the few subjects where we don't follow the "exactly as in the pub" rule. Your first merges are ok and approved. Yes, it's a tough job. I entered the collections in this series manually, took hundreds of edits per volume to get them right (and there are even worse books) By the way, if there are subjects/rules you don't agree with, or have questions about, we have things like the Community Portal and Rules and standards discussions where we discuss these. Your opinion is as good as any other. --Willem H. 13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As to "what to do", just merge the titles. You get a warning about the difference between the titles, all you have to do is pick the right one. --Willem H. 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's roll. Hauck 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job! There were a few titles left that were originally published under various pseudonyms. Found the data in this, added the pseudonyms etc. There's one story left, Fallen Angel. I asked Dragoondelight about what I think is the first publication of the store here. Thanks, --Willem H. 15:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also good data on Tubb here. Hauck 15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks nice, but you can't have them all. I already have a serious space problem. :-) --Willem H. 15:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Cascade Point
Is the [Afterword] fiction? or an essay? --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's an essay. Corrected. Hauck 05:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Author's Notes"
Hi. In, I would be inclined to include that title in parentheses on the Author's Notes essay you added. Granted, it is not very likely he will have more such notes in any other publication, but to me it seems like one of those "standard" titles the help talks about (if it were "Author's Note", it would more clearly be such a case). Just a suggestion; I leave it up to you to think about. :-) Thanks, --MartyD 11:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. Hauck 11:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Hommes Stellaires
The cover has been used [before] and in mirror image on Gordon Dickson's "None But Man" as well. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, it's a kind of game in France to find for which book the cover used on some french PBs was initially concieved. Hauck 17:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here, though not quite so pervasive! Corrected the artist for the above to Jack Gaughan from Gray Morrow. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, Good spot there! But yes, this and that definitely match. Dragoondelight found another nice one today: this for that. BLongley 23:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice ones. Hauck 06:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to Golden Age SF
I changed this introduction from shortfiction to essay to try to save you an edit cycle. If that's wrong, let me know and I'll change it back to the way it was. --MartyD 10:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Amp / Amps in Absolute Magnitude
I approved your edit of this pub, and noticed the note about Amps vs Amp. If the story in your pub is spelled "Amp" as the note seems to say, you should add the title as stated to the contents. After approval of this edit you remove the wrong entry (remove titles from this pub), and merge the new and existing titles. --Willem H. 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it's not really a vt but a wrong entry in the DB of the anthology. Hauck 19:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be, but then Locus has it wrong, and you should certainly follow the steps above. --Willem H. 19:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ISBN for Lumière Cendrée
This pub has the ISBN indicated in red as having a "bad checksum". This means one of the numbers is either wrong in the pub, or in the database. Could you check your copy again? This site reports the ISBN as 978-2-7024-0386-0. Is this correct? --Willem H. 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ISBN on pub is the one that I have entered, see here for example. The site indicated is not a bibliographical source, indicating an ISBN-13 (even if derived from ISBN-10) for a 1975 book is quite amusing. ISBN wasn't really mastered by french publishers in those years. Hauck 19:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should check again. The site you refer to has the ISBN as 2-7024-0386-7, not 0-7024-0386-7. --Willem H. 19:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a note on the cover art for . It seems to have been borrowed from . -DES Talk 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Caroline, Oh Caroline
[OCLC] has two records, same ISBN, one has an artist and the original Dutch title. FYI --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that _De Cirkels_ is the title ? For the artist, it's a common mistake because on back cover of quite all the books in this collection there is written "Atelier Pascal Vercken" which is the name of the agency. That's why you'll find this "artist" on some bibliographical sites. Thanks Hauck 16:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good info! Not sure about the title, WillemH might know. Think his Dutch library is as impressive as your French one! I am curious what the two sets of abbreviations in the notes stand for : Al, DL? --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I try to explain their meaning here ;-). The DL = dépôt légal is the date when the book (or its contents) has been deposited at the French National Library (this is not generally renewed for subsequent printings), the AI = Achevé d'Imprimer is the date when the book was physically made. Normally I prefer to use the AI because there are lots of cases where two different printings have the same DL (but logically a different AI). Theoritically, for a first printing, the AI is in the trimester or month of the DL. Hauck 16:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Well done. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this one was ever published in Dutch. According to Wikipedia the original title was "Caroline O Caroline", but no Dutch bibliography (Fantasfeer, Fandata, de Boekenplank) mentions the title. It's not "De Cirkels", that's one I do own a copy of, and it's a collection. (Worldcat has it here. Hope this helps. --Willem H. 20:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Hauck 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Psycataclysme
[Look] familiar?? --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes ! Great. Hauck 17:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And [another]! --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice. An interesting game, isn'it ? (I vaguely remember to have already seen this one, probably on Levack PKD bibliography but not where). Hauck 17:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what this is supposed to match... Enlighten me please? BLongley 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This one here. Hauck 08:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Final Diagnosis
Added the month, from copyright page of PB, to [this] Is there a Canadian $ price? Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the month was also on the HC, I corrected the entry and added canadian price of $33.95. Hauck 17:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And approved! Thanks for looking. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Image
[Look] familiar? Knew I'd seen it before, couldn't find it and stumbled across it today. Short memory, though, as I can't remember [other than that it was yesterday] which book of your recent entries this goes with.... --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great (it's _Les chaînes de l'avenir_). Hauck 20:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good spot! Colour is a bit more yellow than orange on mine, but it's definitely the same. BLongley 00:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And [another] one! --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... don't recall that one... enlighten me? BLongley 00:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for one Bill and for the other look here. Hauck 08:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Chasse sur la Lune Rouge
This one took some work [not your doing, just wanted to let you know]. The variant relationship was set up backwards, as the '92 edition, which finally credited the co-author, should have been the variant, being the [much] later edition. Re-did the page so the variant runs the 'correct' way, then accepted your submission. Deleted the co-author and that part of the note. This does bring up a point, though. Since your submission only had the one author, it should have been added under the single author variant, not the two-author one. To do that just click on the single -author variant title [in the future] and use the Add Publication in the same way as usual. I've done it the wrong way may times [usually catching it/fixing before anyone notices... but not always!!] Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I think that I even undrestand it ;-). Hauck 14:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As Mr. Hutchins once explained it to me: "When a variant exists, pause, and make sure which title your submission belongs with." :-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Les Chiens de Skaith
[Pennington, indeed!] --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeeess ! Hauck 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And for [Demons et Chimeres] --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 15:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[Les Immortels] --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another one for you. Hauck 18:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we keeping score?¿ ;-)  --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Knew I'd seen [this] before! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Translated titles
You say on your user page: "Perhaps will it be interesting to find a way to indicate the translated title in the future (creating a vt ?) as they sometimes are not easy to match, as _The Dancer from Atlantis_ becoming _Fatum_ after translation." Currently the Help:How to enter foreign language editions page says to create VTs for English translations of titles that first appeared in other languages, but to enter non-English translations as pubs under the English-language title. But perhaps as we expand non-English support, a VT would be a good idea. Some record of the translations would obviously be a good idea. -DES Talk 15:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

La dernière Forteresse
"..inexistent..." ? Mixing a little French in? :-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it "non-existent" in english ? Hauck 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oui! Merci. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Last Circle of Paradise
The same [artwork]! Now that's a change, no challenge at all! --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

L'Ere des Gladiateurs
Approved your edit of this pub. Since you added two stories to the novel, shouldn't it be a collection? The rules are here. If you need help changing the pubtype, tell me. --Willem H. 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well personnally I'd vote for an Omnibus ("A publication may be classified is an omnibus if it contains multiple works that have previously been published independently, and at least one of them is a novel.") but I'm not that pleased about it. As I said on my user page, technically the 56 first titles of this series are Anthologies (or Omnibuses in this case and the #2) but they are usually classified as novels by french bibliographers (even if it's improper) in order to simplify the whole thing. Hauck 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's your judgment call. Just thought I'd mention it. --Willem H. 19:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. In fact this series is probably the most bibliographicaly complex of all the french ones and there have been already a lot of thoughts about its precise status. I tend to favor the "novel" aspect mainly because it's coherent with the presentation of the series itself and it simplify its approach by persons less aware of bibliographic subleties. Hauck 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Asimov's The Currents of Space
Was this published under the original English title? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I intended to correct it on the second pass. Hauck 18:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

J.-P. Lamerand: typo or real name
In this pub you entered the artist as "J.-P. Lamerand" is he/she really credited like this, or was the "-" meant to be a " "? --Willem H. 09:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like this. Hauck 09:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looked strange. --Willem H. 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A composite of the typical french "double" surnames (Jean-Pierre, Jean-Paul, Jean-Philippe ?) and the anglo-saxon use of initialized surnames ?Hauck 10:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that explains a lot. :-) --Willem H. 10:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Serjoe or Sergoe
In Federations you entered the artist as "Sergoe" with a note that he's credited as "Serjoe" on the backcover. Google search for Serjoe results in pages like this and this. Search for Sergoe gives no images like the Federations cover. Shouldn't we assume that Serjoe is the real name in stead of Sergoe, or does the book have other proof? --Willem H. 10:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO you're right, Sergoe is (perhaps) a misprint (even if one of your links goes back to the same title that we are currently discussing), but it's what's on copyright page. To be frank, I thought that the data on book is paramount on ISFDB and takes precedence over interpretations (even if probably true), as I'm a bit wary of entering such a (sometimes heated or so it seeems) debate, I'll let you decide about this. Hauck 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, what's stated in the book is leading. In this case however the artist is credited under two different names. It makes more sense to credit the right spelling, and add a note about this. I changed the credit, and adapted the note. Please check this, and see if you can agree. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK for me. Hauck 18:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dating with Gutter Codes
Accepted submission for [this] and with the gutter code noted a printing date of June '77 can be assigned, even if the printing # can't. Doubleday used gutter codes for both the trade and SFBC editions they printed. [This] page is handy to bookmark. The letters were run through at least twice, but knowing the first edition was in '77 [not '66] the "H" part of the code denotes 1977 and the number is the week. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the info. I read somewhere on the help pages (IIRC) that gutter codes can be translated into dates but I prefer someone more seasoned to confirm the fact. Hauck 11:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"J'ai Lu - Science Fiction" or "J'AI LU - Science-Fiction"?
Hi. I am cross-posting this question to Benario's talk page, too. You two have been entering many books published by J'ai lu, and we have the above two name variations for what I think should be just one series. If you agree with my thought, would the two of you decide which it should be and let me know? I will take care of the necessary changes to the existing publications (I think it will be easier for me to do as moderator). If you disagree with my thought, and they are somehow different series, perhaps you would let me know that, too. :-) Thanks. --MartyD 11:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right in assuming that's the same series ;-). First a few facts :
 * 1) In French SF is usually spelled "Science-Fiction" with an hyphen (capitalization varies) but "Science Fiction" is not unknown (see here).
 * 2) In case of J'ai lu (as per copyright page) (note also that it's not J'AI LU but could be J'Ai Lu which looks horrible to a french), as said on my user page, I took the liberty to aggregate all SF related titles under this "umbrella series". Technically there was no SF line before the 80s as it was the attested choice of the editor (Jacques Sadoul, cf. his memoirs _C'est dans la poche_) to insert his SF titles in the middle of the general literature series without any identifying marks. Later the series' title was effectively spelled "Science-fiction". It's interesting to note that you can also find (depending on the period) "S-F" (on spine), "Science Fiction" (also on spine but without hyphen) and exotic things lake "S-F Fantasy" or the terrible "SCIENCE-FICTION FANTASY" (on back cover).
 * Wishing to avoid any confusion by using labels like "J'ai lu - Science-Fiction" where a passing glance can led to believe that the pbulisher is perhaps "J'ai Lu - Science" and the series "Fiction" and to conform to the english usage of Science Fiction without hypen (although I can find some examples of Science-Fiction even in english titles like this one) and being the first to tackle industrially (-))this job, I decided to use the series' name "J’ai Lu - Science Fiction" (even if "J'ai lu - Science Fiction" would be more to my liking). Hauck 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Hauck. As I said to MartyD, I used "J'AI LU" for a few books as I usually employ capital letters for names and publishers in my own library software.  I agree with you that we should employ "J'ai lu" which is the way this publisher writes it own label. For the series, I usually base the name from www.noosFere database. Even if there was no science-fiction label on the books before the 80's, science-fiction books were mentionned in list labelled "science fiction" that we can find at the end of some books ? I think we should stick to a label reflecting the usage in french and I agree surely with you for the name "J'ai lu - Science fiction".  Happy reading :) Benario
 * Thanks for the contribution. Regarding noosfere, its treatment of J'ai lu is particularly dubious with a division in sub-series which is either not enough precise (e.g. the passage on spine from the differently colored "J'ai lu" logo to the black/white/red one and then its stacking is not documented, neither is the switch to violet back covers) or too much complicated for quick reference searches. Regarding the list at the back of the books (in the catalog section) note that, technically, the label should be "SCIENCE-FICTION et FANTASTIQUE" (and also that it's J'ai Lu) but taht SF titles are also repeated in the "general" ("ROMANS-TEXTE INTEGRAL") section. Hervé Hauck 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. my reply to correct my previous agreement : "J'ai Lu - Science Fiction" is what I'll use afterwards. Benario


 * You are the experts. Help may not officially say it, but I believe the community agrees that non-English titles should be capitalized in whatever way is normal in their native language.  I think we should do the same with series names.  Having said that, I have two other thoughts: (1) We should use whatever the publisher uses as a guide; other editors are most likely to use whatever they see, and (2) if J'ai lu does use "SF" or "S-F" in some cases, it is probably better to capitalize Science and Fiction to match that, if there is otherwise no clear preference for "Fiction" versus "fiction".  So it sounds to me like the "J'ai Lu - Science Fiction" you have agreed on is appropriate.  I will put everything into that series.  If you later agree it should be something else, we can change that in one place, so it will be easy to do.  Thank you both for your work on this and for helping at least one American be a little less provincial. :-)  --MartyD 13:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. BTW I'm still entering the french titles with english rules of capitalization (with difficulty :-, I was wondering if I should continue as some moderators are quick to point and not allow use of different rules than english ones.Hauck 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We really should come to a clear consensus on that, one way or the other, and record it in help. -DES Talk 15:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's also what I think. Hauck 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See Rules and standards discussions‎ for the discussion on what the rule should be going forward. -DES Talk 23:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) By the way, one of you may want to take a look at this, which currently has "J'ai Lu. S-F" as the publisher.... --MartyD 14:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit done(changed publisher series and dropped price), I don't have this particular printing so I can't verify it but I have a later (2007 printing), I'll have a look. Hervé Hauck 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

page counts
Hi. For, if the last numbered page is 255, you should use that for the page count instead of 249. See Help:Screen:EditPub. When I run into such a case and the numbered pages after the story are not something I am going to include in the Contents section, I say something like "Story ends on p. 249. Pages 250-255 are a publisher's catalogue." in the notes. I am not aware of any "official" technique for capturing that information. --MartyD 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Hauck 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lan vs. Len Zaren
I guess it's my day to pester you.... On, could the artist's name be L e n - Zaren instead of L a n Zaren? We have as artist on a couple of other French publications. --MartyD 14:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact it's indeed Lan Zaren and I made two typos before. I supress the hypen ;-) between Lan & Zaren. Hauck 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Magicians by James Gunn
Can you re-check the author credit for this pub? The cover gives the author as "James Gunn". Does the title page differ? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Same situation with this pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake, corrected. Hauck 16:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

J'ai Lu
Hi Hauck, hi MartyD. I post this message both on your pages regarding the name of the publisher "J'ai lu". As the SF series name "J'ai Lu - Science Fiction" has been adopted, shouldn't we change the publisher entry from "J'ai lu" to "J'ai Lu" as a matter of consistence ? Benario


 * I leave that to the two of you to decide. My opinion is that the name should be capitalized as the publisher capitalizes it.  Then if consistency is important, the series' name could be adjusted to match (i.e., "lu" instead of "Lu").  It is now easy to change either name in one place and have it affect all of the publications.  --MartyD 10:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Benario's suggestion. Hauck 16:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Doors of His Face, The Lamps of His Mouth
I added the publication month (from the copyright page) and notes to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 05:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

stories in anthology or in collection books
Hello Hauck, I think you're the person who entered a number of "Galaxie-Bis" issues. I noted that in these issues, the differents stories were mentionned with the original (or english) titles. As I entered yesterday issues of anthology "les meilleurs récits de", I put the title of the differents short stories in french. shouldn't we do so to reflect the traduction work or does it be better to enter the original titles ?? What'are your thoughts about this ? Benario
 * IMHO that's not a good idea as it creates duplicates titles without merging possibilities and help is quite clear about this see here but see also here. Hervé Hauck 08:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Damned, I should have another look at this help. Ok I'll change the titles... But I'll put the "sommaire" in the notes. Thanks Benario
 * Don't forget to merge the titles afterward, it's the longest part of the job (the original tiltes must be correctly entered). Hauck 09:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Léviathan des Terres
Could you check the ISBN of this pub again? There's a bad checksum, meaning the ISBN is either invalid or wrong. Thanks, --Willem H. 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As said in notes, the ISBN is like this (wrong). Hauck 18:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see the note, just the big red warning. Came across six more. The people in Opta weren't very good in ISBN's were they? --Willem H. 18:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Visibly not, they even managed to give the same (and false) ISBN to five (!) different titles, it's a kind of record. Hervé Hauck 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

le Maître du Réseau
The capitalization debate is still going, but I should "le" be "Le" on, as it is the first word? --MartyD 11:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I intended to correct it on my second pass. Hauck 11:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Tery
Hi. I approved, but I think it may be using the wrong version of The Tery, judging by the date. You have it against 21597, which seems to be the revised edition. There is also 79817 from 1979. Can you tell? If you agree, you should use "Unmerge Titles" from the title page and check Le Tery -- this will create a separate title just for Le Tery. Then you can merge that with the 1979 title. --MartyD 13:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right as copyright is 1973 & 1979 by Paul Wilson but I have a problem with a few of the later Futurama titles. They are solo publications of parts of Binary Stars (like the Martin and the Vinge). I was ready to create a Novel then mark it as a vt of the original novella. Is there another way to create a publication (with a french title) "under" a short text that has no existing solo publication in english ? Hauck 13:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For solo short fiction, we use a CHAPTERBOOK. This is like a one-work collection, so the CHAPTERBOOK title is separate from the SHORTFICTION title.  I would make a new CHAPTERBOOK using the French title, and have it contain the English-titled story.  If you wanted to, you could make the CHAPTERBOOK title record (which is separate from the CHAPTERBOOK publication record, just as is the case for NOVELs) be in English and have the publication record's title be in French.  That would match the handling of translated-from-English novels.  But if there is no English publication, I think it's fine to use the French.  --MartyD 14:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's try this to see if I understand. Hauck 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost right. The best way to change Le Tery would have been to change both the publication and the title to CHAPTERBOOK, leaving everything else unchanged, and then to add another content title "The Tery" of type short fiction.  You would then have to merge that "The Tery" with the existing one.  Le Tery becomes a one-work "collection" that we call CHAPTERBOOK, and it contains "The Tery" short fiction while also containing its own "Le Tery" chapterbook title record (which would be shared by other editions of this chapterbook, if there were any).  I will fix it up (to fix what you did, I will add another content of type CHAPTERBOOK to it -- no harm done).  --MartyD 14:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All set.  is your pub.  This is the main story title.  What do you think?  --MartyD 14:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Very nice, thanks. Hauck 14:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Author credit on Adieu, Planètes !
I noticed on the cover you added for, the author is shown as "Marion Z. Bradley", while the publication record has "Marion Zimmer Bradley". Is the full name correct? If so, you might want to mention the discrepancy between cover and title page in the notes as you have done for a few of your other entries. --MartyD 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Hauck 14:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Another one: "Paul Wilson" on cover of vs. "F. Paul Wilson" credit.  --MartyD 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

L'Héritage des Etoiles (Legacy)
I approved this, and added the needed chapterbook container title record. i also merged the shortfiction. See here and for the results. Thanks. -DES Talk 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You now propose to change the CHAPTERBOOK title record 1166690 from "Legacy" to "L'Héritage des Etoiles". If I understand the way we are handling non-English works at present, this should not be done. But perhaps I am mistaken. i have the submission on hold, pending yur response and possible discussion. -DES Talk 18:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Same answer as for the Martin, the book (as an object) is titled _L'Héritage des Etoiles_, even if I'm not wanting to seem too much french-centered, I think that it's enough (by respect to Vinge) that it appears to contain a text named _Legacy_ (as it's not the case) and it's superfuous to add the obliteration of the real title of the book. Hauck 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I disagree. The matter is now being discussed at ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard, where i have spelled out my reasons at some length. At least one other moderator seems to agree with me, and at least one seems to disagree. You views would be welcome there. I will retain the hold pending the outcome of this discussion. -DES Talk 07:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Volcryn by Martin
On I approved your submisison but did not do the chapterbook fix -- if you are going to be doing a number of these you will want to learn the details. You need to edit the publication, and add a title. this will have a title of "Night Flyers", a Type of "CHAPTERBOOK", and an author of "George R. R. Martin". Note that this could have been added in the same edit that changed the author from "George Martin" to "George R. R. Martin". After submitting this change you will need to merge the two shortfiction entries for "Night Flyers" that now exist.

Thanks for all your work. -DES Talk 17:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support (to all the team). For these, I think that I took a bad start, if this case happens again (a novella published solo in French), I'll start directly by a chapterbook (I thought this type of pub was determined by the binding). Hauck 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been some confusion over "CHAPTERBOOKS", but the ISFDB now uses the term for a separate publication, in any binding, of a single work of shortfiction. The binding code that corresponds to the classic "chapbook" is "ph" for pamphlet. See Help:Screen:EditPub. See also ISFDB:Chapterbook cleanup. -DES Talk 17:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have approved your changes to but some points still remain. I think that the chapterbook title/container record should use the title "Nightflyers", not "Le Volcryn". This would fit current practice for novels, collections and anthologies -- non-English publications are publications under the english-languiage title record. It is at least possible that there will be an English-language chapterbook publication of "Nightflyers", particularly since standalone ebooks of shortfiction are now being indexed as chapterbooks. -DES Talk 18:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand all this, _Le Volcryn_ is a kind of original collection (with one text) only existing in French (as others already entered without problems). The fact that there may be in the future a corresponding english version is for me not enough. The book is inded titled _Le Volcryn_ and not _Nightflyers_ which if entered litteraly makes the former disapear.

Also, the two shortfiction records still need to be merged. -DES Talk 18:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand this but you're aware that there's a lot of time lag between my edits due to the delay of validation which tends to complicate greatly my work and starts to become annoying. I edit something, then goes on another thing then have to wait for the ok then correct my entry then, if i made a mistake, do this once again. Hauck 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand the time lag and I'm sorry if my reminder seemed officious or nagging, it was intended simply as a reminder. When you are ready to self-moderate things do become easier and faster. -DES Talk 06:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Futures from Nature
You have primary verified, but there are no page numbers entered for the content items. Are you planning to enter them? Usually these are entered before or shortly after primary verification for anthologies and collections.

Thanks for all your work. -DES Talk 17:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pulphouse cover
I downloaded, tweaked, and reuploaded Image:PULPHSUM1989.jpg, (the cover of ) and I think it is much more visible now. The main thing i did was increase the brightness and conrast. Let me know if the modified image is acceptable -- it is possible to revert to the saved one. -DES Talk 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's nicer. It's the usual problem with reflective cover (there are even books that I never succeeded in scanning). Hauck 18:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Great Good-bye"
Hi. If in, "The Great Good-bye" is hyphenated on its title page as you indicate in the notes, you should enter it that way and make a variant (since the title is shared, you'd have to remove this one from the publication and add a new one, which then you would make a variant). --MartyD 10:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Hauck 13:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Placement of a colon for a subtitle
The common placement of a colon is directly after the main title with no space, followed by one space and the subtitle. I know librarians do it differently, but the rest of us use the more common method. I've corrected the title record for Shared Tomorrows: Science Fiction in Collaboration. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the modification. It's one of the things that diverge between french and english (french favors the placament of non(secable spaces, e.g. between question and question marks) that I tend to sometimes forget. Hauck 18:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

McIntosh or MacIntosh
Can you verify the title of this publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically there is not really a title page (it's a kind of aggregate of two parts : "Memoir" and "Bibliography"), I let the title as it was initially entered, not wishing to enter (another) debate on the use of Mc vs. Mac. But, as you can see on the cover, it's McIntosh. Hauck 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No debate. If it's spelled "McIntosh" that's the way it's entered.  Nothing to do with variants of the author's name.  This is about the title of the publication.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Image:LSSRNSDLSN1974.jpg (Cover of Les Sirènes de Lusinia )
I downloaded, tweaked, and re-uploaded Image:LSSRNSDLSN1974.jpg] to improve its visibility. More brightness and less contrast often helps with scanned images, in my experience. -DES Talk 18:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I made similar changes to Image:DCSNDNSWVG1974.jpg and Image:LRVNDSTNBR1974.jpg. -DES Talk 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hauck 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

author spelling on Les Mutants du Brouillard
Hi. Your submission of Les Mutants du Brouillard spells the authors' surname "Str o ugatsky" instead of "Strugatsky". Is that correct, or is it a typo? I am fairly sure the Anglicized spelling maps the Russian "у" to "u" with no added "o", but perhaps a French publication does it differently? I have the submission on hold and will fix the spelling if it is wrong. Thanks. --MartyD 11:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's indeed Strougatsky. The translation from slavic tongues to french is often erratic, with in this case a Strugatski (le masque) a Strugatzki (le rayon fantastique) or this one (with "ou") which is the most frequent. Hauck 12:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I approved it.  --MartyD 12:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Williamson Effect
Locus has the date as Dec.'97 and the artist as Nicholas Jainschigg for [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Strougatsky
Is this the correct spelling for the Authors for Troika? I haven't seen that variation before and thought I'd check before accepting the submission. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, just saw the posting above! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ;-). Hauck 18:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about the above, and I returned today to find Rules_and_standards_discussions, in case either of you would like to chime in. In my opinion, the best way to handle these is to set up pseudonyms and variant titles, but we will see what others think....  --MartyD 11:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Surfulgur
Your note on says "English title is given (falsely) as _Second Stage Lensmen_." But if that is the false title, what is the correct one? or is it simply the difference between "Lensmen" and "Lensman"? -DES Talk 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hauck 20:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dozois' The Year's Best...
Can you check the starting pages of the three stories beginning on page 124 in this verified pub? They don't match up as far as story length goes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done (mistake on Singh's text page number). Hauck 15:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fuite à Opar
I approved your edit of this pub. You might be interested in the cover of this one, credited to Michael Whelan. --Willem H. 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here you're right about pennington. It's on the cover of Ultraterranium. --Willem H. 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hauck 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Best of Hal Clement cover upload
User:Dsorgen has uploaded a new cover image for of The Best of Hal Clement, replacing an identical Amazon image. I am about to approve the pub edit. -DES Talk 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Clareson's SF Criticism
I just acquired a copy of this pub and notice that the author is given as "Thomas Clareson". If yours is the same, I'll update the pub to give the credit as printed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here (it's also a serif series text). Hauck 20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Year's Scholarship...1976-1979
I updated the notes to this pub, placed it into a publication series, and added the foreword and preface. Mhhutchins 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Same with this pub. Mhhutchins 19:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Digital Domains
I approved your edit to, please don't forget the merges on the content items. Thanks for all your contributions. -DES Talk 18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think that I have done them. Which ones are missing ? Hauck 18:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you did. Indeed you got to them quite promptly. My browser must not have refreshed or something.
 * There must have been a previous publication of "Harbingers" by Severna Park, but we don't have it listed. Do the credits in Digital Domains say where it was first published?
 * Again thanks. -DES Talk 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The story was initially published online (on Event Horizon) as is the principle of this anthology, there seems indeed to be no other publication. Hauck 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've added a note to the title record form the story. -DES Talk 21:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Image:TRRPLNTMPR1977.jpg
I downloaded the image Image:TRRPLNTMPR1977.jpg (for Terre, Planète Impériale) you had uploaded, drastically increased the brightness, and did a few other minor tweaks. I then replaces the image on the ISFDB. I think it is much more visible now. -DES Talk 18:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a somewhat similar adjustment on Image:QSTFRTHFTR1972.jpg (Quest for the Future). -DES Talk 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. Those Albin Michel are quite a pain. Hauck 19:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does your scanner software or image editing software allow for adjustments in brightness? If not I suggest Irfanview, available free from http://www.irfanview.com/ for the purpose. 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As said above here, my scanner is a very old one and I'm working from already existing scans made during all these years (IIRC the firsts were made in the previous century). At the moment, with some thousand of titles waiting to be entered, I simply don't have the time to tweak them in proper shape even if I know that they're not top quality. Hauck 09:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your scanner (or the scanner which produced the images you have been uploading) is fine, no need to improve it. You will do as you choose, of course, but tweaking an image for brightness and contrast takes less than a minute, usually less than 30 seconds -- about 6 clicks and one or two drags on a slider. No typing at all. Not every image needs it, but when an image as displayed doesn't let a viewer recognize the art or even read the title, its utility to the ISFDB as displayed is IMO rather limited. If tweaking would really slow you down that much, perhaps fewer but better is worth considering. That's all I'll say, except that if you want help in learning how to easily and quickly adjust these parameters I'll be glad to give it. (for me to do it after the fact requires an extra download and upload, but more requires me to find the images which need it, while you must see each of your images at upload time.) -DES Talk 13:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I downloaded your suggested application (Irfanview), I'll try to use it (if I understand how to but it seems quite simple for the basic functions) but remember that the scans as they are now are already compressed quite a lot (they are only about 30 Ko each) which perhaps doesn't let a lot of leeway. I've just tried it on Kampus, hope it's positive.Hauck 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The image on looks quite sufficient to me. It is at least good enough that a user can recognize the book by its cover, which is IMO the main point. As you may have already discovered, once an image has been loaded into IrafanView, you select the Image menu, and then "Enhance colors" option. Adjust the brightness  slider at the upper left, and perhaps the contrast slider at the upper right -- the other adjustments are usually not needed. (Brightness usually needs to be increased, contrast sometimes is increased, sometimes decreased, usually not changed very much). Then click "ok" and on the file menu choose "save" to overwrite the original image, or save as to give it a different name -- i normally overwrite. Toy can then use file|open to load another image if you have more than one to process. It may be faster to do a group of images one after the other. I think you will find this fairly quick and easy. -DES Talk 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can also use the resize/resample option on the image menu to scale up or down the pixel sizes of images, particularly if they are larger than you would wish to upload. The save as option on the file menu can be used to save an image in any of the many file formats the program supports, adn thus can convert any images in odd types to a type the wiki supports, such as jpeg, gif, or png. Probably you won't need this feature, but it can be handy. (I originally got IrafanView for working with scan images for Project Gutenberg). Thanks. -DES Talk 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Zelazny's "The Furies" & "The Graveyard Heart"
In, you have both "The Furies" & "The Graveyard Heart" listed with a publication date of 2001 (the same as the book). There are earlier versions of these stories (1965 for The Furies and 1964 for The Graveyard Heart). Were these new versions (and notes should be added to their title records to that effect) or should they be merged? Thanks. --JLaTondre 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I must have overlooked these when verifying the pub. Merged them. Thanks, --Willem H. 06:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Albin Michel's Super?Fiction
Hi. While reviewing one of your submissions, I noticed we have both Albin Michel - Super+Fiction and Albin Michel - Super-Fiction. I did not see any discussion of this on your user page, so I thought I'd mention it in case they are the same series. --MartyD 10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact they're different series, the former being TPs, the latter PBs. I've made a specific entry about Super+Fiction on my user page, the other is treated with the Albin-Michel Pbs. Hauck 11:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added data for the missing fields (ISBN and page count) to two titles in the Super+Fiction series (by Herbert and Wilson), based on OCLC records which I gave as the source. Also credited the translator in the notes field. Mhhutchins 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish, there are more details here. Hauck 16:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Arachon" vs. "Anachron"
Based on your note, I think you should set up "Arachon" as a variant of Anachron if they are indeed the same story. If it is not spelled "Anachron" anywhere in the pub, "Arachon" should be used. --MartyD 11:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Saga of Lost Earths
Scanned in a new image and slightly expanded the notes for [this]. Also added the two essays to the contents. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cover image for ''Fahrenheit 451"
The link for the cover image you gave for this record was the URL of the wiki page. Mhhutchins 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, corrected. Hauck 20:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Miller's Canticle
Did this French reprint give the title in English? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It will be corrected, as usual, on the second sub correponding to this title. Hauck 17:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Things Will Never Be the Same
I added the author's afterwords to this collection. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Disunited States of America
I have updated the record for your verified.
 * You had the cover artist as "Harald Sund and the Studion Dog". I corrected this to split to two artist credits "Harald Sund" and "The Studio Dog" and also corrected the spelling of "Studio."
 * I added more notes. The notes used to have just "First printing as per number line." --Marc Kupper|talk 23:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Zendegi
I added the publication month (from Locus #598) and the author's afterword to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Yves Kervevain vs. Kervévan
It looks to me like Jean-Yves Kervevain and your newly-added Jean-Yves Kervévan may be the same person. --MartyD 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it's probable but the amazon scan is not big enough for me to try to match styles. Hauck 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

French edition of Ahead of Time
It appears from your submission and the notes that the the publication credits Kuttner and Moore on the title page, but doesn't give individual story credit. If so, the individual story records should reflect the same credit as the title page. Let me know if you need help in correcting the content records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that will be nice. Do I have to add C. L. Moore as an author on stories in the collection where it's not the case ? (even if it's false). Hauck 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the publication credits Moore as an author, the story should be listed that way, but if it is known that Moore was not actually an author, the canonical entry would credit only Kuttner and the co-authored entry would be a variant. (If the publication does NOT credit Moore, then the story should be listed however it was credited in the pub.) However with these two authors in particular it is often very hard to know who "really" write what. Moore has stated in print that she can no longer separate or accurately recall who contributed what in many cases. If that wasn't your question, then I have misunderstood you. -DES Talk 18:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the great game of the "correct" (sic) attribution of the Moore & Kuttner stories is played since a long time and I have seen lots of versions of it. What I was asking after Mhhutchins's remark is precisely (step by step) what to do concerning _Yearday_ and _Ghost_ (the only texts attributed to Kuttner alone in the ISFDB (or so it seems). Hauck 18:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll first need to remove all contents that are currently credited to Kuttner only. This is more easily seen from the edit page than the pub page (which adds canonical/variant credit). Looking at the page from the edit view, you'll see these stories are only credited to Kuttner: "Camouflage", "De Profundis", "Ghost", "Shock", and "Year Day".  Use the remove title function for these titles.  Then update the pub page again, adding the stories back, but crediting both Kuttner and Moore.  After that submission is accepted you can merge the titles in your pub with the title currently in the database which credit both Kuttner and Moore.  Mhhutchins 18:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The cover credits "Catherine L. Moore". How does the title page credit? Also, why do some of these pub in the Présence du Futur series have two numbers?  Seems strange.  How does the publisher explain it? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The title page credits C. L. Moore as entered (a good thing). 2) there are even some titles with three (!) numbers (e. g. _The Jagged Orbit_), no explications are given but it's probably a problem of pricing, a strategy from the publisher to charge more for longer books before the invention of the "categories" system (you'll have to remember that french PB are not priced on the book itself and that the bookstore determines the price with a conversion table), you can find sometimes tne mention "volume double" or "volume triple" which indicates a longer and more expensive title. Hauck 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. French publishers are not the only ones when it comes to double-numbering a single publication.  US magazine publishers have the strange habit of given an issue two numbers, counting the double-sized (yet single) issue against two in a subscription, and calling it, for example, "Whole Number 24 & 25".  This defies the definition of "Whole" in my opinion. Mhhutchins 19:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like what happens sometimes with my sub to ASF or Analog ? ;-) Hauck 20:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Mhhutchins 21:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] I forgot to mention that "Year Day" and "Ghost" (as you pointed out above) don't have records that attribute both authors, so you'll have to make the ones in this edition into variants of the original Kuttner-credited records. Mhhutchins 21:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope that I have done the things right. Hauck 09:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You got the "Year Day" edit correct, see here. Your "Ghost" edit however would create a second title credited to Kuttner and Moore. It should be a variant of this title. Do you want to try again? --Willem H. 09:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. In fact I effectively thought that I've hit the wrong button (the one at the bottom). My intuition was right ;-). Hauck 09:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This one was perfect! --Willem H. 09:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience. Hauck 09:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fast Forward 2
Expanded the notes for [this]. I'm curious where you got the price. There isn't one on the copy I have, and Locus has it as $15.00 [no cents]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazon.com gives it as $15.98. Mhhutchins 00:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The price is a leftover from the first record (IIRC). My copy also hasn't got one and I was surprised by the value. But, as I was chastized for having blanked a price for a SFBC edition (which also didn't have any physically on the book), I left the data as intially entered. Hauck 08:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly fine to give a price that's not printed in the book itself as long as you give the source. The records for all of my SFBC editions give the source as either Locus1 (the online version), the hard copy of Locus (giving the specific issue and date), the SFBC announcement flyer or catalog, or the SFBC website.  Feel free to note in any record with a price which you're updating that the price is not printed on the book, and that the source of the price is unknown. That leaves it open for any future verifier to note the source (which the first person should have done to begin with.) Mhhutchins 23:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Changed it to the Locus price as that would have come from the publisher at time of release and Amazon's would be for the current price. Added one line to notes to cover this. --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

French edition of Davidson's The Redward Edward Papers
Can you verify that the introduction to this edition credits "Michael J. Kurland". The record for my US edition was incorrectly credited with the middle initial, and I've just changed it. It's possible your record was cloned from the previously incorrect US edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was indeed cloned as you supposed. I'll change the author's name and wait for validation to merge. Hauck 13:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, you started on the difficult path with this. The easier way is to add the right title to the pub, and remove the wrong one (two steps). Because the introduction was a variant, after changing the author's name the variant relationship needed to be reversed see here before the titles could be merged. I did this for you, result is here, saves some time. --Willem H. 13:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your solution was my first thought but I wondered if the otehr one wasn't easier which seems not to be the case. Hauck 13:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A Trace of Memory
I updated to add notes on the country of printing, ISBN on spine, publisher name, copyright, first appearance statement, and linked the OCLC. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Repères dans l'Infini - Container title
I approved your edit to this pub, but you did make a mistake here. You changed the pubtype to collection (which is ok), but at the same time you changed the container title to one of the short fiction pieces in stead of type "collection". The result is, that there's no container title left in the pub, so you won't find a link to the title record (should be under "Title Reference"). This can easily be corrected by adding a new container title to the pub. In this case the title and author should be the same as the pub title and author, the title type should be "Collection". Do you want to try this? --Willem H. 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just tried this. Hope it works. Hauck 17:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. See here. --Willem H. 17:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Trade ed. of Dozois' Slow Dancing Through Time
The verified record of this pub is missing contents after page 139. I'm pretty sure it had the same contents as the deluxe edition. Mhhutchins 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in updating the record for the deluxe edition, I corrected the publisher to "Ursus Imprints/Mark V. Ziesing", and changed the titles of the three prefatory pieces to reflect those on their individual title pages and not the table of contents. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Baker's Black Projects, White Knights
Is the introduction to this collection fictional? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It can effectively be seen as such, it's more a prologue than an introduction. Hauck 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Facets
I added some more notes to this verified pub. --Willem H. 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Knight Moves
Can you check the ISBN on this pub again? I think it's the same second printing as this one, except for the ISBN. Thanks, --Willem H. 14:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I asked for the deletion of the duplicate and add the image to your verified pub. Hauck 11:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Approved both. Thanks, --Willem H. 13:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Futura and Orbit
Hi. What do you think about changing the imprint + publisher on your verified from "Futura /Orbit" to "Orbit / Futura"? Those two Venus Equilateral publications are the only pubs treating Futura as the imprint and Orbit as the publisher, while quite a few use the other treatment. I see "Orbit" is prominent on the covers, making me suspect that's actually the imprint.... Thanks. --MartyD 10:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem here, feel free to change it. The treatment of UK publishers of this period always stoke me as odd and particularly opaque (Orbit/Futura, Panther/Granada, etc.) with the addition of the "imprint" concept which is quite untranlatable for a frenchman. I suppose that I used a existing template without much tought. Hauck 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you're ready to be a Moderator?
Hi Hervé, I've been following your progress on the database, and found increasingly less problems with your submissions. You seem to be more and more familiar with things like merging titles, the meaning of container titles etc. Also your French is a lot better than mine. Do you think you're ready for at least self approval? Take a look at the Moderator Qualifications, and let me know what you think. By the way, moderators are also supposed to ask questions when they're not certain about their edits. --Willem H. 10:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree: Hervé, you're certainly trusted enough by me to approve your own cover additions, new French editions of English titles, the French Publication series, etc. And trusted enough that you'll learn to use the extra powers that Moderatorship involves wisely. We certainly could do with some more multi-lingual moderators around here, but if you agree to self-approve first we won't pressure you to be our French Editor specialist - for a while, at least! ;-) BLongley 00:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered and pleased by this offer. I'd be happy to serve as a moderator even if the task of entering my own data is very far from complete. Thanks for your kind words. Hervé Hauck 15:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good! I started the ball rolling here. Let's see what the others say. --Willem H. 16:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's looking promising. Don't look at the abstentions as negative - it just means the moderators are mostly over-worked and can't always review every editor. So we need more moderators. And we should encourage more non-moderators to vote - it's open to all contributors. BLongley 00:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ELRIK or Elrik
You submitted two pubs with this cover artist. One as ELRIK and one as Elrik. The database doesn't treat this as two different names, but adds the second to the first submitted name. Can you check which spelling is correct? If neccesary, you can change the artists name here. --Willem H. 19:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed and confirm the different spellings (in capital and not), it's probably the same illustrator. I don't know how to best treat this kind of "fake" aliases. Hauck 19:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Globalement Inoffensive
Approved this new pub. The ISBN has a bad checksum however. Can you check again? NooSFere has the last digit as 5. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, corrected. Hauck 21:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And approved of course. --Willem H. 21:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Méduse
There are some invalid pointers in this publication, which you verified in August, and I am trying to figure out what happened to it. As far as I can tell, at one point there were four other titles in this pub and then they were either merged or deleted. Would you happen to remember what happened to the pub? Anything unusual? Did you enter Contents Titles and then merge them? Any clues will be greatly appreciated! TIA! Ahasuerus 04:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, I created the first printing of this title here with the merging of titles (as it's an original french collection) then probably cloned it for this subsequent printing the one you're citing. That's all I remember but the 1981 one is, in temr of contents, a strict duplicate of the 1978 one. Hope this little helps. Hauck 16:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, very interesting, I will have to experiment later today. Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Modhood!
Congratulations, and welcome to the team. Here's another helpscreen for you. You'll find things are easier now. No more math puzzles, no more waiting. Have fun! --Willem H. 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A lot to read and a big responsibility. Hauck 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me too, and welcome aboard. I do recommend you read the page Willem pointed to, but please call for advice if/when it isn't clear - a lot of moderators are now working from memory and don't even look at the page now. (You may notice that the page actually shows me as a dubious editor with Holds needed!) I'm available most days and you do not have to moderate edits you're uncertain of. And if I'm uncertain too, there's still some other active mods to help. Take it slowly with your new powers and I'm sure you'll be fine. Again, Welcome aboard the ISFDB roller-coaster! BLongley 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this advice. To be frank I plan to stick to auto-approval for now (it'll give me adequate learning time). Hauck 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Three Publication Date Issues
You verified (you're the second verifier, but sending it your way as the primary hasn't edited in a bit) which contains an interview that is dated 0199. This seems a likely data entry typo for the publication's date of 1999.

You also verified (you're the third verifier, but also sending it your way as the other two haven't edited in a bit) which contains a review that is dated 0198. This seems a likely data entry typo for the publication's date of 1998.

You also verified which contains a novel that is dated 1944. This seems a likely data entry typo for the publication's date of 1994 given that the credited author,, was not born until 1945.

Could you take a look at these and make the appropriate fixes? Thanks. --JLaTondre 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the Pelot, I entered a date of 1944 when creating it, saw my mistake but I didn't catch the fact that the mistake was also at the "title" level and not only the "publication" level (note that the real date is in fact 1980). I'll do the other two tomorrow (it's 3:00 PM here ;-)). Hauck 02:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done the two others. For the interview the correct date is peraphs those of the HC (1998) but I don't have data about it. Hauck 10:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Added note.
I added a note that your verified also appeared in a Dune Trilogy box set.Don Erikson 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Murray Leinster's "The Grandfather's War"
You verified which contains The Grandfathers' War. The other verified versions of this story are listed as The Grandfather's War. I wanted to verify the placement of the apostrophe in your version before I submitted a change to make it a variant record. Would mind checking that it is indeed Grandfathers' instead of Grandfather's? --JLaTondre 23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I confirm _The granfathers' war_ in the Baen omnibus. You stumbled on an interesting problem as, after having a look in my copy of the october 1957 issue of Astounding, I noticed the fact that even in this first publication the title is also _The granfathers' war_. As a third verification in here shows the same title with Grandfathers' (I'm ashamed as i have also verified this item)), it seems that we have got everything wrong from the start. Hauck 09:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I created a central discussion and will notify all the verifiers. --JLaTondre 00:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Added date info
I added month of date to your verified edition of Erikson|Don Erikson] 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Man with the Strange Head and Other Early Science Fiction Stories
You've verified but it doesn't seem to have the fiction content? BLongley 13:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was young and innocent. I added the correct content but cut corners by considering that the texts were by Miles J. Breuer, M.D (and not  Miles J. Breuer) which avoids me a lot of VTing. Hauck 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it's quicker that way but it's not really right. At least leave a note that you've done it that way. Hmmm.... I think we need some sort of Feature Request where we can Import content Titles from another publication without author (same as we can import without page numbers) so we can do mass contents under a different author-name. Which might need to go with a feature request that empty authors in a collection's contents default to the author of the collection. (Can't do that with Anthologies, might be safe to do it with Omnibuses though.) I'll have to think about that. BLongley 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I put everything in order now (or so i think). Your idea is a good one and i'll add that it'll be nice to have the year (of the original publication when seeing the vt) in such cases. Hauck 19:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Algis Budrys' And Then She Found Him
You verified which contains And Then She Found Him. The other records for this story (with multiple verifiers) are listed as And Then She Found Him. ... I wanted to verify the absence of the ellipses in your version before I submitted a change to make it a variant record. Would you mind checking? Thanks. --JLaTondre 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I can confirm the absence of ellipses in this pub (be it on toc, copyright page or title page). Hauck 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Submitted. Thank you. --JLaTondre 22:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Engineman
Expanded the notes slightly for [this] and managed to get a cleaner image scanned in. That's one hard cover to get rid of the lines!! --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A nicer one. Thx Hauck 08:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Greg Bear's A Plague of Conscience
You verified containing Plague of Conscience. You also verified containing A Plague of Conscience. Can you can confirm the variation and that they're the same story? Thanks. --JLaTondre 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the same story (a segment of the shared universe of Medea) and thes title are different as entered. Hauck 07:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Variant submitted. Thank you. --JLaTondre 12:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And approved. Thanks. Hauck 18:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Anton York, Immortal
Expanded the notes a little for [this] And congrats on your Moderatorship! My time has been pretty limited here of late and I completely missed the ascension. Didn't even get to vote... ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hauck 07:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Tenth Planet
Scanned in a sharper image and re-arranged the notes a little for [this]. Didn't really change anything but added a line about the artist credit/signature. --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gates of Creation
Scanned in a new image, added interior art with note to [this]. You might consider archiving some of your talk page as it takes a long time to load or save after a post. --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If only I knew how to do this ;-). Hauck 16:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fairly easy to do. [This] is one of my archive pages. What's on it is not important, just the URL is. If you simply substitute your name in any form you want and hit enter, you'll go to a blank page, but you will have created it at least. Then just copy/paste as much or all of your talk page onto it. To give access, put the URL at the top of the unarchived portion of your talk page, as I've done [here]. Again you can format/name your archive anything, as long as the URl has the first part up to and including the '=' sign it will be on this database. Once you've copied what you want, then delete that portion from your regular talk page. Lean, fast, and ready to be filled up again. :-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)