User talk:Syzygy

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Help pages
 * Help:Getting Started
 * What the ISFDB Wiki is for
 * ISFDB FAQ
 * Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
 * Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.
 * Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mhhutchins 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about a publication...
It's better to ask questions about a pub record on the Help Desk page. They shouldn't be asked in the Note to the Moderator in an update of that record, because we can't directly respond to them from the database. The Wiki (these pages) are used for communication. Thanks and welcome to the ISFDB. Mhhutchins 19:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Von Kempelen and His Discovery
The capitalization of a single word in a title is not sufficient to create a Variant, likely a typesetter's choice in the first place. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alien Contact
Thanks for adding the contents to this record. I've merged the new content titles with those already in the database, but made a few corrections: Let me know if any of these were incorrectly changed. We base story title and author credit on those shown on the story's title page and not the book's content page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Road Not Taken", the author was changed from "Harry Turtledoves" to Harry Turtledove
 * "Kin", the author was changed from "Bruce McAlister" to Bruce McAllister
 * "The First Contact With the Gorgonids", the author was changed from "Ursula K. LeGuin" to Ursula K. Le Guin
 * "Texture of Other Ways", author was changed from "Mark W, Tiedemann" to Mark W. Tiedemann


 * Hi. I also changed the "About the Contributors" record based on your note to the moderators.  If a work's author is not credited at all, we use "uncredited".  We only use "Anon" or "Anonymous" if the work is explicitly credited that way.  And since "About the Contributors" is a generic sort of title that might appear in any book, I added "(Alien Contact)" to it to disambiguate.  And last (and VERY least), I saw your numbered list in the notes with one entry on each line.... A gotcha in the way the display works is that line breaks typed into the notes are ignored, so if you type in:

1. One 2. Two
 * what gets displayed will be

1. One 2. Two
 * instead of what you want. There are two ways around this, both of which involve inserting some raw HTML into the note. You can use  &lt;BR&gt;  (line BReak):

1. One&lt;BR&gt; 2. Two
 * or for lists you can use HTML's tags for making ordered (numbered) lists:

&lt;OL&gt; &lt;LI&gt;One &lt;LI&gt;Two &lt;/OL&gt;
 * Either of these will end up looking the way you intend, with each item in the list on a new line. I changed your note to use the ordered list, so you can see what that looks like.  Thanks.  --MartyD 11:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Spaces in titles
Hi. I saw your note in your latest Complete Tales submission. When it comes to merging/matching the titles with existing titles, you should ignore spacing differences. You could record discrepancies in the notes, should someone later disagree with that choice. Spaces (except for glomming of words, e.g., "Spell Bound" is different from "Spellbound") are really just a typesetting choice. For "T he", I would consider it a typographical error and record "The" (with a note); the exception would be if it's clear the author meant the space to be there. --MartyD 11:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviews in Edgar Allan Poe: Complete Tales and Poems
I accepted the submission adding more content to this record, but the reviews should have been entered as ESSAY type, and titled in the form "Review of  by ". You can also be more specific if you wish, e.g. "Review of the film "Forbidden Planet" directed by Fred M. Wilcox" or "Review of the album "Close to the Edge" by rock group Yes". The REVIEW type is reserved for reviews of spec-fic and spec-fic-related books and stories (not films, recordings, comics, games, or non-associational books or stories). Do you believe any of these reviews are of spec-fic works? After you've had a chance to read this, I'm going to remove the others from the record (using the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function) and then create essays for each of them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead and make the changes. I'm still learning the ropes here, so it may take me some time to get up to speed. I'm spending some time in the help and on other pages trying to find info and answers, but I still have an infinite amount of questions and about half as many suggestions. These I will open for discussion after I'm more familiar with the processes of this site. In the meantime, I will continue editing and if I err and a virtual slap on the wrist is warranted, well what better way to learn quickly. Syzygy 04:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What a wonderful attitude! I've had to deal with a few fragile personalities who have gone apeshit at the very hint or suggestion that they may have done something wrong. I appreciate someone who's willing to listen to a little advice and guidance. Neither one of us would be here if we didn't care about creating a permanent and accurate database of the fiction we love. I applaud your taking the time to read through the help pages, but, as you state, the best way to learn is to do, even if you're making mistakes along the way. It won't be long before you're updating and creating records error-free.  Just bear with it (and us moderators) for awhile. So before I change the reviews into essays, can I assume that the works being reviewed are not speculative fiction? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 05:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those should be merged with the existing (dangling) reviews, then we can hunt down all of the occurrences and replace with Essay -- it'll make an easier checklist if we do the merge first. The one exception we might want to make is the review of Astoria.  If we consider Irving to be above a certain threshhold, we could add that pub as nongenre.  I'm happy to fix them up if you guys want; I'm sure I'm the original instigator, and Willem just followed what was already in place when he did his Poe collections.  --MartyD 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Marty. Please take over and handle them as you see fit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I skimmed over the "reviews" and none of them appear to be Spec-Fic, even Irving's "Astoria", which deals with the fur trading business of John Jacob Astor. Besides a brief criticism by Poe, these appear more like synopses of the reviewed books. I hope this clears things up and thanks again. So, moving on...Syzygy 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay. I will take care of them.  --MartyD 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) But now I have a question: How is "Magazine-Writing" actually credited? Is it really "Anon", or is there no explicit credit? Thanks. --MartyD 02:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC) In the pub there is no explicit credit. I originally credited this to Poe in the author field then did a little digging to     find the pub date. So I kicked a little dirt up with my toe and searched Magazine-Writing under "All Titles" and came up with a match as a Review. This is where I realized that Poe was NOT the author, but the reviewer. Author was credited to Anonymous and I just put in Anon and moved the info down to "Reviews Found in this Pub" field. And that's where I left it. Now that I     got your query, I went back (bringing a trowel with me this time) and dug a little deeper. I looked into the pubs listed under that review title and didn't find the title listed there, in particular, "The Complete Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe" verified by Willem H. There is another VT, but that leads back to the pub I'm editing, which conflicts with your note to me     (see "Spaces in Titles" above), which conflicts with instructions on the Help pages to enter title exactly as they appear on      the stp. It's no wonder that it's hard to keep new editors. Right now, to me, this is utter confusion and I'm already regretting picking my Poe volume (which, by the way, I bought for a dollar at a garage sale!) for one of my first edits. I hope the info I gave you here is enough to dig to the bottom of this and I am sure that you are wise enough to take a shovel with you. As for me, it's now getting late, so Goodnight. Syzygy 05:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't be discouraged, you did absolutely fine (better than most people would, in fact). I was only asking because I wanted to make sure I didn't lose any information.  I have my shovel and will go do some landscaping.... :-)  --MartyD 12:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Venus, Inc.
I'm not sure what you meant to do in the submission to update this record. Your note to the moderator says "do not add". Should I reject the submission? If I don't, the content entry you added will be part of the record. Mhhutchins 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, reject the submission. I am having connectivity problems and was just trying to see if I could submit anything because I lost a lot of uploads due to a bad connection(Wifi) and server errors. I should have this rectified within a week. I thought I was following procedure for submitting test edits but I guess I goofed up again! Syzygy 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thrilling SF, Fall 1971
I accepted the submission to update this record, but restored the original publisher name. We tray to standardize publishers' names to a certain extent, without creating new publishers due to small variations. I added a note of how the publisher is credited in the magazine. Because you removed the original source of the info, please do a primary verification of the record so that we know the source is from an editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thrilling Science Fiction, April 1974
In the edit to update this record you left a Note to Moderator:


 * Edit complete. Upload of Image is from Galatic Central, but it is not credited. It is my first image upload, so I probably missed a couple of steps. I would a appreciate a fix on that. Thanks!

I'm not sure what you meant by "upload". It appears that you linked the URL of the image on the Galactic Central website, which is perfectly OK because they've given us permission to do so. When we speak of "uploading images" we're referring to editors who have the image on their hard-drive and are uploading the file to the ISFDB server, which they will then link to the proper pub record. So in this case you probably meant "link" instead of "upload". Mhhutchins 04:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant link, but it still lacks the credit to Galactic Central. That I still do not know how to do. John L. - Syzygy 05:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The system should do that automatically. I can't say why it's not doing it in this case but will try to find out why. Mhhutchins 06:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I know. When you copied the URL you left out the "www", and even though the link still works, the system was programmed to recognize www.philsp.com as Galactic Central. So the credit wasn't automatically generated. I've changed the URL and it's credited now. Mhhutchins 06:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

SFBC ed. of McDevitt's The Devil's Eye
I've adjusted the data in this record to move the SFBC ID number to the ISBN/Catalog # field. When this record was created, like most SFBC editions, the only ID number we have is from the SFBC catalog. Now that we have an editor with a copy of the book, we can move the SFBC ID # (the number usually printed on the bottom back of the dustjacket) into that field. Feel free to do the same with any other SFBC editions. Just remember to move the catalog number to the note field. Also, please do a primary verification of the record so we know which editor to contact in case of questions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ISBNs in SFBC reprints of other publisher's editions.
In some cases, the SFBC edition of another publisher's book retains the ISBN of the original trade edition. This is not the ISBN of the SFBC printing, so we don't put that number in the ISBN/Catalog# field. We use the SFBC ID# which is printed on the back of the dustjacket. You can record the trade ISBN in the note field. I've adjusted the update that you made to this record. For further help in entering SFBC editions (and for an explanation of why we do it this way) go to this help page. Mhhutchins 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate title in Poe collection
Can you confirm that the poem "To Helen" appears on pages 781 and 836 in this collection? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes One poem was published in 1831 and the other one is a variant of

To __ __ __ (I saw thee once...) John L. Syzygy 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I merge it with the variant. On what page does the variant appear? Mhhutchins 04:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay; I fell asleep. The poem's title id is T|979493 and the variant's title id is T|999336. John L.  Syzygy 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but which of the poems in the collection is the one that needs to be varianted. If you can give me the page number for the one that starts "I saw thee once" I can do the rest. Mhhutchins 18:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "To Helen" on page 836 was published in 1831. That one is a canonical title. The "To Helen" on page 781 is the variant title to "To __ __ __ (I saw thee once...)". I hope this clears things up. Sorry about the mixup. I don't think too well when I'm tired. John L.  Syzygy 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Colossus
The submission to update this record was accepted, but it would be a good idea to return the note about this being at least the third printing, regardless of the printing statement. The first printing was in 1967, and the second printing (stated as well) was in 1970. It's proper that you record exactly what's stated in the book, but if you find it's an error, as it obviously is in this case, you can add those suspicions in the note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. John L. Syzygy 17:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Requiem for the Conqueror
I accepted the submission adding a new printing for this title, but there are a couple of errors that will need to be fixed. The standard name of the publisher is "DAW Books". Also you've entered the title series into the publication series field (see this help page to learn the difference between the two types). That data will have to be removed. The title is already in the title series. Mhhutchins 17:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I will go over working with series help. John L. Syzygy 17:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded image without a license tag
You recently uploaded to the ISFDB server without adding a license tag. These licenses are added so that we can protect ourselves against charges of copyright infringement. If you upload from a database pub record using the "Upload Cover Scan" function, the system will automatically generate the proper license and add it to the image file's record. This image must have been uploaded using the "Upload file" link on the wiki pages. In which case, a license tag must be manually added to the image file. (This used to be the only way to upload images, but we discourage it now because of the extra work required to bring it up to standards.)

Do you remember which pub record you linked to this image? I can go back and add the license to the file if I know the book for which this is the cover. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked closer at the image and saw the Tor logo, so I was able to find the record. In doing so, I saw that there is a better image on Amazon, so I linked it to the record. I'll delete the file you uploaded once you get a chance to read this message. Also, according to the OCLC record, there are twenty additional pages that are roman-numeraled in this edition (we would enter it as "xx+236"). Can you check you copy to see if it has those pages, and what exactly is on them? Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry in the delay, I was away for a week. As to the unlicensed image, I do not know why it is that way since I didn't have problems with other uploaded images, and I do go to the pub record to "Upload file", as you say, the process is much easier that way. But this point is moot since you'll replace the image anyway. Yes, delete the old image. As to the roman numeraled pages, there is indeed xx+236 pages, a major oversight on my part. The contents are "The Life of Mary Shelley" by Keith Neilson, a Foreword, also by Neilson, Author's Introduction, and a Preface signed "Marlow, September, 1817". There is no Table of Contents. There is an Afterword on page 234 by Neilson.Should all of this be added to the pub record as contents? John L.  Syzygy 15:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, please update the record and add the other contents (as ESSAY type) and correct the page count field. And in the future it's always better to upload a cover image using the link on the publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks. John L.-- Syzygy 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Last Colony
The date of this record should be zeroed out, as it appears that 2008-08-00 was the date of the first printing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the catch, I'll make the change now. John L. -- Syzygy 22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Importing contents rather than creating new records
I accepted the submission to update this record but it would have been better to import the contents from another record which included the two novels. Now you'll have to merge the newly created records for each novel with the matching records that already in the database. I'll await the submissions to do that. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot about importing, now I'll have to learn to merge. Don't stay up too late waiting for these submissions, it may take me a while. John L. -- Syzygy 23:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, that was easy. Thanks for the push in the right direction. Syzygy 00:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I try not to push any harder than I feel you can handle. And in this case, I felt you could. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating titles
I've merged this title record with the one you added to your record, giving only the title of the piece. You should not disambiguate titles that are titled other than those that are generic, such as "Foreword" or "Introduction". If it's titled "Author's Foreword: Reality and Symbols", you should not add the title of the book for which it's a foreword. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the title is unique enough not to get lost in the sauce, as they say. If I imported contents like I was supposed to, I wouldn't have all this fun. Syzygy 00:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary data from a note field
When you do a primary verification of this record, feel free to remove the note recording the original source of the data and cover artist. Now that we know that the data is stated in the book itself, we don't need a secondary source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll take care of it when I add an image URL. Syzygy 21:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Linking OCLC records to ISFDB records
Most of the time, it's not necessary to link the OCLC record to the ISFDB record. It's done automatically for records with ISBNs, just by clicking on the "Worldcat" link under the "Other Sites" menu on the left side of each page with a ISFDB publication record. There are exceptions which may need to be linked. For example, if there are several OCLC records and you want it to link to a specific one or the one that more closely resembles the ISFDB record. Check out the "Worldcat" link on the record that you just updated with an OCLC link in the note field. Now there are thousands of books published before the creation of ISBNs, and these can be linked, if you're willing to do so (although it is not mandatory). Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Newer pubs with ISBN's = no linking in note field necessary. Older pubs with SBN's or publisher catalog #'s = linking preferred. Ok, that's understood, but it might be helpful to explain it somewhere on this site, perhapsHelp:Using Worldcat data so it wouldn't take long for a new editor to figure it out (three months for me). I was thinking that clicking on the OCLC link in the verification field like you can for Locus1 would take you to their pub listing, but that wouldn't work for all listings, would it?. Anyway, now that I know what goes on with OCLC linking, I'll follow your guidelines. I hope the inter-wiki page link works for you. I had to go research that and hope I got it right. John L. -- Syzygy 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, there should be better documentation on how the website works. When this feature was added, perhaps no one took the time to document it. Maybe they did...somewhere on one of the dozens of help pages. Believe me, I would also rather that new editors take the time to read the documentation that already is in the help pages, but find even that can be burdensome for most of them. So I spend a lot of time leaving them messages that address the specific situation where they need assistance. Some editors like this personal attention and learn from it more than reading documentation. As a new editor, you're going to find deficiencies in documentation that veteran editors are going to overlook because we've been doing it instead of documenting it. Just bring any failures to the attention of the rest of us on the Community Portal, and we'll try to find a way to remedy the situation. Mhhutchins 22:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that the goal of ISFDB is completeness and accuracy in documenting all speculative fiction. If there is anything I can think of that would help in attaining that goal, I will not hesitate in posting a comment on the community page. For now, I will learn through experience, and all of your help, of course. -- Syzygy 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Science Fiction of the Thirties
I am starting a discussion here to resolve a minor discrepency with this. My copy has the interior artwork credited to Morey for Into the Meteorite Orbit on page 84. The contents field for this pub states page 83, whereas that is an unpaginated blank page in my copy. I am asking you to check on this. Also, my copy has a gutter code of S38. Can you double-check your gutter codes to see if you have Q51 or something else. That's it. --John L.-- Syzygy 01:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're correct. The record should be on page 84. I'll make the correction because I was the originator of record. My copy has gutter code Q51 (the first printing), but I'll add your gutter code to the notes. Mhhutchins 02:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll go ahead and do a verification. --John L.-- Syzygy 03:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OCLC identification
Hi. Something that might save you a little work: You don't need to notify verifiers if you find an OCLC number and add it to the notes (if that's the only information you add), as long as you make yourself the OCLC/Worldcat verifier: Click on the Verify This Pub link, and scroll down to OCLC/Worldcat and select the middle, "Verified", button. It's understood that a note referring to a secondary source has been entered (or at least confirmed) by that source's verifier, not necessarily any of the primary verifiers. --MartyD 12:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Marty. Yes, that will save me lots of work and time. I usually have a publication to verify to go along with OCLC, so the effort to me is worthwhile --John L.-- Syzygy 13:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

War of the Worlds
I added cover art credit... per his own website, Les Edwards is the cover artist. Ofearna 23:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, to have a link to the publication you referred to, but, no matter. Are you referring to ? Which you must be, because it's the only War of the Worlds I verified (I think) thus far. --John-- Syzygy 02:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Limits to image files uploaded to the ISFDB server
It is ISFDB policy that you upload image files that are not larger than 150K in size and no longer than 600 pixels at the longest side. I'm not sure how the standards were arrived at, but I assume it protects us against litigation if the images we upload could be of such a resolution that they could be used to create pirate copies. You should get a warning if you attempt to upload anything that's greater than the standards, although nothing actually prevents you from doing so. An exception is made in some circumstances, such as images of wraparound cover art. Most scanners (or graphics software) will allow you to set the files to these limits without much trouble. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been overriding the warnings, but I have been limiting the length to 570 pixels, which is within stated bounds. This gives me anywhere from 170 to 210KB per upload. I can back off on the length, say, 500 pixels. This should get me within 150KB or pretty close to it. Syzygy 01:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You should be able to limit the size of the file to less than 150KB without changing the dimensions. Most graphics software allows you to reduce the resolution without affecting the size (dimensions) of the image. This decrease in resolution also reduces the size of the file, but not the size of the image. It's the greater resolution that would get us into trouble, more than the size of the image. You can also change the resolution settings of your scanner. 200 ppi (pixels per inch) are sufficient for ISFDB purposes. Mhhutchins 02:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks. I'll work on that approach. Syzygy 03:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card
I added cover scan to "The Call of Earth"--Teddybear 12:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I found it. Looks good. Syzygy 12:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating interior art records
When added the suffix numbers, leave spaces between the last word in the title and the first bracket. I'll fix the records you added to this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Man Who Fell to Earth
I just added cover art credit, with notes, to, which you verified. Ofearna 06:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work. Thanks. Syzygy 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Infinite Dreams
Hello, I had to alter your submission for adding the OCLC, there was a kind of syntax error (a missing quote). Please resubmit. Hauck 17:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Resubmitted. Pesky quotes. Syzygy 18:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. As you've modified some data, it's important that you'll notify the PV. Hauck 19:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OCLC
I accepted the submission to add the OCLC number to the note field of this record, but wondered if you knew that when a record has an ISBN, 90% of the time it will link directly to the OCLC record by clicking on the WorldCat link under the "Other Sites" menu. This makes recording the OCLC number, or linking it, in the note field is somewhat redundant. If the ISBN doesn't link, or if the book doesn't have an ISBN, then adding the OCLC number would be of value. Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did know of the link and it does seem redundant, but I felt it was necessary in someway to show that a physical check was done before verifying that particular field. Should I go ahead and verify without submitting a catalog number? Syzygy 14:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that doing any other verification of a record which I've already primary verified to also be redundant, but that's a personal rule that I'm sure I've broken more than once. There are editors who do other verifications along with the primary one, and I'm not going to question their personal standard. I know at least one moderator who feels that if you do an OCLC verification that you should link the ISFDB record to the OCLC record. His rationale (and it's a valid one) is that sometimes OCLC has several records for the same publication and you should link the OCLC record which was used to do the OCLC verification of the ISFDB record. None of this is mandatory though, and entirely up to the editor. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Deep Space
I'm holding the submission to update this record. You want to add a note that the gutter code is verified. That's only true if the editor who posts the note does a primary verification of the record. Otherwise, the user will assume that the current verifier was the editor who entered the note. This can be corrected by doing a primary verification of the record, and amend the note that the Primary 2 verifier added the gutter code. Or you can remove the "[verified]" part of the statement. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually hold off in verifying until my submissions pass, but in this case I can see where that could be a problem. I went ahead and verified the pub and I will resubmit for the verification in the gutter code note. Syzygy 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Second submission accepted. I'll reject the first one which I had on hold. Mhhutchins 21:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Correcting a typo in a content title record
It was easier to just edit the title record, correcting the typo, all in one submission. The method you chose would have required three submissions (add a new record, remove the typo-ed one, and then delete the typo-ed record). Mhhutchins 00:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, that does make sense. I guess I'm used to seeing grayed-out titles in the contents. Syzygy 00:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Grayed titles are for content records which appear in more than one publication. That's why you can't edit them in a pub edit...but you can still edit them from the title record. You just have to be more careful because you're changing it for every publication in which it appears. That might affect primary verified pubs, so it requires more consideration before making an edit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind, and thanks for the help. Syzygy 01:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter Project
Replaced the amazon image with a scan and expanded the notes a little for [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

DAW Collectors publication series
I and a couple of other editors are trying to formalize the DAW Collectors Books publication series. The consensus is that we should include only those publications that explicitly list their DAW number, either on the cover, the spine, or the copyright page. This applies to, apparently, all first editions and to some reprint editions, but not to most of the reprints. You have verified several DAW reprint editions where the notes list the DAW number. However, I can't tell from the wording in the notes whether this number is listed because (i) it was actually stated on the book; or (ii) the number was inherited from other editions with the DAW number listed. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could check these reprints and when they have the number actually listed, update the notes to reflect that. For example, adding "(on cover)" or "(on copyright page)" to a phrase like "DAW Collectors No. 123". The publications you've verified that fall into this scenario are: W. Michael Gear's Counter-Measures, 3rd printing W. Michael Gear's The Warriors of Spider, 20th Anniversary Edition W. Michael Gear's Relic of Empire, 4th printing  Thanks much, Chavey 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, sorry for the delay in responding. I was taking some time off from this site. I will update my notes to reflect the DAW book numbers more thoroughly for what you have listed. Syzygy 22:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I wasn't expecting instant responses. There's a lot of books in the series, and it will take a while to get all the verifications checked. Chavey 03:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help! I added those books to the publication series. Chavey 15:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Benford's Cosm: A Letter to My Readers added
I just added this essay to your verified pub.. Stonecreek 19:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A Deepness in the Sky
Hi. I verified this pub http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?252069 by Locus1, and added the date listed there. (Locus listed a wrong cover artist though). Viter 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Earth
Re: Earth

Replacing Amazon image with better quality image scanned from personal collection. Adding notes. Informing verifiers.--Astromath 05:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Total Eclipse
Re: Total Eclipse

Adding LCCN to notes. Notifying all verifiers.--Astromath 13:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Integral Trees
Re: The Integral Trees

Redoing/adding notes. Notifying all verifiers.--Astromath 02:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Damnation Alley
Re: Damnation Alley

Replacing Amazon image with one of better quality.--Astromath 15:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Artifact by Gregory Benford
Hi, I uploaded a new cover scan of this book  - CheerZ :) Viter 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the Canadian price to your verified
I added the Canadian price and ISBN to your verified.Don Erikson 21:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Underscores/dashes in Poe poem titles
I'm entering another Poe collection, and as I'm encountering titles with omitted pieces represented by dashes, I'm changing some of the ones where we had been using underscores, rather than having dash variants AND underscore variants, if there's no evidence an underscore was ever used. This affects some of the titles in your verified. For any ones changing, I am double-checking against the Amazon Look Inside for it. If you have any objections or would like more detailed notification, let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 11:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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