User talk:Horzel

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 19:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

NEL edition of The Man Who Sold the Moon
I have a submission to update this record, but no changes were made. You only added a note to the moderator about a source for the cover art. This isn't the best way to add the new data to the record. Because the record has been primary-verified (a user has a copy and confirms the record's data is correct), you should leave a message on his talk page letting him know about your source. You can also do a primary verification of the record (in the next available slot), update the record (adding Bruce Pennington to the cover artist field), and then leave a note on the other verifier's talk page. I'll go ahead and do that for you this time. Thanks for the information. Mhhutchins 21:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cover art credit for The Snow Queen
Because this record has been primary verified, you should leave a message on the verifier's page letting him know that you've found the source for the art credit. I'll do that for you. Mhhutchins 21:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

General reply
Thanks for your fast replies. I haven't even figured out how to reply properly, this'll have to do for now. This is the first time I try to edit any wiki. I'll try not to make the same mistake twice... Horzel 10:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick and easy lesson: to respond to a specific topic or message click on the [edit] link to the right of the message. A dialog box will open and you can enter your response. Start your message with a colon, and add another colon for each successive message to the number in the previous message. End the message with four tildes (~) which will automatically date and "sign" the message. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and notification
Thanks for your recent set of submissions. For a new editor, you seem to have caught on very early about how to update current records and creating new ones. Bravo! There are a few subtleties that you'll learn in time, but one of the most important is to source your data, and I've never seen a new editor do that so well and so soon. About notification of changes to primary-verified records, it's important that you notify the verifying editors before making a submission that will change a record's vital information. If you're adding new data, then you can submit the update and then notify. There are exceptions and they can be found in a notification notice at the top of most of the active editors' talk pages.

When you're creating a new record, and you're not working from a book in hand, please enter the source for your data in the record's "Note" field. If you are working from a copy of the publication, record that fact in the "Note to Moderator" field. This will speed up the acceptance process, because the moderator doesn't have to do research to confirm the data. Once the submission is accepted, you can go back and do a primary verification of it. There's a link in the Welcome section above to the help page for verifying records.

Again, you're doing a wonderful job. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Primary verification
Hello, I've just approved your submissions for some british titles. As it seems that you own the books, please think about becoming "primary verifier" (PV) for them (click on "Verify this Pub" in "Editing Tools" on the left menu, then tick "Primary/Verified" on the following page). It will allow other contributors or users to know which person to ask for confirmation or clarification on this particular publication. Thanks again. Hauck 14:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will primary verify them, as soon as I've finished modifying the contents. Thanks for your explications. Horzel 09:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Space, Time and Nathaniel
For the introduction that you evoked in your notes, it seems that it should be indeed credited to Aldiss (see here. You can add it by the "Edit this pub" link (you can cut and paste the correct name from a later pub), then you'll have to merge it manually with the later occurences of this text (here). This is done by going to the author's page and selecting the "Check for Duplicate Titles" link, then choosing the similarly-titled items to merge. Hauck 15:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Gene-Hive/Gene Hive
You stumbled (fast) on some interesting problems due to the structure of the ISFDB. In this case, you'll need to follow those steps : 1- delete "Gene-Hive" from the 1959 collection (use "Remove Titles From This Pub") 2- add "Gene Hive" to the collection (via "Edit This Pub") 3- merge "Gene Hive" with the other similar titles (they're here and this confirm that this variant title is specific to _The Canopy of Time_), as "Gene Hive" is already a variant, you can't do this by the "Check for Duplicate Titles" way, you'll have to use the "Show All Titles" menu, found the two "Gene Hive" (on the fourth page), select and merge them (remember to retain the correct data like the publication date when doing this). This should do the job. Hauck 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

More Than Human
Hello. For the publisher's name, there are periodically some attempts to standardize all this step by step, but you're on your own. I prefer to use "Gollancz" as it's the main form, even if you can find some "Victor Gollancz" and some composed names. Hauck 05:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Experiment Station
About your question, it's not a variant ISFDB-wise (it's reserved for title or authorship changes not textual modifications), your note is perfect for explaining this. You'll have now to change the pub date to the first publication of this particular form of the text (I suppose it's 1955) and think about what to do with this same text ?. In the latter case, the only way to decide is alas probably to find a copy of the 1971 anthology and verify to which version it corresponds as Locus seems to imply (wrongly if I read you correctly) that the three texts are the same. Hauck 14:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Science Fiction Adventures in Mutation, p186: " [ Experiment Station ] appeared under the title "The First" back in 1950; the version that you will read here is one the author has rewritten quite extensively for eventual inclusion in a collection of his own tales." So I'd expect the 1971 collection to contain the same text as does the 1955 anthology. Horzel 21:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

De Man in het Hoge Kasteel
Hello! I suppose the artist for this pub. was credited somewhere in it, right? Or were you using what was stated in the entry when veryfying it? Just asking, because I used this information for varianting the cover art of another publication where no credit was given to Keulers. Stonecreek 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nico Keulers is credited inside. Horzel 15:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking! I'll add a note that he is credited on the copyright page (that is the most probable place - if he's credited somewhere else please let me know it). Stonecreek 17:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright page. That was the word I was looking for :-) Horzel 18:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! It's just great to learn something about covers you like you didn't know before. Stonecreek 18:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Import contents
You can always import contents from another record that has the same, or even close, contents to the record you're updating. Go to the record with the contents, copy its record number (in your browser its the number after "cgi?"). Then go to the contentless record, and click the "Import" link under the Editing Tools menu. Enter the record number of the record with contents (choosing whether to keep the same page numbers or not), then submit. In the case of the Asimov collection, go to this record, copy its number (which is 50069) and proceed from there. Mhhutchins 21:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! A very useful feature! Horzel 21:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Twilight of the City
I approved your edit of this pub, however in the Note could you add a line to the effect that the artist has been identified from the identical artwork on the verified pub The Secret Songs. If there's no visible evidence on the publication as to who the artist is (as the Note currently states) but that information comes from a secondary source, it needs to be added to the Note. And as I'm sure you already know, you'll need to notify the previous verifier of Twilight of the City about the new art credit. Thanks. PeteYoung 11:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should have modified the Note (and will). I did notify the previous verifier (but maybe you were too fast for me). And I intend to make this cover art a variant of The Secret Songs cover art.Horzel 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Another problem: The cover for The Secret Songs is credited to Anthony Roberts, not Tony Roberts. You'll have to make it match. Then we'll deal with the variant situation. Mhhutchins 18:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see now that Tony is the canonical name. In this case, they don't have to match. Leave the credit for Twilight as is. Mhhutchins 18:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Heaven Makers
I've had to reject the update edit you intended to make for The Heaven Makers. I can see what you were trying to do, but to update that particular record in such a way would have removed any reference to the 1970 first NEL edition, which you say in the Note to Moderator that you also have, although the database at the moment has an incorrect cover for it (I agree that that cover design template for NEL dates from the mid-to-late 1970s; I probably even bought it myself when it first appeared). As your copy appears to be a new publication currently not in the database, your better option would have been to Clone the publication: under Editing Tools on the Toolbar you'll see "Clone This Pub", which makes a copy of the publication which you can then edit in the same way without touching the original, and which then appears after approval. You can then go back to the publication you originally wanted to edit, upload the correct cover for it and make the necessary edits including the artist credit to Jan Parker, all from your copy at hand. Hope this makes sense. Thanks. PeteYoung 22:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have your new publication of this on hold, because it looks very much like . The date, price, publisher, and page count are identical, although the cat number and cover artist are not. What are the differences that indicate your new entry is a different publication from the existing June 1970 NEL publication? Please help me understand your intent here. Or did you do the close and submit it without changing other details? -DES Talk 02:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got a copy of The Heaven Makers, with a cover (presumably) by Jan Parker, and a publishing date of June 1970 at the copyright page. Price 6/- and no ISBN, which makes sense for 1970 but not for 1976.
 * Then I find an existing ISFDB record of The Heaven Makers, with a Pennington cover, an obviously incorrect Year (record says June 1970 but cover mentions the Dune trilogy so should be 1976 or later), with an ISBN, and a price that has been corrected before, and most likely should not have been corrected (If I remember well, the UK introduced decimal coinage in 1970).
 * So now the question is, which part of the existing record should remain, and which part should be modified. It does not really matter, as long as both existing record and new record are correct. Right? Unless some part of the record should not be modified (or there is a URL somewhere to this record). But if e.g. the Tag should not be modified, it should not be modifiable.
 * The majority of the data of the existing Heaven Makers record fit together, except the Year, Price and part of the Note. So I changed those.
 * Can it be that the real problem is that I had to do one Publication Edit and one New Publication, and lacking a transaction mechanism, both were audited separately? Horzel 08:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as if the existing recode with the post 1975 cover, was at some time "corrected" probably from secondary sources, to try to make it into a record for a copy of the same book you have. There are two ways we could handle this. We could edit the existing record to make it match your book, and forget about the newer cover and the ISBN (which may be bogus, amazon often assigns ISBNs to old books based on the publisher even though the book in question never had an ISBN). Or we can let your entry through, and edit the existing one to as correct for the 1976 or later book. I'm going to do the 2nd. I am sorry if this was frustrating to you, last night I was thinking we had a nearly correct entry and here was no reason to create a near-duplicate pub entry. I did read your previous discussion, but yes things can be confusing when two different mods deal with parts of a sequence of edits. For the matter of that, they can be confusing when one mod deals with them but fails to correctly understand he editor's intent. The "Note to moderator" feature helps with that but nothing is perfect until we get the updated telepathy modules.
 * I am going to approve the edit of yours I held, and edit the existing record as best as I can based on your comments above, mostly by removing info clearly incorrect. Please look at that when i have finished it, and if you have data to correct it further please do so. -DES Talk 12:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit approved and edited. Please have a look at it. Thanks. -DES Talk 12:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the TAG field -- at one point long ago this was manually assigned, now it is auto-generated and normally is not modified manually. There have been a few occasions, however, when the generating algorithm fails and produces a duplicate tag, which must be modified manually. Otherwise it should not be edited. -DES Talk 12:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tags can still be manually assigned during "Add New Magazine", but editors are discouraged from doing so. I fixed two bugs that meant the system could duplicate Tags for very similar titles, and wrote the script that allows mods to find duplicates, but ideally we'd remove the functionality completely and stick to the guaranteed unique Publication IDs. BLongley 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The two records will be fine, once the cover upload is approved. Thanks. Now all I need is The Paperback Fanatic's Visual Guide to NEL to check the cover artist. Alas, sold out. Horzel 08:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

David McCall Johns[t]on
Hi. Do you by any chance have the 1974 The Sword and the Stallion? I'm wondering if that "Johnson" credit you propose making into a pseudonym isn't just a typo on our part. I'm going to see if I can get one of the verifiers to double-check. --MartyD 11:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do. Alas, I don't have a copy. Horzel 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The only active verifier couldn't help. I'm going to reject the pseudonym and change the credit to Johnston based on corroboration from secondary sources.  We can always do this again if the "Johnson" spelling can be confirmed.  Sorry about the long delay.  --MartyD 02:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying. (By the way, correct link is ). Horzel 07:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Continuum 1
I approved your edit to. Please don't forget to notify all three primary verifiers. -DES Talk 12:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Also for Continuum 2,3,4. Didn't know I was supposed to notify PV2 etc. Horzel 14:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a written rule about that, but it is a good idea. Much of the reason for the notifications is that if the primary verifier check his (or her) copy and it doesn't match, we may need to adjust something or create a separate record. When there is more than one primary verifier, there is no knowing which one will check first, and more eyes means more accuracy, in general. It may well be that PV3, say, is far more active than the others, the numbers just indicate who verified first. Thank you. -DES Talk 15:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Notification of Primary Verifiers should be easy to automate ... Horzel 18:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd think so, but those of us programmers that understand the database and interface software don't necessarily understand the Wiki software, which we have no control over. :-( There does need to be some improvement to the verification system - it's rather broken at the moment which is why they appear in an illogical order - but I doubt we'll get to it soon. You can always log a Feature Request to make sure we don't ignore the problem. BLongley 18:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing a content record
In the submission to update this record you left a note in the Note to Moderator field (not really the best place to leave such a note) that " Nightfall should be The Best of Isaac Asimov, but can't do that now (greyed out, 'in multiple publications')". This is easily fixed. Go to the pub record and remove the content record that is incorrect, using the "Remove Titles from This Pub" link under the Editing Tools menu. Check the box beside the record you wish to remove and then submit. Now edit the pub record to add a new content record to replace the one you just removed. Mhhutchins 21:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I had to reject the submission to "unmerge" this title record from one of the two publications in which it appears. The link to unmerge should only be used to remove publication records from container title records. There's a bug in the function to "unmerge" contained titles from container publications, so the function should be removed from the content (contained) title record page. Use the "Remove Titles from This Pub" function that I describe above. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

BLIC links
A significant secondary verification source is the British Library Integrated Catalogue (BLIC). I ans some other moderators used to insert links to BLIC records in notes, just as we to to OCLC/Worldcat records and LOC records. Unfortunately it turns out that the BLIC URLs are tied to a browsing session and are invalid after about 48 hours. No one at the ISFDB has yet found a way to make a permanent link to a BLIC record from the BLIC number. So we have stopped making such links, as they lead only to a "not found" page.

Why am I bothering you with this? Because i just approved an edit of yours to a pub record that had such a link. Not that you added it, but it was there. It is a good idea to remove such links when you find them and are editing the record anyway. It is not required, but is a good idea. I have removed this one, but I wanted to give you a heads up about this for the future. -DES Talk 14:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dragonflight
Submission addingthis record was accepted, but you entered an invalid ISBN. Up until circa 2005, the ISBN was only 10 digits long. It appears that you added the price code which some paperback publishers give at the end of their catalog number. Ballantine was known to do this. Usually just removing the last three digits makes it a valid ISBN. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing a primary verified publication
It is ISFDB etiquette to notify the editor who did a primary verification of a record before making a substantial change in any of the fields. I'm holding the submission to change the cover artist credit of this record until you've had a chance to notify the editor. (The rules concerning this policy are stated here.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ISFDB date formats
All dates in the ISFDB should be entered in the format YYYY-MM-DD. If any of those are unknown you can enter zeros, but the each element must be complete, e.g. a person born in 1940 should be entered as 1940-00-00 if you don't know the actual date. I accepted the submission to update the data for so that you could see how the system handles incomplete date fields. Another question: London, England? Ontario? Kentucky? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sintels by Holdstock
The submission adding this record was accepted. Please let the moderator know you're working from a book in hand in the "Note to Moderator" field. If not, please give your source in the "Note" field. Either way, it must be sourced. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to update each of the title records and change the language to Dutch. I'm not sure why the contents defaulted to English. Did you create the record using the "New Pub" function or the "Add Pub" function? Mhhutchins 19:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do that. I created the 'Sintels en andere verhalen' title as a variant of 'In the Valley of the Statues and Other Stories' with language='Dutch', then added a publication and in the same batch added the contents. Horzel 19:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That is the problem. When you add contents to an existing publication, the resulting title records get no language (the language field looks like English when you edit the title, but is empty). I created a feature request for this, but for now it's better to enter the contents in the same edit that creates the pub. --Willem H. 19:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So following Willem's suggestion, it's better to create the record using the "New Pub" function and add all the contents in the same submission. That way the language of the contents default to the language of the publication record. When that submission is accepted, then go back and variant the titles to the English language ones. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And going back to the original topic, you'll need to record your source in the note field, or do a primary verification of the record. Again, thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 19:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Primary verification has been taken care of. I must say, being a database programmer I find writing procedures often easier than following procedures ;-) Horzel 22:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As a database user, I find sourced records to be much more reliable than unsourced ones. As a database editor, I find that sourcing records becomes second nature if another editor is there to remind me. If only just to shut him up! :-) Please keep contributing. Mhhutchins 00:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Generations
I accepted the submission adding the cover art credit to this record. You should not ask questions in the "Note to Moderator" field. There's no way for the moderator to respond in that context. It's better to ask at the Help Desk. I've started the process to disambiguate the works of Foster, the artist, from Foster, the Tolkien scholar. Thanks for letting me know about the situation. Mhhutchins 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Note to Moderator field, please, please, please
Please use the Note to Moderator field to inform the moderator that you're working from a book-in-hand. Again, it really saves us so much time and research. Can I assume you have this book? I can't assume that based on the original submission, and you don't note your source. Mhhutchins 22:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember, I noted "will add cover, will PV". Sorry if I forgot, or my text wasn't clear enough. Guess I'd better write "my book" next time. By the way, I've thus far refrained from adding publications of which I don't have a copy. Horzel 07:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The moderator has no way of knowing that unless you tell us in the note to moderator field. And I don't think I would have missed the note you describe, but if I did, I apologize. Mhhutchins 15:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Partial dates
If you want to provide a partial date, you need to include zeros for the missing pieces. If a date's format is not YYYY-MM-DD, the value in the submission gets thrown away. So you need to use: Unfortunately, it's easy to forget and it's also easy for a moderator to miss. --MartyD 10:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * YYYY-00-00 for year only, month and day unknown
 * YYYY-MM-00 for year + month, day unknown
 * 0000-MM-00 for month only, year and day unknown
 * 0000-MM-DD for month + day, year unknown
 * 0000-00-00 for completely unknown


 * Oops, I did it again. Sorry. Horzel 11:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tanith Lee's Women as Demons
I believe the submission to add a new record for this title is the same as this record. Is there any reason to think you may have a different edition? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just look at my cover at Flickr. Then look at the art at this Juliette Pearce site, its style is more compatible with my edition than with the Madonna photograph of the publication already at ISFDB. And Abebooks.com says the ISFDB edition is a pb with the same ISBN as my tp. Horzel 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't judge a record by its cover link. Especially if it's an unverified record, and especially, especially if it's linked to Amazon. Other than that I see no major differences between the two. Please proceed to update the current ISFDB record, and cancel the pending submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that you've updated the original record, so I'll reject the submission. Keep in mind that a user has the ability to cancel any pending submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jan Parker
I've submitted modification of NEL cover artist Jan Parker's data based on this website. My chain of reasoning is as follows: ISFDB's Jan Parker created the cover and interior art of Witchcraft and Black Magic (Hamlyn all-colour paperback, 1972). The style fits right in with his NEL covers. The Jan Parker of jldfineart.com illustrated "the world’s first full-color paperback book, Myths and Legends of Ancient Greece", which can be googled to be a Hamlyn all-colour paperback from 1969. So they must be the same person, unless there were two Jan Parker illustrators on the same Hamlyn series of books in a time span of three years. Horzel 12:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Artist credit
If the cover credit for this publication is based on a visible artist's signature, and you know the full name of the artist, then the record should reflect the full name and not the signature...unless the artist is only known by his signature (that would be his "canonical" name.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've learned the artist's full name, so I guess that means I should change his canonical name to his full name. Only thing is, if someone comes across a cover with this signature, will he/she go looking through the whole list of possible Michels? It might be useful to also have an entry for an author (artist) named Michel, perhaps without any depending titles, but with a biographic comment telling one where to find the artist(s) with the "Michel" signature. (In the case of "Leonard", there are (at least) two artists, the 1930s interior artist, and Michael Leonard who covered Grendel and Rocannon and maybe (or not) covered Time Gladiator. Horzel 14:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

De Man in het Hoge Kasteel
I added the publication series, corrected the number of pages (to the last printed pagenumber) and added some minor notes to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating generic titles
I corrected the introduction as given in this record to reflect the ISFDB standard of adding the title of the work parenthetically to distinguish it from other similarly titled works by the introducer. Mhhutchins 19:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Thank you. Horzel 12:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing a primary verified publication, again
I'm holding the submission to change this record. Please read this again. If you wish to do a primary verification of the same record, I'll go ahead and accept the submission. Otherwise, you should first notify the primary verifiers before making a submission that changes the record. The addition of cover art credit in a record for a book in which the cover art is not credited is considered a change of the record. Thanks for cooperating. Mhhutchins 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From Making changes to verified pubs: "It is a matter of courtesy to inform the verifier of changes you make to his or her primary verified pubs, unless a specific verifier has requested not to be notified of particular types of changes. It is very strongly encouraged that you notify the verifier first if the change is particularly significant. Many moderators will not approve a "destructive" change -- that is one that removes or alters data in a verified pub record -- unless the verifier has been asked first. Changes that only add data are usually considered less significant, but verifiers should still be notified of such changes."
 * So, in my opinion, I've made an addition, and I've notified the primary verifiers of the change (well, maybe three minutes later). If that isn't good enough, I give up. Horzel 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you'll re-read my message, you'll see that addition of cover art credit in a record for a book in which the cover art is not credited is considered a change of the record. This is not merely an addition, it's an actual change in the record, and a significant one. The proper procedure would have been notifying the verifiers of the new data without making a submission, leaving it up to them to decide whether the data is from a reliable source, and to make an edit to the record. It is very much appreciated when you come across important missing data, and are able to provide that data to the primary verifiers, along with your source. You should not feel it's necessary that you make a submission to change the record. Editors notify each other of such data all the time without making the changes themselves. And as I said above, if you had a copy of the publication and was willing to do a primary verification of the record, I would have had no problem accepting the submission knowing you'd already notified the other primary verifiers. I'm sorry if this procedure isn't clearly outlined in the Help section, but I hope this explanation helps. The verification system is important in maintaining the integrity of the db. I appreciate your contributions and hope you continue to edit. Mhhutchins 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for your explanation. And don't worry, I will continue. Horzel 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please give us the exact page on the artist's website where we can see the image used in this record. Both the verifier and I looked for it and couldn't find it. Mhhutchins 16:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've approved your submission but we're waiting for your input. Thanks. Hauck 11:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I found it: http://www.segrelles.com/rights/galeria2_05/pages/CF_188.htm. I will hyperlink the credit in the pub notes to it.  --MartyD 11:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Note to Moderator field
Please ask questions on the Help Desk page or on the Moderator Noticeboard. Moderators have no way to respond to questions left in the "Note to Moderator" field of a submission. We can only ACCEPT, REJECT, or HOLD the submission. Asking before the submission is made may save time and trouble. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Now to answer the questions you asked about this publication. You should enter the name of the publisher as given on the work's title page into the record's "Publisher" field. If it's not on the title page, take it from the copyright page. If it's not on the copyright page, take it from the spine of the book itself. If it's not on the book's spine, take it from the dustjacket. If no publisher is given in the book, leave the field blank and record this fact in the record's "Note" field. You asked "Should the memoir be listed under Interviews?" No, it should be added to the regular contents section, giving the page on which it starts, the name of the piece, leave the date field blank (unless it was previously published), under "Entry Type" choose ESSAY, leave the "Length" field blank, in the author field enter the name of the author (Bruce Pennington). Pennington should also be given as a co-author of the book. We do this for artbooks, crediting both the artist and the editor in the "Author" field of the publication record. A question: were these two volumes published as a set (to be purchased together) or were they published as two different book (available separately)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks you very much for your explanations. The volumes were published as a set, not available separately. Otherwise I should have entered them separately. Horzel 08:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cover art for 'Project Barrier'
Hello, Horzel! Back from my vacation I found your note on the above item on my talk page. However, the artist wasn't added. Did something come in between or changed your mind? Thanks, Stonecreek 19:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Stonecreek! Please read 'Changing a primary verified publication, again', half a screen (two sections) upwards from here. I've been trying to do what's asked there, but it does not look as if many editors at ISFDB are aware of this frustrating policy. Horzel 21:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wollheim's World's Best SF: Series 8
Hi. I accepted your submission of, but based on your notes and a double-check of Locus1, I changed the date from 1984-00-00 to 0000-00-00 ("unknown") and removed the Locus1 citation from the notes. The Locus1 record is for the original reissue (the one you cloned), not for your 9th printing. While you're forced to enter a year, 0000 can be used to mean "I don't know the year" (just as "00" is used to represent unknown month and also unknown day). Thanks. --MartyD 10:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible additions to Mythopoeikon
Hello, Horzel! I have added speculative fiction publications to this, this and this. The covers should appear on pp. 139, 97 and 99 of the artbook, if the german edition has in fact the same page count as the english. Stonecreek 19:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just submitted these 3 as additional interior art in Mythopoeikon (Paper Tiger 1989). Your page numbers are correct. Horzel 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I varianted them to the original titles. Thank you! Stonecreek 18:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cover image for Spaceship Medic
was incorrectly uploaded. (It was uploaded directly to the server, bypassing the auto-upload which would have automatically added a fair-use license, created a unique file name which matches the tag of the publication record, and linked the file to the artist's wiki category page.) Please go to the publication record and click on the link "Upload new cover scan" and follow the directions. Once the file is uploaded to the ISFDB server, go back to the publication record and enter the URL of the newly upload file in an update to the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I was thinking that URL looked unusual. Horzel 13:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for re-upping the image. I'll delete the original upload. Mhhutchins 05:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible Peter Jones cover art
Can you look at this cover art and see if it's included in the Peter Jones art collection Solar Wind which you primary verified? According to the verifier of the Anderson novel, the copyright just says "Solar Wind". Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 14:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not included. But this cover scan clearly (on the middle of the rock) shows Peter Jones' signature "Paj". And "Solar Wind" is to Peter Jones what "Agberg Ltd" is to Robert Silverberg. Horzel 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That settles it. I'll let the editor know. Mhhutchins 15:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Home of the Red Man
I accepted your addition of, but I believe the record is missing a "0" at the beginning of the ISBN. Only nine digits are present when it should be ten. If the book was published with a catalog id and not an ISBN, then there should be a "#" at the beginning to reflect that. Would you mind double checking? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From the copyright page: "Standard Book Number: 671-465558-9." The same number is on the spine. Look here for a comparable case. I've submitted a modification to create a valid ISBN with a leading zero, and added a note. Thank you. Horzel 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)