User talk:Dwarzel

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
 * What the ISFDB Wiki is for
 * ISFDB FAQ
 * Help:Screen:EditPub - Warning and a note on how to update a publication's contents
 * Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.

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! Ahasuerus 02:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dating contents for magazines, collections, anthologies...
I accepted your submission for this new magazine but am going to have to go back and correct the dates on all of the content entries. When entering a magazine (or collection, or anthology) and you know that the contents have the same date as the date entered in the header field (in this case, 2009-08-00), leave the date field blank when entering contents. The system automatically dates the contents the same. Also, by entering "2009" instead of the date format YYYY-MM-DD, the system automatically dates the contents as "unknown" and displays "0000". Thanks. MHHutchins 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguating generic titles
When entering contents with generic titles (e.g. "Editorial", "Introduction", "Afterword", "Book Reviews", etc.), we've decided that appending the title of the publication helps to separate it from any similarly titled records. I've changed the six generic titles in the issue of Realms of Fantasy that you just entered. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whispering Spirits magazine
Is there a reason you are using a month of "10" for a September issue? Normally we go by the date printed in the title irrespective of the date the publication was actually released. The magazine appears to be available in both web and PDF versions. The PDF version that you have entered is valid but, with only a couple of exceptions, web issues are not. Some ebooks are available in multiple downloadable formats so it's also a good idea to list in the notes that the PDF version was used for entering the data. I have approved the pub and started a wiki page. I might also note that there are reviews of books that are not in the system. This results in author pages with no data. When I enter a new magazine with reviews it usually takes me more time to add the books reviewed than to enter the magazine. You are not required to enter the reviewed books but if you do there is a way to link the books to the reviews. They are auto-linked if a title and author of a reviewed book is already in the system.--swfritter 14:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for approving the addition. I've only done a few of these, and there's a lot to keep straight.  Let me try to explain/justify/make excuses: 1) I gave a date of 2009-10-01 because that's the actual date the issue was posted; that's not documented anywhere, though, so perhaps it makes more sense to use the date in the title; 2) despite suggestions to the contrary, I can't find a web edition of the magazine--all I can find on their website are PDFs (I could be wrong about this, and at any rate will be more specific in the notes about this in future); 3) I thought about the issue of the book reviews, but didn't know if it was kosher to input data for a book I wasn't actually holding in my hand...wouldn't mind a little clarification on this.  Thanks much for taking the time to educate me.  Cheers. Dwarzel 16:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and changed the associated dates to "09" in accordance with our standards. I had a difficult time knowing whether the back titles were web or PDF since clicking on them from Firefox caused a web crash. I can get to them from Explorer and it looks like you are right; what issues are available are PDF. You can use secondary sources like Amazon as long as you note the source. Note that I modified the Bill Evans name because there is already another Bill Evans in the system. The Reynolds data came from lulu.com. The Green book came from this publisher using the link in the PDF. If all else fails you can use the data from the review. The Evans book is pretty marginal as s-f, a futuristic thriller and I probably would not have added it if it had not been reviewed. The lulu.com books are also questionable because lulu is viewed by many as a vanity publisher. I often document reviews of marginal items in the notes. Another option items that are not in the database and non-book items is to create an essay entry rather than a review. Hope you've got more stuff to enter.--swfritter 16:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OG's Speculative fiction
Added a Wiki page. Also made a notation in the pub notes that it is issue #18 - after the PDF once again crashed Firefox.--swfritter 14:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; can I ask you another question? There's a story that appears in both issue 18 of OG's Speculative Fiction and the issue of Whispering Spirits that we discussed earlier: "Waiting for Grim" by Bruce Golden.  When I looked just now, the two appearances were listed as two separate stories.  I changed the date of the subsequent appearance (OG's) to match the earlier appearance (whispering Spirits).  When this goes through, will this be enough to merge the two instances, or is there an additional step that must be taken?  And if I did mess it up, what can I do in future to make certain that reprints of a story appear in that story's entry?  Cheers, Desmond Dwarzel 17:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply changing the date will not merge the two record. You (or someone) must submit a merge, which must then be approved by a moderator. See Help:How to merge titles for full details on this process.
 * Often the easiest way is to go to the author's summery page ( in this case), and click "Check for Duplicate Titles". This will display all pairs (or larger groups) of different titles with identical titles. Note that not all such pairs should be merged. For example, it is not uncommon for a work of short fiction to have the same title as a novel expanded from the story, but these should not be merged. It is also common for a collection to have the same title as one of the stories it contains, but these should not be merged. Sometimes two rather different collections have the same title, but should not be merged. And a "Chapterbook" will often have the same title as the st ory contained in it, but these should not be merged.
 * Also from the author's summery page you can click "Show All Titles", and then check boxes on teo or more titles that should be merged, and click "Merge selected records" to merge them. See the help page for more detail. This is more useful when the items have slightly different titles, or when one or both of them is already listed as a variant title.
 * I hope this is helpful. -DES Talk 18:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Whispering Dragons
Added a Wiki page.--swfritter 15:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OG's - the next step
Looks like everything is current. Now to merge EDITOR records by year and place them in a series. As you can see I have already done the first couple of years. You have already done a couple of merges and are somewhat familiar with the process. The method I used to find the titles to merge was to use Advanced Search - the ISFDB Title Search Form option at the top of that screen. I entered OG's as the first term, the year as the second term and editor for the third. The argument accompanying the third term must be Title Type. Once you hit the Submit Query button you will see the familiar merge screen come up. I have left 2008 and 2009 undone in case you want to give it a try. Once you have merged the title for a year you will want to put them in the series. There is Help for series but basically all you have to do is edit the merged editor title record and enter OG's Speculative Fiction in the Series field.--swfritter 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editorials in a series
Another thing you may want to do is put Seth Crossman's editorials in a series. Something like this. Hope you've got a more contemporary short fiction sources you are planning on entering. We are a little behind in that department.--swfritter 17:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I appreciate all your help.  All these procedures are quite a bit to digest all at once.  And I probably will find some other publication on which to focus; I find it an agreeable way of spending a few minutes.  And it suits my meticulous ways.  For instance: I registered at ISFDB out of an excessive sense of pride--to create and maintain my own author entry.  That was my purpose in entering the issue of Whispering Spirits that began this whole conversation.  But when I found out that one of the stories was a reprint from OG's Speculative Fiction, I had to enter that issue, rather than leave the story's entry incomplete, and therefore inaccurate.  And then I found I couldn't just do one issue of OG's and leave it at that; it's like eating potato chips.  So don't worry; I'll find some new obsession any time now. Dwarzel 19:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Any data you enter, at whatever level of detail, is appreciated. And there is a certain amount of egoboo from being an ISFDB listed author.--swfritter 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Added wiki page for Arkham Tales
Here it is.--swfritter 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Og's November 2009
Added wiki link and issue number/PDF in notes - nice when all you have to do is go to a website and browse the PDF.--swfritter 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Aoife's Kiss
Added wiki page.--swfritter 15:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fear
Hi, I approved your submission of, and I had to make a small change, which then leads me to a question for you. The submission made two title records for the novel Fear -- one created automatically by adding the new publication, and a second because you explicitly listed the novel as a title in the contents. Either the main book should have been entered as a collection, with the novel as contents, or the novel should not have been added as contents (you would have had to edit the publication after the initial submission was approved to supply the page number). No big deal, really just FYI for the future, and I removed extra one. While I was looking into it, I also merged that title and "Borrowed Glory" with the existing records.

But this got me to thinking about whether this should be treated as a collection, since it contains another work. Locus suggests for various other printings of Fear that "Borrowed Glory" is a bonus short story included as a preview of a once-upcoming collection. If you have the book, can you tell if that is true? Thanks. --MartyD 12:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Help gives the editor some latitude in determining whether a single additional story is justification for classifying a book as a collection. Either way would be acceptable.--swfritter 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Swfritter called it. The help section deals specifically with this instance, and gives an identical example--an edition of a Lawrence Watt-Evans novel with a single short story appended.  The edition is listed as a novel containing the novel and the story, and I followed that example.  The question of whether a novel can be said to contain itself, I leave up to the philosophers and mathematicians.  As for Fear, this edition is neither advertised, identified, nor labeled as a collection, and so it doesn't seem to be intended as such in any meaningful way.  Contrast with Dean Koontz's Strange Highways, which also contains a novel by the same title, but which contains a second novel and numerous short stories.  That, I'd call a collection.  Anyway, that's my $.02.


 * As for Marty's concluding question, he's correct: "In the coming years, Galaxy Press will release a series of short story anthologies by L. Ron Hubbard. As a special preview, 'Borrowed Glory' is presented here for your enjoyment.  It is a classic example of the genre; a seemingly innocent tale--with a chilling ending." Dwarzel 18:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely; I agree with both of you. The reason I was asking is because it's even more clear with the preview-ish/excerpt-ish additions that we tend not to use collection.  And I was just curious.  Thanks for the details.  --MartyD 11:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nihilesthete
After reading the Amazon blurb on this book, it seems quite marginal even as a horror story. Have you read the book? The author, as yet, is not in the DB, so thought I would ask. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's horror, but very psychological. There's nothing supernatural, so it may not qualify as speculative.  My pro-speculative bias may have been triggered by its having been published by White Wolf, but I could truthfully have it either way.  Feel free to do as you please...Dwarzel 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Og's Jan and Mar 2010 issues
Editor and Essay records (Mar) for Crossman processed by a mysterious hand.--swfritter 15:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Shroud #4
I think it would be better to title this issue as Shroud: The Journal of Dark Fiction and Art, Fall 2008. Issue numbers are usually only given in the title if there is no date. This may change when a different pattern develops over the run of several issues. Also I wonder why the editorial was given as #7 if this is issue #4. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Originally, I entered my issues of Shroud to match the way the existing issues were entered, figuring someone else must know something I didn't. I've corrected all the issues of Shroud--correctly, I think--and modified the titles of the recurring feaures in each one to reflect its individual issue.  All pending approval, of course.  As for your final question, it's because I am an idiot.Dwarzel 06:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All submissions have been accepted. Another question: are the editorials credited to "Tim Deal", maybe informally?  And a subjective question: which do you think should be the parent author, "Tim Deal" or "Timothy P. Deal"?  Currently "Tim Deal" is the parent, and that would seem odd if the magazines credit the longer name as the editor, or is it a formality and he really goes by the shorter name?  Your input is appreciated.  Mhhutchins 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't have every issue, but across every issue I have seen, his editorial name is Timothy P. Deal, and every essay, interview, etc., is credited to Tim Deal.  This practice is consistent and unambiguous.  He edits as Timothy P. and writes as Tim.  I would imagine the full name ought to be the parent; that seems logical to me.  Cheers.  Dwarzel 00:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll go ahead and switch the relationship, and repair the variants to agree. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In Issue #1, there are two pieces as by "Timothy P. Deal" (the editorial and the interview). Is this correct or should it have been "Tim Deal" like in later issues?  Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That, I don't actually know. I'm afraid I don't happen to have that particular issue.  Dwarzel 04:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Shroud #3 (Summer) or Shroud #2 (March)
There seems to be a problem with the record for this issue. The content listings and cover image are from issue #2, but the heading of the record is for issue #3. Mhhutchins 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange, within an hour of asking you this, another new editor Mothman made a submission correcting the dating on the pub. You and he might want to get together to work on completing the data entry for this magazine. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Content titles in Necrotic Tissue, January 2008
Hi. I approved your submission, but I have a couple of questions/comments:


 * Would you please check on the capitalization in the title "Help me to Help you Help me"? I assume this is a running feature/column, since you added the issue to it. Aside from that, our standard title regularization (Help:Screen:EditPub) would capitalize all of the words except "to" unless there's some reason to believe the author intended some special capitalization.


 * I noticed that untitled and Untitled are not consistent in their capitalization. Beyond that, they're both by Remo, yet the first is ESSAY while the second is INTERIORART.  I'm suspecting the former is a mistake?  Assuming that's true, I would make the capitalization consistent and add [1] and [2] (or at least just the "2" on the second) to distinguish them from one another.  The help doesn't specifically mention this, but it's a technique in common use.  See for example,.

Thanks, and thanks for contributing. --MartyD 10:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for approving.  The actual typography for that essay in the magazine is "HELP me to HELP you HELP me," so to be honest with you, I didn't know what the heck to do.  I haven't looked into the later issues yet (I was going to do all the electronic issues they published before they went to print), so I don't know if that typography is consistent, or even if it's a regular feature.


 * On the second point: actually, that first item really is an essay. The artist has an essay discussing his work for the issue; it is signed, but untitled.  Dwarzel 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if HELP isn't an acronym, I'd go with the standard capitalization ("Help Me to Help You Help Me"). I've never had any luck trying to distinguish author's intent from typesetting license.... --MartyD 02:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Running Necrotic Tissue features -- series suggestion(s)
Hi. While reviewing one of your Necrotic Tissue submissions, it occurred to me to mention.... I have seen a couple of other editors set up series for recurring magazine features. See, for example, the Mathoms series for Tales of the Unanticipated. You might want to think about it for things like "Help Me to Help You Help Me", "Editor's Crypt", and so on, if there's sufficient instances to warrant and you think there's any value to it. (Obviously, you do not have to do this).

And now that I type this, it also occurs to me to suggest making a "Necrotic Tissue" series and putting all of the magazines into it (see, for example, Tales of the Unanticipated). That will then get the new "issue grid" generated -- it's automatic once the series is in place. --MartyD 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Magazines
Hi, I just accepted your latest Redstone submission. Do you have any interest in trying to set that one up, and also Necrotic Tissue as full, genre magazines? See Help:How_to_link_a_magazine_to_its_wiki_page_and_add_it_to_a_magazine_series for the details. If not, I would be happy to do it. --MartyD 10:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've merged the two EDITOR records for Redstone, which I think is all I can do until that's approved, if I understand those instructions correctly.  I'll happily do Necrotic Tissue, once I see Redstone through and make sure it's right.  (My interest in Redstone is slightly mercenary--I've got a story there later this year).  --Dwarzel 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I approved it. There's nothing wrong with being mercenary! :-)  --MartyD 00:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Voltaire and side comment about subtitle capitalization
Hi. I've got one of your Redstone submissions on hold while I ask you about the interview. You have the interviewee as "Voltaire (b. 1967)". Is this by any chance ? If so, we would adjust the interviewee to match our canonical name and include in the publication's notes a description of how the interviewee is identified in the magazine. Let me know what you think. --MartyD 11:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also in that submission is "Clothes Make the Man (or Woman): Techwear and character in sci-fi". The capitalization police will tell you our standard is to capitalize all but a small set of words (see Help:Screen:EditTitle), even in subtitles. I will fix this up when I process the submission. I did accept your submission of the September 2010 issue, which has this title's capitalization in need of fixing up. I'll leave that to you. Thanks. --MartyD 11:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the capitalization issue: noted. That was careless of me.  Regarding the Voltaire issue: nope, it's this guy, a genre artist and musician.  Cheers.  --Dwarzel 17:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Submission approved, and I fixed the capitalization and also added info to the new Voltaire entry.  --MartyD 10:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Interview in December 2010 Redstone Science Fiction
Hi. Approved your submission of, but I have a question/comment about the interview. Who is Dr. Harry Brown? The help does not explicitly say to do this, but if he's not an SF personality, I would record the interview as an ESSAY instead of as an INTERVIEW. In my opinion, INTERVIEW is really meant to be used for people who produce "works" recorded here in the ISFDB (either as authors, artists, or editors). The "Interviewee" wants to be linked to an author record, and adding an INTERVIEW for someone creates that author record if no matching once exists (so now we have an otherwise empty ). So rather than having an "author" entry for someone who will never have any works recorded here (if that's the case, of course), I would treat this situation the way we do reviews of works we don't want to record here (games, movies, certain non-genre books, etc.) and use an ESSAY, where there is no linking. I will cross-post a link to this comment on the Moderator noticeboard in case anyone has a strong opinion to the contrary. Thank you for contributing. --MartyD 12:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to the change if that's the way things are done. Accoirding to the interview, Harry Brown was a physician, with no works or other association with speculative fiction, and it's unlikely there are any forthcoming, as Dr. Brown is no longer currently alive at this time. Dwarzel 18:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Universe in Miniature in Miniature
Does this have the ISBN-10, or the ISBN-13, or both? If either of the last two, the ISBN-13 must be entered in the ISBN field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Daily Science Fiction
Concerning this entry. I have not been adding the pubs until the first week and I usually add the stories on a weekly basis so I can copy&paste from the emails. You are welcome to add the pubs at the start of the month and I can double check. The only way we entered data differently is that I use the delivery date of the individual stories. Seemed a little less messy to do a monthly pub rather than adding an individual pub for each story.--swfritter 14:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have your submission that would change the author of Shark's Teeth from "Tim Pratt" to "T. A. Pratt" on hold. The  listing we have uses Tim, which matches the crediting I find on the Daily Science Fiction site.  Was it sent out using T. A.?  Thanks.  --MartyD 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the current listing uses "Tim" (as I, myself, am the author of that listing), but the story came out today and is credited under the T. A. Pratt name--it is a "Marla Mason" story (which my submission also reflects, adding it to that series), and those novels are also written as T. A. Pratt. It *is* legit, in other words, though I can't really prove that to a non-subscriber until this time next week when it goes up on the site (though I can certainly forward the story to anyone who wishes, if proof is that big an issue).  Thanks.  Dwarzel 23:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Such a discrepancy should be noted in the pub and perhaps also at the title level of the story.--swfritter 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't need proof. I was just checking whether a change in place is appropriate or whether a variant should be used (as would have been the case if the story were published as by Tim Pratt and then published again as by T. A. Pratt).  I second the recommendation for noting the discrepancy in the pub entry.  --MartyD 12:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On the Premises & Stanley the Whale
Since these are general interest magazines do you think it is appropriate to link to them from this page?--swfritter 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Put Stanley in a series and placed a comma after the pub title and issue number so it would display correctly.--swfritter 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Monstrous Creatures by VanderMeer
I added the cover image from Amazon to this record. Is the source for your data the book itself? If so, please consider doing a primary verification of the record. If not, please note your source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do; I had always assumed that verification was for moderators only, but I now see that's not the case. --Dwarzel 03:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the trade paperback have the same ISBN as the hardcover? Also need to record the source of your data, if you don't do a primary verification. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I is an idiot. The paperback has an ISBN of 978-1-935738-03-9 (data from Amazon) (now fixed).  Data for the hardcover is from the book being in my possession; will do the promised verification now. Dwarzel 20:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Nyarlathotep"
Hi. I had to reject your proposed merge of "Nyarlathotep". One of the two title records no longer existed. --MartyD 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Unspeakable
I changed the editor's name of this anthology from "Therea" to "Theresa", and added a link to the cover on Amazon. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. Thanks very much. Dwarzel 15:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Zazen
Please note the source of your data for this record in the note field. Or do a primary verification of the record. If you leave a moderator note in the original submission that you will be doing a verification of the record after acceptance we won't need to ask this. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Same situation with this record. Mhhutchins 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews of db-non-eligible works
Since you asked in a submission's note to the moderator (such questions are better asked on the Moderator Noticeboard or at the Help Desk.) If there is a review of a non-eligbile publication, ie. graphic novel, film, recording (other than an audiobook), non-genre novel, nonfiction by an author who otherwise would not be in the database, here's what you do. Add a content record under the Content section (NOT the Reviews section) of the publication entry page. Provide information in the title field about the work being reviewed and its main creators, and make it ESSAY type. For an example look at the entries on pages 25 (review of a graphic novel) and 51 (review of an audio dramatization) in this issue of Locus. You will note that you're creating an essay record only. It will not be linked to a title record, nor will there be a link to the author/artist/creator of the work. Mhhutchins 19:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Candle in the Attic Window: An Anthology of Gothic Horror
Your submission to add this anthology to the db has an XML parse error ("badly formed XML"), and as such can't be accepted into the system. I'm unable to read XML so I can't say what the problem is. I'll pass it along to any moderator who does, and hope that they can repair the submission without your having to enter the whole thing again. Mhhutchins 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wouldn't have the first clue what the problem might be.  If it can't be fixed, I'll happily enter this one again, out of pure self-interest if nothing else (I appear in this anthology). Dwarzel 18:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the problem is with the bit that says "Martha Hubbard�" - I don't know how you generated that final character in the author name, but if you can tell us how you did it then we can warn people not to do that. :-) BLongley 02:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Most likely it was a "copy-and-paste" gone rogue. Ahasuerus 02:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it was a copy-and-paste. I would usually only do that for something I don't know how to make on a keyboard, like non-US currency signs, or a Spanish "i" with the little thingy over it; I must have gone into a copy-and-paste fugue.  Well, now I know better. Dwarzel 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, you've been around long enough now that I think you should give us some info on your user-page - I gather you actually are ? Unlike Wikipedia, we do let people submit and edit their own works - and you submit the whole thing rather than just your entries, which is good for us. BLongley 02:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Candle in the Attic Window: An Anthology of Gothic Horror had to be rejected because the submission had a "control" (i.e. invisible) character in it and couldn't be approved using our regular approval tools. Here is what the submission contained:

Candle in the Attic Window: An Anthology of Gothic Horror 2011-09-13 Innsmouth Free Press 289 tp ANTHOLOGY English <Isbn>9780986686443</Isbn> <Price>$14.99</Price> <ModNote>Primary verification forthcoming upon approval.</ModNote> <Authors> <Author>Silvia Moreno-Garcia</Author> <Author>Paula R. Stiles</Author> </Authors> <Artists> <Artist>Nacho Molina Parra</Artist> </Artists> <Content> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Introduction: An Open Door</cTitle> Silvia Moreno-Garcia+Paula R. Stiles</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>9</cPage> <cType>ESSAY</cType> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>A Fixer-Upper</cTitle> Amanda C. Davis</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>13</cPage> <cType>POEM</cType> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>The Seventh Picture</cTitle> Orrin Grey</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>15</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Housebound</cTitle> Don D’Ammassa</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>27</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Stone Dogs</cTitle> Paul Jessup</cAuthors> <cDate>2009-11-00</cDate> <cPage>39</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>The City of Melted Iron</cTitle> Bobby Cranestone</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>59</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>The Shredded Tapestry</cTitle> Ryan Harvey</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>67</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Obsessions (or Biting Off More Than One Can Chew)</cTitle> Colleen Anderson</cAuthors> <cDate>2001-11-01</cDate> <cPage>89</cPage> <cType>POEM</cType> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Desideratum</cTitle> Gina Flores</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>93</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Victorians</cTitle> James S. Dorr</cAuthors> <cDate>1997-10-00</cDate> <cPage>105</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>New Archangel</cTitle> Desmond Warzel</cAuthors> <cDate>2009-10-00</cDate> <cPage>115</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>The Snow Man</cTitle> E. Catherine Tobler</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>129</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>In His Arms in the Attic</cTitle> Alexis Brooks de Vita</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>143</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>The Ba-Curse</cTitle> Ann K. Schwader</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>159</cPage> <cType>POEM</cType> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Hitomi</cTitle> Nelly Geraldine García-Rosas</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>161</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>I Tarocchi dei d’Este</cTitle> Martha Hubbard</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>165</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Elizabeth on the Island</cTitle> <cAuthors>Joshua Reynolds</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>181</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Dark Epistle</cTitle> <cAuthors>Jim Blackstone</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>189</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Broken Notes</cTitle> <cAuthors>Maria Mitchell</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>207</cPage> <cType>POEM</cType> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>The Malcontents</cTitle> <cAuthors>Mary E. Choo</cAuthors> <cDate>2009-00-00</cDate> <cPage>211</cPage> <cType>POEM</cType> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Liminal Medicine</cTitle> <cAuthors>Jesse Bullington</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>213</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>At the Doorstep</cTitle> <cAuthors>Leanna Renee Hieber</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>231</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Frozen Souls</cTitle> <cAuthors>Sarah Hans</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>239</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>The Forgotten Ones</cTitle> <cAuthors>Mary Cook</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>253</cPage> <cType>POEM</cType> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Nine Nights</cTitle> <cAuthors>T. S. Bazelli</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>255</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Vodka Attack!</cTitle> <cAuthors>Meddy Ligner</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>267</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>The Ascent</cTitle> <cAuthors>Berit K. N. Ellingsen</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>277</cPage> <cType>SHORTFICTION</cType> <cLength>ss</cLength> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>Nightmare</cTitle> <cAuthors>Wenona Napolitano</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>283</cPage> <cType>POEM</cType> </ContentTitle> <ContentTitle> <cTitle>About the Anthologists (Candle in the Attic Window)</cTitle> <cAuthors>uncredited</cAuthors> <cDate>2011-09-13</cDate> <cPage>287</cPage> <cType>ESSAY</cType> </ContentTitle> </Content> </NewPub>

Sorry about the inconvenience! Ahasuerus 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

ebook submissions
I've accepted the two submissions adding ebook versions of two anthologies, but in neither record do you give a source, so I'm assuming you have these publications. If so, please verify the records. If not, please record your source. My other question concerns the ISBNs, with both books having the same ISBNs as their print versions. Are you certain that these ebooks have the same ISBN and that ISBN is stated within the ebook file? (I know nothing about ebooks so I don't know if it's common practice to embed copyright information and identifiers within the files and whether this data is visible when reading the books.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I know; you guys have been on me before to note the source of my info when submitting. I can verify these.  On the subject of ISBNs: I always seem to forget that part when cloning publications.  Most Kindle editions I have don't have ISBNs, but in the case of these two, Triangulation reproduces the paperback's ISBN on its copyright page, while Candle in the Attic Window has a separate ISBN for its Kindle edition, which I will now change. Dwarzel 23:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Graffito Flow"
You want to merge this record with another one which is dated 1991, but there is no publication record to support this date. Do you know where the story was first published? If so, please record it in the title record's note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was absolutely going to do that.


 * Submission accepted. Waiting for another submission to update the record. Mhhutchins 02:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You updated the wrong record. When merging records, one will be deleted.  Unfortunately, the one you updated with the original publication data was the one that the system deleted.  You'll have to update the record that was retained upon merger. Mhhutchins 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Andre-Druissi or Michael Andre-Driussi
Would you please check the spelling of the author's credit in this issue? Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Have double-checked and the author is credited that way in the story, in the TOC, and on the cover.  (That would really irritate me if that was my story.)  What's the move here?  Credit it correctly and note the misspelling, or leave the misspelling and make it a pseudonym? Dwarzel 20:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As much as I don't like doing it, ISFDB rules demand that we create a pseudonym and then variant the record. I'll do it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Larkspur
The submission was accepted creating a record for this publication, but you'll have to remove the series information from the publication record and add it to the title record. (I'm assuming "Sensate" is a title series, not a publication series. Unless there will be other books in the series by other authors which have not textual connection to the story told in this novel, thus making it a publication series.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Understood, and done. Dwarzel 21:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've added a link to the cover image on Amazon. If you have this book, please do a primary verification of the record.  Otherwise, record the secondary source for the data in the note field. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 21:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguating titles that don't need it
I rejected the submission to add the book's name parenthetically to this record. We only disambiguate generic titles to give them unique titles. This particular title is rather unique so the disambiguation is unnecessary. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong. This same title was used in other volumes in the series. I'll make the disambiguation. One question: is this a collaborative essay by seven authors, or do each of them contribute their own bio, or is it an uncredited "about the authora" piece? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a bio at all, actually, but an essay about the stories behind the genesis of each piece in the book; each author contributes a paragraph to the whole (I treated it the way one might treat a review "column" that actually consists of shorter, signed pieces).


 * I don't know if there's a rule, but if each author is credited with writing about their own work, I personally would have created separate records. As it's entered now, the record is credited as a collaboration between the authors and not individual efforts.  Your analogy of a review column is a good one, but the title record of a review column with shorter signed pieces is credited to "various". Then each review has its own title record credited to the individual who wrote it. I'll leave it up to you about how the record should be handled. Mhhutchins 21:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a similar reaction to, and question about, Traipsing Through the Dark. --MartyD 11:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, jeez, the earlier controversy on this matter totally slipped my mind. My bad.  I'm willing to go along with anything, but if I could get some sort of "gospel" on this, that's be great.  Each of these is an essay, under a single title, with each paragraph credited to a different writer.  So how would you do this?  Credit the entire thing to "various", with each author then getting his own entry, presumably "untitled"?  Thoughts? Dwarzel 20:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

2011 issues of On the Premises
I put the three 2011 issues of On the Premises under one On the Premises - 2011 title and added that to the magazine's series, so you'll be able to get to the grid from any of those issues. --MartyD 11:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My bad; I usually try to keep up with putting my magazines into series.  No idea how a year's worth of OTP slipped by me. Dwarzel 20:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"unpaginated"
When a publication is not paginated, we leave the page count field blank, and record in the note field that the publication isn't paginated. Many ebooks aren't divided into pages, and the file is essentially one long page. An audio recording doesn't have pages so it's OK to enter "0" into the field. Mhhutchins 05:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I must have misread the "help" page; I erroneously remembered it saying to do as I did, but now I see that it says no such thing.  I just now figured out that Kindle books don't have pages--I have the Kindle app for PC, and when I accidentally changed the size of the window, the amount of text on the page changed, too.  I had thought kindle books had "hard" page breaks, but now I see they have no such thing.  I'll have to check my previous entries of Kindle anthologies; I may have put page numbers in there, and I now know they're erroneous... Dwarzel 18:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Unpaginated" means that the pages are not numbered. A publication without pages is "unpaged". There's a discussion now about this issue on the Community Portal. Please join in to add your voice to the discussion. Mhhutchins 19:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Alien Aberrations
You'll have to re-date the title records for the contents of this anthology. They were cloned from a pub which was published after this one. Mhhutchins 21:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Authorship of "The Doll Tree" in Attic Toys
Hi. I am moderating a submission that wants to change the authorship of "The Doll Tree" in your verified from Jack Mangan to Amelia Mangan. According to an Amazon Look Inside, the proposed change looks correct to me. Would you double-check? Thanks. --MartyD 11:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. I must have been thinking about something else or some other author.  Actually, I just figured it out; what I often do is keep another ISFDB window open when I'm entering anthologies, to see what else the authors have written.  I must have put in "Mangan" and gotten Jack Mangan (since Amelia Mangan has no entry yet), and still had Jack on the brain when I entered "The Doll Tree".  Allow the change by all means.  My bad. Dwarzel 13:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks for checking.  --MartyD 01:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Leading zero in price field
If a price is less than a dollar (or other currency), add a leading zero before the decimal point. I've corrected the price in this record. Mhhutchins 23:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. Dwarzel 23:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

James Hilton
Sorry about James Hilton. I started Rules_and_standards_discussions, if you'd like to weigh in. Unfortunately, an easier way to go about doing the change would have been to start by pulling out the one current-James-Hilton work by giving that a disambiguated name to create a new author. Then we could have simply renamed the older James Hilton. As it stands, each publication of Lost Horizon still refers to the other James Hilton and will need to be edited. It will be easier for a moderator to do, so I will take care of it. --MartyD 11:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For now I've made James Hilton {1969-) for the younger, current James Hilton and have put the other James Hilton back to his original, undated form (this was fewer edits than editing each Lost Horizons pub). I preserved all of the information you added to each of them.  If the outcome of the discussion is to follow the current help, we can rename the date-less one.  If you see anything wrong, let me know.  --MartyD 16:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wolfsbane Publishing
I've approved all the changes you submitted, but for future reference if you want to change ALL publications by one publisher to another, it's simplest to ask a moderator to do it for you. We can do it in one or two steps. BLongley 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger that. It was a matter of choosing which way to annoy the mods, I guess... ;-)   Dwarzel 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, we're thick-skinned here, you didn't do anything wrong, and I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the general help to explain the few superpowers that the Mods have. Publisher editing and merging are comparatively new features and still only used occasionally, but this would have been a perfect example as you were the sole verifier of each publication. BLongley 20:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous or uncredited
How is the author of the poem in this record actually credited in the "publication"? We only use "Anonymous" if that is how the publication credits it. Mhhutchins 01:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The publication credits it properly as Anonymous; "properly" because it is a widely-known poem, though written ca. 1900 BC and of unknown authorship (as bibliographic notes will shortly reflect). Dwarzel 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agony in Black
Are you certain that this is a spec-fic magazine? Mhhutchins 01:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is. Most of its authors (and, in fact, some of its actual contents) are in the database already.  It's supernatural horror, not so much SF or fantasy.  (Nor did it last long; assuming approval, I imagine I'll get to the remaining issues one of these days as well). Dwarzel 04:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Cast Macabre, CM34
I accepted the submission to update this record before realizing you had updated the editor record instead of the story's title record: here. Mhhutchins 04:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging magazine editor records
This is the help page. You first merge all of the editor records, usually based on year. Once merged, update that one record by editing the title field to show the format "Title of Magazine - Year" and then enter the series name in the designated field. Mhhutchins 13:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I couldn't find that page to save my life.  I merge issues into existing editor records quite often, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out how to get the generic "year" record to begin with.  I'm on it.  Thanks again. Dwarzel 14:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The help page doesn't mention it, because it's so rare, but you can only merge about 16 or so records. The system can't handle more than that in one submission. Once the first is accepted, then merge the resulting record with the remaining editor records. Mhhutchins 18:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, here's a good set of links for the help pages of the most frequently performed functions. Mhhutchins 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Anomalous Appetites
There was a glitch in the acceptance of the submission to add this record. After I accepted it, I went back to the queue and there was an identical submission for the same publication, so I rejected it, thinking it was a duplicate submission. Now I see that all of the contents after page 135 didn't make it into the record. I can't explain how this happened. Could be something to do with the large number of contents? I don't know. You'll have to update the record to add the contents that were lost in the submission process. Sorry. Mhhutchins 05:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Exotic Gothic 2: New Tales of Taboo
I should not have accepted the submission to add the contents to this record. The contents should have been imported from this record. Now I'll have to merge all of the newly created content records with the ones that were already in the database. Mhhutchins 20:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I was going to handle the merging (which of course would have needed approval anyway). I provided the data for both pubs (note the consecutive record #'s).  I know how to *clone* a pub, but didn't think of importing--never done that before.  Now I see it over there in the sidebar, and realize I could have saved myself quite a bit of trouble.  Sorry--won't happen again.


 * PS: Welcome back! Dwarzel 20:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There are several editing features that tend to be secret...until someone points them out to you. (I only recently discovered a display feature that I'd never known about!) Mhhutchins 23:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are mysteries still to be found after half a decade here, as Michael points out. That's why I'm trying to write a beginner's guide - and it's already taken me weeks to cover most of the stuff you need to know before you edit! Free review copy available if you give me an email address to send it to. Volume 2 may take a bit longer, this writing stuff is hard! BLongley 22:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted publication records
When you discover that you've made a duplicate publication record, you should delete all records that were duplicated as well, not just the publication record. That includes the editor record, cover art record (if there was one), and content records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted the only thing it would let me delete. Everything else was "still associated" with something or other.  Per the help: "To delete a title, you must first delete all the publications associated with it (and those deletions have to have been approved). When the last publication is gone, you can then display the title, and click "Delete this Title" on the left navbar. This will submit the title deletion for approval."  I figured I'd be able to get the rest of the stuff once the first thing was approved.  Am I wrong?  I can only do what the thing will *let* me do... Dwarzel 16:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My message was posted after I'd accepted the submission to delete the pub record. It was intended as a reminder to delete the other records, or to let you know just in case the situation had never occurred before. I was not telling you that you had failed to do the rest of the task, as I'm perfectly aware that you could not have done them without the first submission having been accepted. And since I had just accepted the submission...well you know the rest. Mhhutchins 19:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We could look into allowing editors to submit later deletes at the same time, provided the pub delete comes first. But I suspect that's a long, long way off still. BLongley 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Drabblecast #51
Please re-check the date of this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Interiorart records in A Chamber of Horrors
Are the interiorart records in this record intended to illustrate the accompanying stories? If so, their titles should be the same as the stories they illustrate, regardless of whether the artwork is a "classic" or by a famous artist. Mhhutchins 04:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They are not. They're competely independent of the book's written content.  (I asked a question on this topic on the help desk page--"Classic artworks and INTERIORART ", 20 May 2012)--but no one weighed in, so I just kind of struck out on my own). Dwarzel 08:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Swords Against the Shadowland

 * added notes, map, & page numbers; updated date per book statement. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

[Dear] Occupant
I accepted your submission making "Dear Occupant" by Nathan Lee a variant of Occupant by Nathaniel Lee, but I wasn't sure if the missing "Dear" was accidental or intentional, so I figured I'd mention it. Thanks. --MartyD 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The titles are, indeed, different. But I appreciate your vigiliance! Dwarzel 16:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Assassin of Patience Bay"
One of your submissions would have turned "The Assassin of Patience Bay (Part 2 of 2)" into a variant of "The Assassin of Patience Bay (Part 1 of 2)", which is, in turn, a variant of the SHORTFICTION title "The Assassin of Patience Bay". I assumed it was a copy-and-paste error and turned it into a variant of the canonical SHORTFICTION title instead. Hopefully everything looks OK now! Ahasuerus 18:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Good spot; thanks! Dwarzel 18:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ray Gun Revival, 1 November 2006
Ray Gun Revival, 1 November 2006 has been approved with the following changes:


 * 1) "Far From the Fields" was changed to "Far from the Fields" as per Help:Screen:NewNovel: "Regularized case means that the first word is capitalized, and all later words are also capitalized except for "and", "the", "a", "an", "for", "of", "in", "on", "by", "at", "from", "with", and "to"".
 * 2) "...In the Waste Howling Wilderness..." was changed to ". . . In the Waste Howling Wilderness . . ." as per the same Help page: "An ellipsis should be entered as the sequence "space", "period", "space", "period", "space", "period"".

Everything else looks good! Ahasuerus 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: ellipses: Good to know!  Thanks! Dwarzel 19:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Temple of Hoon Fat Gaar"
I am trying to find "The Temple of Hoon Fat Gaar" in Drabblecast 188 – The Store of the Worlds, but I am not having any luck. Is it cleverly hidden in plain sight? Ahasuerus 19:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The story is read in its entirety by Mr. Key himself at the beginning of the podcast. Dwarzel 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, thanks! Ahasuerus 23:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ray Gun Revival, 1 February 2007
Unfortunately, I was in the middle of approving "Ray Gun Revival, 1 February 2007" the second when the backups kicked in at 2am server time. The submission got "partially approved", which caused various discrepancies in the database. I will look into it on Thursday and try to clean up the mess, but for now please don't make any changes to this issue. Sorry about the inconvenience! Ahasuerus 07:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done! Ahasuerus 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In Search of the Brain-Eating Nandi Bear
Would it be safe to assume that "In Search of the Brain-Eating Nandi Bear" should be "In Search of the Brain-Eating Nandi Bear (Part 1 of 6)"? Ahasuerus 01:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that after I'd submitted. I'm on it. Dwarzel 02:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, already changed :-) Ahasuerus 03:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In The Bowels of the Sick Man
Would it be safe to assume that "In The Bowels of the Sick Man" is part 4 of Vachowski's "The Great Game" series? Ahasuerus 23:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops. Correction submitted. Dwarzel 01:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Approved, thanks! Ahasuerus 01:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Overlords' Lair
Two quick questions about "Ray Gun Revival": sometimes 's editorials are called "Overlords' Lair" and other times they are called "Overlord's Lair". Is that how they appear in the magazine? And do we want to put them into an Essay Series? Ahasuerus 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Each is spelled as it is in each issue. Re: a series--yes, I figured I'd get to it eventually. Dwarzel 04:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 08:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

J. R. Hamantaschen
I have several of your submissions on hold that propose making titles by variants of new titles by. I see we don't have a pseudonym relationship established between the two names, and I see much more credited to the former, rather than the latter. Plus the latter is by its nature much more obscure/ambiguous. Shouldn't we have J. R. Hamantaschen be the canonical name, make J. R. the pseudonym, and then only make the one title credited to J. R. be the lone variant? Why did you pick going the other way? Thanks. --MartyD 10:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right. I can plead only a slight, unconscious resistance to calling a story's initital publication a "variant".  I'm sure that' all the more thought I gave the matter. Dwarzel 13:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I understand your feeling of resistance, but resistance is futile. ;-)  I will reject your submissions and make the variants the other way around (and add a pseudonym).  The stories will actually look ok in the publications where they appear (so it'll be "XYZ by J. R. Hamantaschen as by J. R.").  --MartyD 00:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No need; it's handled, I think. I cancelled the held submissions and undid the approved ones, and redid them all, and everything looks right.  Dwarzel 00:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of cases where the title as first published doesn't become the canonical title. Quite often authors will revert titles based on changes wrought by editors. Or for other reasons. In all of his collections with the story "What Is This Thing Called Love?", Asimov never reprinted it under its original title. And when it comes to pseudonyms like this case, as Marty humorously posits "resistance is futile". Mhhutchins 19:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Drabblecast #231
I'm assuming the date given for this record is not correct. Mhhutchins 18:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ray Gun Revival
It appears that the pdfs of these issues are no longer available for download, making it a webzine and not an ebook. Are you working from a pdf that was downloaded before they were pulled from the website? It also looks like the last "issue" was #57 in September 2010. Everything posted to the website starting on January 31, 2011 makes no pretense to being downloadable, making it strictly a webzine, without issue number and each piece being dated the posting date. As such it would not be eligible for inclusion in the ISFDB, except for further qualifications including SFWA eligibility. Are there any extenuating circumstances that would make this an exception to the policy? Mhhutchins 02:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.raygunrevival.com/Published/ But if that's still no good, do please tell me now before I waste any more time. Dwarzel 02:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's through the back door, but they're there. I'm not certain why the actual website links aren't working. Maybe they're trying to save on bandwidth? Please continue adding issues through the last pdf issue (#57), but also save copies of these pdfs on your hard drive so that you can do a primary verification and be able answer questions that may arise about the publication records, just in case they discover that the back door has been left open and they decide to close it. I'll accept the held submissions. Mhhutchins 03:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As was my plan. Dwarzel 04:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I downloaded the pdfs of the first two issues and am wondering how you arrived at the titles of the ISFDB records. The first pdf is dated "July 2006" and the second is "July 15 2006". But the records you've verified are titles "1 July 2006" and "15 July 2006". Any particular reason why you're using this format. The standard is to follow the stated date, and to adjust any non-standard dating to the "Month Day Year" format. Mhhutchins 03:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Will fix. Was following the example of, I believe, Strange Horizons, and assumed that to be the standard. Dwarzel 04:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Calmity's Child (Part 4 of ?)
Just a note that Ray Gun Revival, June 2008 has been approved and the spelling of "Calmity's Child" has been changed to "Calamity's Child" to match other parts of the serial. Ahasuerus 00:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Overlords' Lair
There's no series with a name close to this one, so there's no need to disambiguate it by adding the periodical name. I suggest updating the series name and removing the parenthetical appendage. (Unless you perhaps believe a future periodical may use the same name for one of its columns.) Mhhutchins 05:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Calamity's Child
Is there anyway of determining if the novel as published in 2008 was still being serialized as late as September 2010? Mhhutchins 04:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the author, it was, with the final segment of the novel coinciding with the final issue of the magazine. Dwarzel 05:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Death Troopers
Can you confirm that the publisher is given on the title page of this edition as simply Del Rey? In the past this was an imprint of Ballantine and would be entered as "Del Rey / Ballantine", but things seem to have been changing over the past few years over at Random House and Del Rey may have been moved up from just an imprint to a full-fledged publisher. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 05:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The title page gives the Del Rey logo, followed by BALLNTINE BOOKS * NEW YORK. Back in those days, I must have been going by the spine, or (more likely) the copyright page, which states Del Rey outright and makes no mention of Ballantine.  I must not have been aware of that particular standard; that was almost a year ago.  Dwarzel 15:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure if there is a standard about exactly where you should get the publisher info, but I personally feel the title page trumps all others. In this case, 99% of all books published under this imprint is entered as "Del Rey / Ballantine". Please consider changing the record so that it comes up in a search with the other pubs from this publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Counting from Ten
Please check the page count in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the Best of Tor.com 2011 Edition
I made a few changes to your verified record of this title: the publisher was changed to Tor, an ISBN from the Barnes & Noble website, the publication series ("A Tor.com Original") and a link to the cover image on Amazon. I also changed the dates of the interiorart records because they all first appeared on various dates on Tor.com. A question: where did the page numbers come from. I don't have a Kindle, so I read my copy of the ebook on my computer from Amazon Cloud. Are there page numbers given in the Kindle version? Mhhutchins 03:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Back then, I thought that screens = pages on the Kindle (I don't have a Kindle; I read Kindle books on my PC). The Kindle version does not have page numbers (and neither does any Kindle book I've read), but back then I thought that Kindle "pages" were static.  It turns out their size varies in accordance with screen/window size, and so there doesn't seem to be a set number of pages for a Kindle book.  I know that now (the book in question, I entered almost a year ago).  Basically, any page numbers I've put in a Kindle book are almost certainly arbitrary and invalid.  Sorry.  I didn't know any better, and no one told me any different.  I imagine I'll have to make it a project to go back and get rid of those erroneous numbers. Dwarzel 05:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Shroud #7 question
The autumn 2009 issue of Shroud, which you verified, includes an "Author Spotlight" interview with "Weston Oches." Is it actually with Weston Ochse? If the name is misspelled in the interview title, the "interviewee" field should still be corrected, so the interview will appear on the correct summary bibliography page. Thanks, BrendanMoody 18:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's spelled correctly throughout the issue. My mistake.  Corrections to be submitted immediately. Dwarzel 19:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese Fairy Book
The page number field for content has limits to the number of characters which can be entered. Look at how they are displayed in the record you just created. There is no easy "fix" for this situation, and there's no way to make then display in order unless you give them the number of the page before or after they appear. You can note this anomaly in the Note field. Mhhutchins 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Will fix. On the NewPub help page, under General Contents, subsection "Page", there's a list of the acceptable abbreviations and formats for the page number field; the last item on this list  seeme to suggest that an explanatory note would fit in the field.  Have apparently misunderstood, as usual.  Dwarzel 01:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * One other concern: the record you have entered as "Untitled" on the "fep" looks to be the frontispiece, which should be titled "The Japanese Fairy Book (frontispiece)". Also "fep" is used for content which appears on first page inside the cover of a magazine or the front endpaper of a book, which, according to the scan, would not apply in this case. It appears to be on an unnumbered plate before the pagination begins. So according to the documented standards would be entered as "bp".  Mhhutchins 07:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Pseudopod #046
Can you confirm that only Ben Phillips is credited as the editor of this issue? Mhhutchins 23:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, where is the editor credited for these older issues? The only info on the website gives the editor as Shawn Garret. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Issue 45 was Ms. Lafferty's last issue. Beginning with #46, Mr. Phillips is on his own; for how long, we shall have to wait and see.


 * Shawn Garret may well be the present editor of Pseudopod. I'll find out when I get that far.  Pseudopod credits its editor(s) in each issue of the podcast itself.  I know this because I download each issue and listen to it in its entirety; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to do primary verifications on them, right?  Dwarzel 01:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * True. I only ask because I could find no current way of knowing when the changes in editors occurred on the website. Even if I go to the website's archived page for any particular issue. I'm glad to learn the editor is actually credited in the audio file itself. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes in podcast format name
Please take a moment when you have time to add your opinion to the topic I've raised on the Rules & Standards page. It would be greatly appreciated. Mhhutchins 01:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Father Fayad's Curious Compatability Projector
Could you please double check that the title of 's "Father Fayad's Curious Compatability Projector" in your verified Ray Gun Revival, November 2008 is spelled "Compatability" rather than "Compatibility"? I see that the former spelling is used on the magazine's Web site, but did they also misspell it in the PDF? TIA! Ahasuerus 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Misspelling confirmed. Dwarzel 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Ezra's Prophecy"
Are you certain that the email of this story was credited to Debs Walker? I'm not sure exactly where came from but it doesn't match the change you want to make. It was decided that if we allow certain webzine publications into the database that there be a more permanent record. And this seemed to be the compromise: doing a screen shot and posting it as part of the bibliographic comments of the record. But it seems the image was never attached to the record. And to be honest, I don't think there was ever a discussion about allowing emailed stories to be considered a publication. This situation was somewhat mitigated when Kindle versions of the monthly issues became available. I would likely push for the email publications of these be removed from the db and replaced by the ebook publications, but that's a Rules & Standards discussion that never took place. Back to the topic: do you have a copy of the email for this story? Mhhutchins 22:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Same situation with the story "Dharma Dog and Darma" in. Mhhutchins 23:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes to Debs Walker; yes to Steven Mathes. That's why I noted that they were credited as such in all iterations of the story.  (I promise you, I don't just sit around inventing erroneous information out of boredom.)  Here's your problem with Daily Science Fiction: whoever is entering the stories (it isn't me) is using the listing from the website as it's posted at the beginning of the month.  There are two problems with this.  First off, DSF's announcements of upcoming content are just that: announcements.  Press releases.  They don't constitute a true table of contents and it's silly to treat them as if they do.  The canonical "issue" should be the actual emailed stories, or (if that should eventually be ruled unacceptable) the monthly Kindle issues.  If I suggested that Gordon Van Gelder's announcements of upcoming F&SF contents should take precedence, typos and all, over the contents of the actual, physical issue, you'd rightly think I was nuts; I suggest that using a blog post/press release as a TOC for Daily Science Fiction is the exact same thing.  And tangentially we've hit on the second problem, which is that DSF's announcements are riddled with errors and inconsistencies--obviously, since I'm still finding them two years later.


 * The issue of emailed stories vs. ebook collections as the canonical "original publication" is a valid issue, but frankly either is preferable to using a screenshot of the contents announcement, especially if someone's just going to enter everything from that announcement and then never bother to go back and check to make sure those data match the actual, published titles and authors. You ought to track down whoever entered the stories and allowed all the erroneous data to remain, and give him a hard time.  All I'm trying to do is fix the mistakes (mistakes I probably should have caught when I imported the stories into the Year One anthology, but given the size of that tome, I suppose it's not surprising that some slipped through.) Dwarzel 05:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I trusted that the editor who started adding these to the database was in a position to actually check to see if the "published" story matches the announcement. You're correct, I should bring this to his attention, and it would have been nice if he'd actually done a verification of the records so I could have more positive proof of who added them. Please don't get upset if I take the time to question discrepancies in submissions based on data that has already been accepted into the database by other moderators. Considering how many errors I've caught in this regard from hundreds of moderated submissions by many more editors than you (myself among them), it would be careless of me to cookie-cutter approve any such submissions without question. And I would hope that you can appreciate someone who brings these matters to your attention, regardless of the outcome. I have approved the submissions. Mhhutchins 06:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pseudopod editor merges
Are you certain you want to merge the Shawn Garrett editor record (#088) with the Ben Phillips records (#086, 87, 89, 90)? I'm holding the submission. Mhhutchins 04:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Shawn Garret's run on Pseudopod has not started yet at this point; I'm not sure when it does (see our previous discussion on this subject). Note that I'm the original verifier of #88 from a while back (because it was the place of first publication of a story that later appeared on Drabblecast).  The acknowledgement of Phillips as editor must have slipped by me on that original listening (I wasn't familiar with their format yet, I guess), so I made the same assumption that you did.  I can assure you that the editor is still Phillips at this point, and that the merge in question simply rectifies my past mistake. Dwarzel 04:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The pub record for #088 will have to corrected as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Variant of Joshua Alan Doetsch title
Your submission would make the earlier appearance, Interlude: Blood, Snow, and Sparrows a Variant of the later one, without Interlude in the title. Since there seems to be only a single appearance of each, shouldn't the Variant be the other way? --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, my instinct is to always have the earlier appearance be the canonical one--see the topic on my discussion page titled "J. R. Hamantaschen" in which (I think) Hutchins and Marty disabuse me of this. In this case, my reasoning was that sticking "Interlude" in the title probably had some significance with respect to the organization of the book it appeared in.  Logically, in subsequent appearances, the story would retain its title but drop the "Interlude portion, since it would no longer *be* an interlude (as indeed seems to be the case with the Pseudopod version). But please feel free to take or leave my explanation, which is entirely conjecture anyway.  I can honestly say I have no real feelings either way on this. Dwarzel 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Same thoughts here as to the "Interlude" but the edition it appears in has no other of the 30+ stories/poems with "Interlude" appended, so it seems definitely a part of the title, not added as if it were an interstitial piece. Only the editor or author would know for sure. The decision to remove "Interlude" in the second appearance may have been editorial. With only two 'samples' ..... --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Pseudopod #131
Alasdair Stuart? is the first name a typo? --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly not. Dwarzel 20:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ground-Bound as variant of The Inevitability of Earth . ..
. . . or shouldn't it be the other way 'round? (Would seem more logical to me - I've put your sub. on hold). Stonecreek 08:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, my instinct is to always have the earlier appearance be the canonical one--see the topic on my discussion page titled "J. R. Hamantaschen" in which (I think) Hutchins and Marty disabuse me of this, and explain that it isn't always so. My reasoning in this case is: though the initial appearance is uder the title "Ground-Bound", it's outnumbered two-to-one by a pair of subsequent appearances as "The Inevitability of Earth".  Furthermore, since the most recent appearance of "Inevitability" is in one of the author's story collections, it seems to be the author's "preferred" title for the piece.  That's just my opinion, though.  I don't have any stake in it, and so long as one is made a variant of the othr, I don't care which is which (I can never seem to guess right anyway). Dwarzel 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would re-emphasize that it isn't mandatory that the first published title of a work should be its canonical title. There are too many cases where it isn't true. Its title in the author's collection should be a good indication of which should be the canonical title. Mhhutchins 15:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, will approve. Of course, you are right. Stonecreek 19:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Science Fiction Trails #7
Added a cover scan for your verified pub. Thanks. PeteYoung 23:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Moderator?
Would you object to my nominating you as a moderator? I think you've reached the point where you're able to handle all of your own submissions, and frankly, most of the others as well. Of course, it's up to you to decide when you feel comfortable enough to start moderating other editors' submissions. Before answering look this page over. It pretty much covers everything you're expected to know as a moderator. And even then, you make the decision about the extent to which you want to become involved in the moderating process. I really think you're ready and believe you're very much capable of holding the position. Mhhutchins 06:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Drats, Michael beat me to it! :) Ahasuerus 07:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm game. Dwarzel 21:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great! I'll start the process. I forgot to give you a link to the Moderator_Qualifications page. They shouldn't scare you away. Mhhutchins 22:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It was unanimous. Congratulations! :) Ahasuerus 15:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me too. Now your learning curve suddenly gets VERY steep! BLongley 19:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tell me about it! Well, slow and steady wins the race.  (Actually, that can't possibly be true...) Dwarzel 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (Almost never true unless there's no actual "race" involved!) Congrats for the promotion. Please don't hesitate to ask on the Moderator Noticeboard for advice or any questions that may come up. Mhhutchins


 * Well, fast and steady would definitely win against slow and steady, but if the choices are "fast and unsteady" vs. "slow and steady", I'd bet on "slow and steady" :-) Ahasuerus 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a submission to change the title of this publication to "Shroud 7: The Quarterly Journal of Dark Fiction and Art, Autumn 2009". I am basing this on the cover image and Amazon "Look Inside!" which always shows the title with a "7" in small font. Uzume 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like Mhhutchins already rejected it (despite the mod comment to leave it for you). Uzume 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I can confirm that there's a 7 there on my personal copy, even though I neglected to put it there when I entered it. I'll make the change myself. Dwarzel 00:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Any changes to a primary-verified pub should be discussed with the primary verifier before making a submission to change it. I would hope that any editor would feel the same about any record for which they had made the effort to primary verify. Also, it's very difficult for an editor to choose which moderator he would like to handle a submission. If it's in the queue, any number of active moderators are going to have access to it. BTW, I don't recall the submission actually asking for it to be held for Dwarzel. I remember it saying that the record had been verified by him, not that you didn't want anyone but him to handle it. Mhhutchins 00:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well here is the rejected submission where the Note to Moderator says:
 * "Title change based on cover image and Amazon 'Look Inside!'; Feel free to leave for primary verifier and moderator Dwarzel"
 * I did not request it be specifically handled by him but figured it would have to be based on him being the sole primary verifier, however, I would not argue that it is not well called out nor seen in the moderator interface to begin with. I suppose I should have said "Please leave for" instead of "Feel free to leave for". Uzume 02:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously you would not have made such a request if the PV editor had not been a moderator. That doesn't take away your responsibility to notify the primary verifier before making a change in the record, regardless of whether that verifier is a moderator. I would want to be notified on my talk page, not through a submission changing one of my verified records based on the chance that I would be the one who handles the submission. I would not think any other moderator would want that to become a common practice. Mhhutchins 03:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Evidenced by this thread, I did indeed post a message about the submission here so he was notified via his talk page. Uzume 06:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, good catch on the "7". I've had that magazine for years (I have a story in it) and I never noticed it. Dwarzel 02:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I get you to add a comma to the title of "Moonlight Tuber #1" so it instead reads as "Moonlight Tuber, #1"? This will fix the issue grid. Thank you. Uzume 06:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. (I don't know why I didn't see this message before. Sorry.)  Dwarzel 12:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"A Chamber of Horrors", by John Hadfield
In your verified publication, the contents list a the "Dead Lovers" (called here just "Lovers") with a date of 1470. Since, according to Wikipedia, the artist was born in 1470, that date is suspicious. The painting is normally attributed to 1528, i.e. at the end of his life. Can you check to see exactly what it says about this attribution date? We should probably change it to 1528, but it might be helpful to see what the book says about this. Chavey 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Stand by... Dwarzel 12:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem: The painting indeed dates at 1470. It is of anonymous authorship, but has often been erroneously credited to Grunewald, including in "A Chamber of Horrors."  I didn't know this, and neither, evidently, did Hadfield.  The painting's date should be left at 1470--I don't know quite how to handle the authorship.  Should be uncredited or anonymous, I guess, with maybe a note that the book credits it to Grunewald?  Not sure, frankly. Dwarzel 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You may also want to take a look at german wikipedia, where small versions of Grünewald's work are depicted (enlargement by clicking on the respective work), to see if "Dead Lovers"/"Lovers" is among them (and if so, determine a fitting year). Stonecreek 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It now seems unlikely that Grünewald was the artist as there seems to be no work with matching title and he is guessed to be born around 1475. I'll switch the author to 'uncredited' and let the year stand as stated. If there someday is new information on the real artist the title can be updated. Stonecreek 11:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I did some more research, and it looks like you're correct. Thank you for fixing this up. It seems to me that it should probably appear "as by Matthias Grünewald", i.e. making that as a record (that's who the book attributes it to, after all), and that making that record be a VT of one attributed to anonymous. Chavey 17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I did understand that the book doesn't credit anybody - if I do interpret 'anonymous authorship' correctly - and changed the title also in this regard. It really does seem to me that this work was considered for a time as to be by Grünewald, but newer research made this possibility highly improbable. It is confusing that some sources keep selling posters of the art as by Grünewald. Stonecreek 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, no: The book does indeed credit it to Grunewald. When I entered the data originally, I saw no reason not to take the book at its word. That's the conundrum; what to do when the book is wrong. Dwarzel 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. I vt'd it now to the german title (see here, p. 127). Would it be better to have the original artist as 'anonymous' or as 'unknown'? I did understand that 'anonymous' is only for work published as by 'anonymous' (or would that be 'Anonymous'?). Stonecreek 10:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I think that's correct. Our help pages say: " If a work is credited to "Anonymous", then put "Anonymous" in the author field. If the work is not credited at all, use "uncredited"." That's the situation here. I've added some detail to the notes for that art, and moved the German wikipedia article into the wikipedia slot. (We are becoming slightly less English-exclusive.) I also created a pseudonym connection from Grunewald to "unknown", so if someone goes to Grunewald's page and wonders why "Lovers" isn't there, they may notice the "Used As Alternate Name By: uncredited". Chavey 13:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Innsmouth Free Press
Hi, could you please doublecheck your pdfs of issues 1 and 2 of the above. Are there ANY editorial credits apart from the signed "Editorial"? Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 01:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Stiles is credited as sole editor from #3 on. #1 and #2 do not have an editor credit in the issue, but Stiles was sole editor (I got this info from the publisher website as it existed back then, and should probably have noted this, but I was kind of new at the time).  I see that I failed to verify these issues as well (like I said, I was new), but rest assured--all issues of Innsmouth Free Press were entered into the database by me, and while I make no claims of infallibility, I know for sure that all issues preceding the current one had Stiles as sole editor, no matter who signed the editorials.  Dwarzel 18:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Reenactment" by Ben H. Winters
Just a note that your verified "The Reenactment" by has been turned into a VT of "The Reenactment" by. Sneaky authors, what will they think of next?.. Ahasuerus 04:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Drabblecast #266
Shouldn't the author of "Visitation Rights" in this record be credited as Lewis Davis? Mhhutchins 15:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't actually think so. On the mp3 itself, the story is credited simply to "Lewis".  (It may be his forum name; a lot of the shorter pieces are submitted by forum members.)  The web page that lists the contents is just that--a web page, existing apart from the mp3 and not necessarily accurate (hence, the need to actually download and listen to a podcast--and save it--before true verification can occur).  It's nice that someone went and looked up Lewis's last name to put on the site, but that's after-the-fact and has nothing to do with the actual publication.


 * Additionally, the mp3 is often directly linked to from other web pages, and I think they sell CD compilations as well; these are but two of the ways in which the magazine is distributed completely free of the accompanying blog post and its contents. Taking all that into consideration, I really feel that what is on the actual podcast has to take precedence.  Had Mr. Davies any publications under his full name, I'd have made it a pseudonym, but alas, he remains, for now, simply Lewis.


 * I'm open to other opinions on the subject, however. Dwarzel 18:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The only reason I thought it should be credited to Lewis Davis is because that is the credit on the webpage which you linked directly to the ISFDB record. Otherwise I never would have questioned it. Perhaps a note in the ISFDB record saying that the author is only credited as "Lewis" in the audio podcast would help. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"[And] Happiness Everlasting" in Timelines
Hi. In your verified, there is Happiness Everlasting by Gerald Warfield. A similar title came up in another anthology, where it was titled " And  Happiness Everlasting". The Amazon Look Inside shows "Happiness Everlasting" in the TOC but "And Happiness Everlasting" on the story's title page. Would you double-check your copy? Thanks. --MartyD 13:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Can confirm that the story is "And Happiness Everlasting" in Timelines. The TOC is incorrect; it must have got by me.  I've made the change and done the merge. Dwarzel 18:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tor's The Stories
Please confirm the titles on pages 2023 and 2027: "Season" or "Sheason" and on pages 2061 and 2065: "Layosha" or "Layosah". Also, does the story "The Starship Mechanic" appear twice in the publication (page 1694 and page 2649)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sheason (fixed). Layosah (fixed).  Yes, it, and its accompanying artwork, appear in both places.

Is the story on page 2158 credited to "Mary Pearson" or "Mary E. Pearson"? Mhhutchins 03:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mary Pearson (necessary pseudonym and variant created).

Is the story on page 3220 titled "Portrait of Lisane de Patagnia" or "Portrait of Lisanne de Patagnia"? Mhhutchins 03:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lisane (fixed).

Is the artist credited on page 2842 as "Scott Fischer" or "Scott M. Fischer"? Mhhutchins 03:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Scott Fischer (variant created).

Is the artist credited on page 2863 as "Yoko Shimizu" or "Yuko Shimizu"? Mhhutchins 03:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yuko (fixed).

Is the story on page 3476 titled "Running of the Bulls" or "The Running of the Bulls"? Mhhutchins 03:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Running (variant created). Dwarzel 20:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking these. I downloaded the Kindle formatted file of this back when it was first posted on Tor.com, but kept putting off creating a record for it. That file now agrees with almost everything you've changed here (except for the duplicate "The Starship Mechanic" and, of course, isn't paginated.) Last night I did the remaining merges, so it looks like a clean record. Thanks for taking the time and effort to enter a 3800 page book (that must be a record for an ISFDB record!)
 * One last thing: this pub and the Fierce Reads anthology are the only pubs in the db entered as a "Tor.com" publication. Even though the books says "Five Years of Original Fiction on Tor.com" and "Tor.com presents..." respectively, neither of the Kindle formatted files give the publisher name. Since Tor.com is the publisher Tor's website, given a choice, I would rather that these two ISFDB records either have no publisher (based strictly on the ISFDB rules) or with a little leniency, enter the publisher as just Tor to make them display with the publisher's other publications. I've entered dozens of stories published on Tor.com, creating records with a webzine format, and have given them all as published by Tor, but giving "Tor.com" as the title of the webzine. What do you think about crediting Tor as the publisher of these two publications? Mhhutchins 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. Dwarzel 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

David Mitchell Turnbull, Chimeraworld #4
In response to your question here about this author in Chimeraworld #4: here goes—


 * ●"David Mitchell Turnbull has previously had a number of short stories published in UK small press magazines such as Dark Tales, Thirteen and Jupiter. His short story 'The Homecoming' was featured in the 'Time For Bedlam' anthology published by Salrboy Press last October and he has a short story 'The Woman Who Coughs Up Flies' featured in the forthcoming UK anthology 'Read Before Dawn' which will be launched of April 20th at the Edinburgh Horror Film Festival."  This is quoted verbatum from the "Bios" feature on page 163.  Let me know if this helps.

See, I told you I would find it eventfully. MLB 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Escape Pod links
Most of the links to the audio files of the episodes on Rawvoice are broken (well, all that I've checked.) Do you know if the files have been removed or perhaps the URLs have changed? (Forgive me if you weren't the editor that added the links.) Mhhutchins 04:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that (with the exception of the episode that ran one of my stories), I haven't to my recollection dealt with Escape Pod. Sorry. Dwarzel 17:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry. You were the only editor I was aware of who was entering podcasts. Obviously another moderator was doing this under the radar. I'm in no mood to go back and correct dozens of records. Hopefully whoever entered them will read this and fix the links. Thanks anyway. Mhhutchins 21:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"digital audio dowload" [sic]
Five of your primary verified records showed up on this clean-up script with unusual binding types. Thanks for giving it a look. Mhhutchins 03:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Glad someone caught it. Dwarzel 13:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Biggest Secret
The record you created for this title  shows up on the clean-up script that finds pre-2005 publications with ISBN-13s. It obviously didn't have one, and the ISBN-10 should have been given. Also, how certain are you that the 2013 price given on Amazon is the same one for this record for the 1999 publication? Also, the January 1 date is suspect. This is Amazon's default date for books which they can't determine the month or day of publication. Mhhutchins 05:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Re ISBN-10: Noted. Re January 1: I didn't know that.  The year is correct, so presumably the date in the title record should then be 1999-00-00, right?  As for the current price, I have no idea how long it's been $29.99, but I agree with you that it was probably lower in 1999.  1) Does this then call for the publication record to have no date, since (pending further information) we don't know when the book started being printed with that price?  2) If so, does that then account for all those "date unknown" pubs listed under 2004--subsequent printings that we know exist because of changes in price or in the printer's key, but for which actual dates are uncertain?  I've wondered about that, but never got around to asking or investigating. Dwarzel 18:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The OCLC record for this ISBN gives 1999 as the year of publication, so that is a sufficient secondary source to determine a date for the ISFDB record. About the price, in situations like this, I will give current Amazon pricing in the Note field in records for older titles which have the same publisher, ISBN, publication date, etc. This happens a lot with academic and university presses, who don't state prices, nor update publication dates for subsequent printings, but raise the price over the sometimes lengthy period that the first printing may still be available. As for those undated printings, an editor should use 0000-00-00 in the date field, which means exactly as it is displayed: "date unknown". (A reliable secondary source, if noted, can be used to give a publication date.) The change in price is irrelevant to the dating in most cases. Mhhutchins 19:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The Melancholy of Mechagirl
Added notes and cover image to your verified. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Quirk in accepting submissions with many content records and having a slow server
I've recently had an experience with an editor in which a submission was accepted, but stayed in the queue. After accepting it the second time, I saw that most of the contents were duplicate in the record. The same thing happened the other day with a submission which you accepted twice. As I explained to the editor, this happens when the system is extremely slow (as it has been lately), and the submission is adding a lot of new content records. If a moderator accepts the submission and doesn't wait until the SQL update page is completely loaded after the acceptance before going back to the queue (Moderator page), the submission doesn't get removed from the queue. So naturally it's accepted again, and all of the contents that were accepted in the first submission are duplicated in the record. I'll leave a note on Ahasuerus's page to see if anything can be done about this or at least we can post a note to moderators to make them aware of the situation. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did notice that exact thing on at least one occasion (and deleted the duplicated contents myself), but had no idea how it could have happened.  Dwarzel 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Misaligned ISBN
Can you check to see if the ISBN-13 is given in this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, corrected. Dwarzel 22:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)