User talk:Chavey/Archive/2011

This page is an archive of the User_talk:Chavey page. Please do not change the archived discussions below.

The Clone Rebellion
I have approved your changes to The Clone Rebellion and added series information to the title level. It's useful to document cases of "Seriesitis interruptus" at the title level to warn unsuspecting readers who are about to start the "series" about the dangers lying ahead.

Also, keep in mind that the software doesn't check for errors in user-entered HTML in Notes, so a particularly unfortunate typo in HTML can mess a submission up big time. In this case, the typo was minor (  instead of  ), so I was able to correct it, but in extreme cases it can make the submission unapprovable and then we have to delete it from the database the hard way and re-enter the data. Ahasuerus 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was aware of the problems with html typos in the notes, and sometimes I copy them out elsewhere to preview them, but apparently I didn't this time. I guess I should do it more often. Thanks for correcting it. On the "Seriesitis interruptus", I just submitted notes for in which I mention that in the introduction the author says that it was intended as the first in a series. But that's not mentioned anywhere else (unlike The Clone Rebellion). Should I put that into a series and add a title note like you did? It seems less important in this case. Chavey 19:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Typically, any notes that apply to the text rather than to its physical manifestation are added to Title Notes rather than Pub Notes. In this case, however, a sequel did appear some 7 years later. A few dozen book sellers have copies for sale, so it definitely exists even though Locus doesn't list it. Based on what we have seen over the last few years, my guess would be that the first volume didn't do well in the marketplace and no mainstream publisher was willing to invest in a sequel, so eventually the authors decided to go the self-publishing route. Ahasuerus 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for pointing out that sequel. ISFDB didn't list it, so I didn't realize there was a sequel! Another book to go buy :-) And to add to ISFDB. Chavey 20:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Liavek: Wizard's Row
I was archiving the last few months of my user talk page when I noticed that I'd not responded to your questions about this pub. I agree with most of what you've done to correct the record, but not that Appendix One should be credited to Jane Yolen. Looking further into the appendix, there are two poems by John M. Ford, so I'm pretty sure the title record should represent the group, not just an introduction to Yolen's poem. Unfortunately, the database doesn't handle group titles very well...actually, not at all. But I would want to retain it because the inclusion of Appendix Two (an actual essay) might seem confusing if we omitted Appendix One. As the editors of the anthology, perhaps we should credit Shetterly and Bull for the Appendix One record. What do you think?Another thing: thanks for catching the credit for Stemple as co-author of "City of Luck", but did you notice he also has the same credit for "The Ballad of the Quick Levars" which we both missed as well? I won't make any further edits to the record until you've had a chance to respond to this posting. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I had to wait until I was down at my office (where I have my collection of "Science Fiction by Beloit College alumni" :-) until I could check this out. Thanks for catching that second credit to Adam Stemple! The reason for my presumption that Appendix One was written by Jane Yolen is that the songs have her name in the location for the person who wrote the lyrics, and her husband's name in the location of the person who wrote the music, so I assumed that she wrote ALL of the words in the Appendix. But reconsidering, I agree with you that this isn't enough to list her as the sole credit for Appendix 1, especially since this includes the "translator's notes" for the other two songs, which may have been done by Jane, but more likely were done by John Ford. I looked at how other sites handled these credits. www.faqs.org gave the entire credit for Appendix 1 to Jane and Adam, with no mention of John Ford. But www.locusmag.com, www.myths.com, and www.shelfari.com (as three examples) all handled it by ignoring the titles "Appendix One" and "Appendix Two", and simply listing 5 items: the 4 songs, and the essay "Handbook for the Magician". Then the credits are straight-forward. (Except all of them missed Adam Stemple.) I suggest we do the same thing, except for omitting Adam :-). Does that seem right? Chavey 20:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you make the submission, I'll moderate it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I hope that does it. Since "The Ballad of the Quick Levars" was published before, I couldn't change the attribution here. I am hopeful that adding the author attribution in the title record will change it in both books in which it occurs. (If not, more changes have to be made.) Chavey 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Changing the author credits (or any field) of a title record changes every publication in which the title appears. If a piece is published in only one publication you can update it from the pub record, otherwise you have to update it from the title record. Mhhutchins 23:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. I was assuming that the database was normalized enough to ensure that this happened. Good to know professionals designed it! Chavey 23:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian translation of Ryman's Air
Did you intend that the cover image remain the same for this edition of the novel? Mhhutchins 00:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No; that was an error (I've submitted a correction). The Hungarian cover is much cooler, and is the main reason I bought that edition! I'll scan that cover in later. Chavey 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Amusing story: I showed this cover and book to Geoff Ryman when I had lunch with him a few weeks ago. He really liked the cover, and said it looked exactly like how he viewed Mae. But he had never seen the cover before! That's because the Hungarian publisher never got permission to translate it, and never gave him a copy, much less any royalties! Chavey 13:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost as sad as the author not getting paid is that we (the ISFDB) give the publication a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. Yet I see no other way around it.  It is a book and it does exist. Mhhutchins 15:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at it the other way around - ISFDB may help find Authors find their unauthorised translations and finally get some royalties. Too late for John Brunner, who happily signed unauthorised copies of his works so long as he could take note of who published it, but with SF authors dying because they can't afford medical insurance I'd really like to make sure we don't overly promote rip-offs. I suppose we could use the new Multi-Language support to unmerge the Hungarian title, change the Title language, make it a variant of the original, and add title notes that say "THIS IS AN ILLEGAL COPY! SEND GEOFF SOME MONEY!" BLongley 22:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Génszimfónia by Joan Slonczewski
Your record of this title is very similar to another verified one already in the database. Are these the same publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. For some reason, I hadn't noticed that. Gabor included six pages of advertisements for other books in the series, which I had not included, and we used different abbreviations for Florins, but those are the only difference. Should I leave his page count as it is (those pages are numbered), or change it via our general policy of not counting those ad pages? (I'll bet this will be the first Hungarian publication that gets a Primary2 verification :-) Chavey 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I included an "About the Author" content item. Chavey 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it must be the first Hungarian publication to get even one verification! Because you're more active than the other, I suggest deleting the pub you created, make the changes (adding the "About the Author" and correcting the page count) to his verified pub. Then leave him a note about the changes you've made. I'll accept the submissions.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the updates, and put a note on his page. Chavey 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Jane Yolan, P.J.F.
I see that my edits to "Briar Rose" are taking a while. I suspect someone is contemplating the claim of authorship as "Jane Yolan, P.J.F.". This is the way her name appears on the title page for that book. This, of course, will immediately be set as a pseudonym for Jane Yolan. For a general discussion of this suffix, I refer you to the "Will Shetterly, P.J.F." discussion earlier. Chavey 01:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was aware of the P.J.F. title from several years back, but wasn't sure that we were creating pseudonyms based on it. Considering variants made for "Sir"s and "Lord"s I suppose we can make a fake American title into a variant as well.  I'll accept the submissions, but you 'll have to unmerge the affected books so that we can merge them under a new title record before creating the pseudonym and making it a variant. Mhhutchins 03:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The earlier discussion link includes a comment by you on submitting possibly the first submission of a publication using a "P.J.F." pseudonym! But I think I've actually figured out the process for establishing these pseudonyms now, so I'll use this example to try to validate the algorithm. (The "Help" documentation on this process is particularly bad.) Chavey 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to suggest updates to the Help pages as you decipher them! You are in a much better position to do so since you still remember what parts were unclear or misleading when you first encountered them. Ahasuerus


 * I agree that the documentation needs to be worked on. There's been so many changes in the software over the past year or so, that the Help pages are woefully out-of-date.  To be honest, I found them so un"help"ful when I first started here, that it became a matter of submitting and crossing my fingers.  Thankfully the moderators here were very kind and generous with their time and their assistance, particularly Ahasuerus.  I think it was the overwhelming number of my submissions that helped to increase my learning curve.  And for that very same reason I was made a moderator so that the others could do something other than moderating my submissions! Mhhutchins 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My previous attempt to suggest a change in the Help pages kind of ran into a group non-decision. So should I try to keep a conversation like that going until there's a consensus? Should I edit the Help pages in the way I think the conversation was leading, and see if it sticks? Or what? Chavey 04:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like you're learning how a democracy works (or doesn't). That's another reason why lately nothing in the Help pages gets changed. A lot of discussion, that peters out with no consensus arrived.  The one time something changes is when only a few (two or three) editors have a strong opinion over a single matter.  Luckily, most discussions are of such minor importance that any results of the discussion would affect relatively few records.  Most of the big issues have been ironed out in past years, leaving only minor wrinkles to thrash over. I suppose some are of such minor issues that very few editors bother to join in the discussion. Thus the debate over P.J.F. ...  About the rules discussion you've linked to (publication format), if you believe the group came to a general consensus, proceed to change the Help pages to conform.  Once you've done so, post the changes on the discussion page and see what others feel about them.  Anyone who objects would have a platform for their opinion.  Don't change the Help pages without at least notifying the rest of us about the changes.  I have a watch over most major pages on the Wiki and am constantly checking the "Recent Changes" page, but I'm not sure how closely other editors follow the changes.  Good luck (and if that sounds sarcastic, it's not my intention.)  Mhhutchins 04:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving your user talk page
This page is getting rather long, so if you need some assistance in archiving the posts and re-starting it with a clean slate, just ask. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't hard to do the archiving, once I found the "Help:Archive" page, but that page took some effort to find. As best as I can tell, the quickest way to get there from the Main page is: (1) Click on "Help" pages; (2) Click on "Wiki conventions" (not an obvious path to follow); (3) Scroll to the bottom of that page and click on "Wiki Help"; (4) Now you can find "Help:Archive".
 * I would suggest that either "Help:Archive" should be added to the "ISFDB Help" category, or else the main help page should have a link to the Wiki Help pages.
 * Good suggestion. I've created a link from the Help:Contents pages to the Wiki Help page (beside the Wiki Conventions link). Mhhutchins 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Canadian pricing in notes
Hi. I wasn't about to reject all of those edits you submitted, but in my opinion it's not necessary to format the Canadian prices as "C$nn.nn" in the notes, and it's not worth editing existing notes to reformat that way. The currency formatting rules are for the Price field, where we don't want free-form and varying values. But the notes are by their nature free-form, so capturing "in Canada $12.34" or "$56.78 CAN" or whatever variation the book uses adequately identifies the number as a Canadian price. I think it would be a lot of editing to find and change every instance of non-USD "$" in notes. --MartyD 12:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are about 900 instances remaining of Canadian pricing not marked as such (and about 250 Australian), so I could do it, but it would take a morning's worth of work. I'm willing to do it, because I'm OCD, but if you think it's not worth the effort, I can skip it as well. Chavey 16:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Making Briar Rose variant
You'll first have to change the title records for the two pubs here and here so that the author's name is "Jane Yolen, P.J.F." It would be best to merge these two title records before you change the author credit, which will save you a submission. Also once you have one title record as "Jane Yolen, P.J.F." then you make it a variant of the the "Jane Yolen" title record. You should reject the current submissions on hold. (Or I can.) Mhhutchins 17:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention: the easiest way to merge the two records is through an Advanced Search, entering "Briar Rose" in the title field and "Yolen" in the author field. You'll see three resulting novel records.  Check the boxes for the 1993 and 0000 records. Then submit.  Once this has been accepted, edit the resulting title record changing the author field to "Jane Yolen, P.J.F." Mhhutchins 17:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When I did your suggested Merge, it complained that I had date conflict between the two records, and asked me to select which one I wanted to keep (and which to discard). Since I wanted both dates to remain, I dropped the Merge, then changed the authors for each of the two records simultaneously. I'll wait for those approvals, then do the variant title submission. Chavey 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Those will still have to be merged before you make a variant. An important point to remember: the dates of title records and the dates of publication records are apples and oranges.  The date of a title record is the date of the STORY's first publication.  The date of a publication record is the date of the BOOK's publication (not its contents which are recorded as title records.) Mhhutchins 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, so when it was trying to Merge the title records, I wasn't doing a publication merge (that confused me), and that would make both of the dates wrong, so I should have accepted one, and then changed the date to the first publication of Briar Rose? But I'll go ahead with the Merge now, and then the variant. Chavey 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're entirely correct. Publication records can not be merged, but title records can.  And when you attempt to merge them, any differences must be reconciled.  If the author or title is different, they should only be merged with EXTREME caution. In most cases like this, they should not be merged at all.  One should be made a variant of the other. Mhhutchins 19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Clones for The Unicorn and the Lake
I'm holding the submissions to clone two three copies of this pub because the original pub was created incorrectly. It should have been entered as a CHAPTERBOOK type with a SHORTFICTION content of "The Unicorn and the Lake". If I accept the two submissions to clone it, there would be several additional steps to fix those records as well. Once you've fixed the original record (and the one that I unwittingly accepted), it would be easier to clone them for the other printings. If you need assistance in fixing the pub records (and their title record), just ask. Here's the help page for converting a novel into a chapterbook. Mhhutchins 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe I have repaired the original two submissions with the corrections just submitted. I'll cancel the other editions and clone from the ChapterBook versions once those are corrected. Chavey 02:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You followed the help instructions, but unfortunately, it omits an important part of the conversion. It should have told you to add a content record. It's implied, but not clear, that a CHAPTERBOOK type also is a container type (like a one-story collection).  So the story contained in the publication must have a record.  I'll add those to ALL of the clones you made, and then merge all of them afterward. I'll also correct the help page instructions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's always nice if my mistakes can improve the Help pages :-). As the saying goes, "A wise man learns from the mistakes of others", so ISFDB must be getter wiser? Chavey 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also made some changes to the record of the audio recording. The page count field should be either blank or the number "0". I've also removed the INTERIORART record, assuming audio cassettes don't have artwork. Do you think all of these have the same cover art as well? Mhhutchins 03:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those corrections. I overlooked removing the interior art from the audio recording, although I was trying to remind myself to do it. And yes, I'm pretty sure the books all have the same cover. The art, and the cover, are much of the reason the book has been as popular as it has, and the painting for the cover is pretty crucial. Between my copy, two transient verifications (library copies) and online pictures, I've seen covers of 6 of those editions, all identical. I'm confident the same cover was used on all. Chavey 04:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

4th printing of Fortress in the Eye of Time
Your duplicated an existing entry for the 4th printing, but your submission had more details, so I accepted it and will delete the other one, which had no verifiers. That one did have a date of 1999-01-00, which I found comes from Locus1, so I propagated that to your entry and added the source of the date to the notes. --MartyD 12:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And sorry for missing the existing one. That type of overlap will probably get easier to see when the "print number" feature gets implemented. Chavey 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nella Waits
Where did you get the number "7410" in the ISBN/Catalog # field for this pub? If it's from the dustjacket, that's the month of publication (October 1974). Also by 1974, Putnam's SBN could be converted into an ISBN by adding a leading 0. Another thing, you didn't close the list in the note's HTML. Notice how the display of the fields below are affected in the publication record. Mhhutchins 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the corrections. You're right, the "7410" came from the dust jacket; I misunderstood its purpose. I've corrected the various errors in the record. When did the SBN get convertible? I put an SBN number in that field once before, and got a moderator complaint about it, so I've been somewhat shy about that since then. Chavey 05:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I accepted the submission and restored part of the notes (about the SBN on the copyright page) and included an additional note that the publication month comes from that 7410 code, based on the above. They'll help avoid questions from future verifiers.  See what you think.  The help does encourage adding the "0" to an SBN to get an ISBN (and documenting it in the notes).  --MartyD 11:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for the help, I'll work on remembering this for other books from that time period. Chavey 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

HTML in notes
It's OK to leave lines open ( are not necessary), but you must close lists (with ), otherwise it screws up the display of the remaining record. You're probably already aware of this, but I've corrected a few submissions. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I knew that I'd forgotten one of the  closes, but there doesn't seem to be any way to go back to change a submission once I've submitted it, and I couldn't remember what notes I had added to that pub. But I've changed how I handle "ul" now (when I put in the "ul", I immediately put in the "/ul"), so I hope that's a mistake I'm over now. Thanks for fixing them -- I was set to go back over all of the submissions and see if I'd made such mistakes. Chavey 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It was really no trouble to fix them. I can't change them myself until after the submission has been accepted. And you're using one of the methods I use: closing the list before you start entering the line items. Another method I use when updating or creating records, an HTML template that includes things I want to add to the notes: edition and printing statements, LCCN, book design, everything that I feel is important and for which there is no field. All I do then is fill in the blanks.  Book club editions have their own template.  The templates are written into a Word file which I leave open in another window throughout the day. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Forge / Tor
Forge and Tor are separate imprints of Tom Doherty Associates, so it's not likely that both would be used in the same pub. But anything's possible, I suppose. Please double check this pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm so used to translating "Tom Doherty Associates" in my head into "Tor", that I did that automatically here. This should be "Forge / Tom Doherty". That's probably true for Frank's books as well, but I have them in my office, so I'll have to check them down there. I'll correct Coyote Cowgirl now. Chavey 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Same situation with this pub and this one. Mhhutchins 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have the submission, but personally don't think we should add "Tom Doherty Associates" to the publisher field. There are hundreds of pubs that are attributed to "Forge" alone, although Tom Doherty Associates is the official publisher.  Sometimes we're more restrictive about giving corporate identities and this seems to be the case with this particular publisher.  (Can you imagine the thousands of pubs from 1981 to today that would be affected if we chose to add "Tom Doherty Associates" to every book published under the "Tor" imprint?) I'll hold the submission if you want to bring it up for discussion on the Rules & Standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you're right. It should be attributed just to "Forge". I had looked at the Publisher records to see how others entered Tom Doherty, and saw that "Tor / Tom Doherty Associates" was one of the publisher values used, so I imitated that. I hadn't gone far enough to realize that there were only 5 books that were listed that way! Those, presumably, should be changed to "Tor". (Do you want to do that; or should I?) Anyway, I'll cancel that Coyote Cowgirl submission and change it from "Forge / Tor" to "Forge". Chavey 21:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the pubs that gave Doherty in the publisher's field. A couple had been verified by editors that have come and gone, so I didn't both notifying them with the change. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for going the "Keep It Simple" way. There will probably be many repeated arguments for "imprint" or "imprint / publisher" (maybe even "publisher / imprint"). BLongley 23:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Dear Starbear"
I'm don't believe that we came to a consensus about how to handle the credits for this piece during the discussion last September. In such a case, I would tend to let the persons who physically verified the piece have the final word. After all, they have the magazine and know exactly how the piece is credited there. Mhhutchins 03:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Red Riding Hood
Instead of deleting this publication, you should merge its title record with the correct title record (the one that credits a co-author). It looks like the ATOM publication (with the incorrect spelling) is the UK edition. If this turns out to be a phantom pub, we can delete it later. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the US record is wrong as well. Blakley-Cartwright wrote the novel based on Johnson's screenplay.  Only she should be credited in the novel's pub and title record.  His contribution can be noted in the note field. Mhhutchins 04:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the ATOM website doesn't acknowledge their publication of this title. I guess this OCLC record was based on the publisher's catalog (bad spelling and all), but the book's publication may have been cancelled. Mhhutchins 04:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The British edition was supposed to be released Feb. 24, 2011, but the ATOM website search page claims that they have data for books up to a year out. I also checked their page by title, author, and by ISBN, and as with Michael I was unable to find anything there, so it does seem that this particular project has died. So do we put an 8888 or 9999 date on the book? And if we do, do we correct the spelling, merge, or make a (non-existent) variant? This one is above my pay grade. The US edition certainly exists (Amazon has it in stock), but per Michael's suggestion, I've submitted a change to put the scriptwriter in the notes and not as another author. Chavey 01:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to merge the two title records under the correct author's name, and change the date of the UK edition to 9999. I'll try to remember to check back in a couple of months to see if ATOM ever published it. Mhhutchins 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. At the very latest, when I go to archive this talk page, I'll check also. Chavey 05:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding a book with a new title
When adding a book which has been given a new title, don't use the "Add Pub" function. You should use the "New Pub" function and then make the new title record a variant of the parent one. In the case of Forbidden, you'll see that it has a title record of Captive Goddess when it should have its own title record. You'll have to unmerge the pub from this title record, and then make the new title record a variant of it. Let me know if you need assistance. Also, it's not necessary to add (Toronto) after "Harlequin" in the publisher's field. All Harlequin titles are published out of Toronto (Don Mills, Ontario). Mhhutchins 05:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I was hoping that was set up to do in one step what I was expecting to have to do as a new novel and then a merge, but I guess I was being too optimistic. I've submitted the unmerge, and then I'll make the variant title. Chavey 05:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About the Author
Hi. This may be a dumb question, but for those three proposed additions of "About the Author" that I have on hold, how do you know Killough wrote it/them? Is there an actual credit? --MartyD 03:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, there is no attribution. They're written as if by the author, but there's no attribution. Should those all be listed as "uncredited"? Chavey 03:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If they are written in the first person ("I", "me", "my", "myself"), I would credit them to the author and include a comment in the notes about the lack of specific attribution but first-person voice. If they are written in the third person ("Lee Killough", "she", "her"), I would enter them as uncredited -- we don't really know if it was she, the editor, or the publisher who did the writing.  I'm going to approve the submissions, and you can edit them as seems appropriate.  Thanks.  --MartyD 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Author credit for Stranger From Space
It looks like you were trying to order the credits for the authors of this title. Can't be done. The system doesn't recognize order of credit for co-authored titles, and randomly displays the authors. Mhhutchins 21:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The novel was showing up as a "Stray Publication". I couldn't see what was causing that other than two possible issues: 1) The publication record had a 1953 date, while the title record had a 1955 date, which of course doesn't really make sense; 2) The authors were in one order in the Publication record and the other order in the Title record. So I changed both of those things. And now it doesn't show up as a Stray. So one of those changes fixed the problem, although I'll admit that I don't know which. (Do you?) Chavey 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your submission didn't fix the "stray publication" problem. After accepting the submission, I went back to the title record and saw the "stray publication" notification. It was caused by someone creating a variant title record, using the ordering of the names as a basis for the variant.  When I removed the variant title record (which had no pubs attached to it), the "stray publication" notice disappeared. Mhhutchins 22:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I was going to try that if the changes I made hadn't fixed it. I wondered why all of a sudden the "Variant Title" issue had disappeared. Chavey 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Last Planet
Do you think your proposed Last Planet addition is a duplicate of ? --MartyD 13:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. I hadn't noticed it because it didn't have a date, and hence was out of order. I'll cancel my submission and update this one with the publication year. Chavey 14:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Gentleman in Black
I'm holding the submission that wants to change the author credit for this pub from "Dalton" to James Dalton. According to this OCLC record only the pseudonym is used. I'm going to ask the man who edited this edition to have the final say in how it's credited. Mhhutchins 20:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will certainly bow to his expertise. If the decision is not to change the attribution, then a good alternative would be to just list "Dalton, James" as the legal name. Chavey 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The title record is currently a variant, giving James Dalton as the author. Mhhutchins 20:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you made "Dalton" a pseudonym to "James Dalton", so that seems to resolve the bibliographic issue. I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to just cancel the submission, or ask Reginald about it. Chavey 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Robert answered on his talk page. The Arno Press edition is credited only to "Dalton".  I'll reject the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the data on interior art by George Cruikshank? If you can add that back with a source I'll accept the submission.  But unlike the original submission, don't credit Cruikshank with cover art.  Arno Press editions were issued without dust jackets. Mhhutchins 04:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see from an OCLC record that the 1831 edition (from which the Arno Press edition created its edition) had illustrations by Cruikshank. I'll update both records with interiorart records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The edition I was looking at is from Google Books. This claims to be an 1831 2nd edition. It has a cover that is a copy of an illustration on p. 2, along with full attributions to "James Dalton, George Cruikshank, John Yonge Akerman". "John Yonge Akerman" is mentioned nowhere inside the actual text, so I don't know what he's doing on the cover. George Cruikshank's illustrations are prominently attributed at the beginning of the book. If, as Reginald says, the original is not attributed to "James Dalton", then either (i) this 2nd edition has different attributions; or (ii) Google added a more modern cover, using a Cruikshank internal illustration, to its scanned version. Option (ii) seems surprising, but may be true. Their 1857 edition has a "cover" very similar in format to their 1831 "cover", with a different Cruikshank illustration, but attributed only to "Dalton, George Cruikshank". The similarity between the appearance of these covers, by two completely different publishers, makes me suspect that this cover is not a reproduction of the actual cover. I guess it's possible that a book of this age had to be rebound at some point in its life, but I hope that this "fake cover" on Google scans isn't a regular policy. I should, presumably, add these other editions of the book to the title listing, but now I'm not sure what attributions to give these editions. What do you think? Chavey 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Devil's Spoon
Coincidentally I just got through reading this one. I am methodically reading through all the issues of FFM and its companion magazine. If you haven't read it already, "Angel Island" from the February, 1949 issue might be of particular interest; luckily it is also available as a Project Gutenberg freebie (Note the link in Other Sites; a recent innovation for PG titles). The symbolism is a little heavy-handed but it is still an interesting work.--swfritter 22:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Game and "Dark Forces"
Hi. I have your proposed placement of the of The Game into a "Dark Forces" publisher series on hold. We already have the title in a title series, which looks more appropriate to me. Publisher series are for publisher-specific groupings of publications of arbitrary works that are usually related by some broad criteria rather than content specifics. What makes you think this should be a publisher series? Thanks, --MartyD 00:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've likewise placed on hold the proposed placement of publications of other titles in the series into that same publication series. --MartyD 00:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See the discussion at the Community Portal, on Overlapping Title Series, to which no one responded. I have already converted the "Twilight Series" from a Title Series to a Publisher series, and hence was doing the same thing with "Dark Forces", as discussed in that posting. Chavey 03:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with using Publisher Series for this is that it will make a mess when there's a 2nd printing, a 3rd printing, and so on. But I've asked for help on the Moderator noticeboard to see if someone can suggest the best approach within the limitations of the current system.  --MartyD 11:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Women Worldwalkers
Hello, I've put your submission on hold because my copy (same ISBN but dated 1985) of this HC has a price of $50.00 on upper front flap of the dj, as you proposed a different price, can you have second look at your copy ? Thanks. Hervé Hauck 12:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The price that I have on it could easily be in error. We should go with the price you have. Chavey 13:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll unhold your sub and will modify it later. Hauck 13:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Utopian and SF by Women
Re-hello. Sorry to bother you again but i've put your sub regarding this pub on hold. On my copy here, the editor is Jane L. Donawerth, so I don't understand why you want to make a variant as you also proposed to make Jane L. Donawerth a pseudonym of Jane Donawerth. Hervé Hauck 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the variant go the other way? I'm trying to make one a pseudonym of the other, with "Jane L." as the canonical name. Chavey 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact it seems to my neophyte's eyes a big mess. I'll try to put everything right. Hauck 15:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hope that I put everything back in place now (Jane is now a pseudonym of Jane L.). I'm afraid we lost at least one review of the book (no more, found it and re-linked it). Hauck 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like everything's right. They don't do the "automatic forwarding", such as happens with, say, Janet Jeppson. As I understand it, that's what the "variant title" tactic is supposed to implement. Are there some general rules as to when we set pseudonyms up that way (with one bibliography), vs. the way we now have Jane Donawerth (with two partial bibliographies)? Chavey 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Miracle ;-), It seems that I've stumbled on a way to do this. I started with the Jane items and make new variants with Jane L. (the bottom part), when they were none left, the "Pseudonym. See: Jane L. Donawerth" appeared. It's not very satisfying in the intelectual sense (titles under Jane simply disappear from her bibliography), but it looks like it works and regroup everything in one page. Hauck 17:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I thought I was working on back at the beginning of this discussion. I've managed to be successful with that a couple of times also, but it always surprises me when it actually happens! A great feature, but not exactly "intuitive" to carry out. Chavey 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's appallingly unintuitive. Particularly with house names like - I was trying to track down the first two titles in the "Spaceways" series earlier today and the "Show All Titles" option really doesn't help with such.  BLongley 19:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies
This appears to be more of a publication series than a title series. I'll accept the submissions if you're certain, but I can find nothing in common with these titles other than being from the same publisher. The question I ask myself when determining what kind of a series to place a pub into: if this were published by another publisher would the title itself still be considered part of the series. It appears that there already is a publication series of this name. Mhhutchins 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct. The existant series by this title is a publication series, and I will correct these entries to reflect that. I have cancelled my submissions. Chavey 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You make it so easy. With some editors it's like ramming my head into a brick wall, just so they can see another point of view. (Not that I'm always right, mind you. But I strive to be open to other viewpoints.)  Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a teacher. So I'm used to being wrong :-) And, of course, it's important that you recognize you're wrong before you dig yourself into a hole. Chavey 19:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got a nice series to work with there: the series is quite an important one, as the Science Fiction Foundation Collection is based at that university. BLongley 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly the page I'm working off of to fill out the full series. There are a couple of "New Publications" that I'll be adding, but I'm starting by putting in the existent ones. Interestingly enough, the University of Chicago now appears to be publishing the "Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies"! I don't quite know what's up with that, and several of the titles in the series were also published by Syracuse University, but apparently not under the "Liverpool" series, as best as I can tell. I'll try to research them more before I complete working on this series. Chavey 19:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've got the Chicago/Syracuse thing figured out. Liverpool arranged for several titles to be "Published in North America by ...". Looks like they first worked with Syracuse, and then with Chicago. So the Chicago/Syracuse editions should still go in the publication series. (There are a few other publications in these title records that clearly don't go in the publication series.) It seems this would be a worthwhile note to put into the Publication Series record, except that there's no place for such a note. Should I ignore this detail, make a note to myself to add it when that feature gets added, or put a note into each relevant publication (a bit more work)? Suggestions? Chavey 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing month
Hi. I accepted your change to, but you only added the note saying the month came from Liverpool University, you didn't supply the month in the date. I couldn't tell what the month was supposed to be, so I couldn't do anything about it. --MartyD 11:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Two Detached Retina submissions
Hi. I have two of your Detached Retina submissions on hold. They appear to duplicate and. Let me know if I am mistaken. --MartyD 12:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, I had just failed to add them to the "Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies" Publishing Series, and hence thought they were missing as I'm filling out that series. I'll cancel those submissions. Chavey 15:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Donald (E.) Palumbo
I approved your Donald Palumbo edits. Nice job, but there are still five titles left that need variant-making, and the author data (legal name, birthdate) should be transferred to the canonical name. Do you want me to clean up the rest? --Willem H. 16:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can do that, I just wanted to check how it looked part way through. Plus I had a PubUpdate submitted on one of his pubs, and I thought it would be safest if I didn't try to do a Variant if the title I was doing that to changed while it was in the queue. Chavey 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to check. Go ahead! --Willem H. 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Contributions to the Study of Science Fiction and Fantasy
Impressive research! I approved all of them, so you could see the results. There are a few things I noticed: In the Image of God has the ISBN repeated as pub series #, Erotic Universe: Sexuality and Fantastic Literature (#18) is listed twice here and here, Offensive Films is entered as a novel (should probably be nonfiction) and Contours of the Fantastic has Michele K. Langford. We already had Michelle K. Langford (two l's) in the database. Can you recheck these? Thanks, --Willem H. 16:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One "l" is correct (according to the OCLC record). The two "l"ed Langford is based solely on a review, which is either an entry typo or a misspelling in the publication.  Either way, it can be removed by correcting the spelling of the author's name in the review record. Bill Longley is the verifier of the pub in which the review appeared. Mhhutchins 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've finished the entry of the series data -- I just added the last 18 books. I had gotten a spreadsheet from Greenwood with almost all of the data, so it wasn't too hard (just tedious) to connect all the books we had and add the new ones. The only data they were missing were the actual series numbers, which I got from WorldCat, and book #9 in the series. Of course I knew I was going to have to review the data afterward, but that "double ISBN" was kind of obvious! I will be comparing the rest of the entered data against the Greenwood data later. I'm glad to see the "Michele" was the correct spelling - I copied it directly from their spreadsheet. One oddity in their series is that "Flashes of the Fantastic: Selected Essays from the War of the Worlds Centennial, Nineteenth International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts" is both #94 and #107 in the series. I've entered it as #107, because WorldCat has several records with that number, but I'll add a note later that it's also (apparently) #94. Chavey 18:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, #31 in the series is missing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've noticed some dates are missing, and I've filled in a few from OCLC records. Also, the page count from Greenwood differs from the OCLC records. For example this record gave the page count as 226, but OCLC gave it as xxv+201 which is closer to the ISFDB standard of presenting page counts. Mhhutchins 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will be filling in the missing dates in my "data review" stage. I also noticed that the Greenwood page counts seem to not meet our normal standards. In the few cases where there were existing page counts, they were always like your example, totaling to somewhat less than the counts from Greenwood. I suspect that theirs are accurate counts if you were to include all the blank and unnumbered pages (e.g. they're always multiples of 4), but are only approximate counts from the viewpoint of our normal standards. If others thought this was important, I could add a note to the books to this effect, e.g. so that a primary verifier felt confident in overwriting those numbers where appropriate. Chavey 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're up to the task, you could also enter the contents of those books which are collections of essays. I added the contents to this pub from data in the OCLC record. Mhhutchins 22:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will work on that. I did the contents for some of the Liverpool series I was working on, and got pretty good at moving stuff from OCLC into our contents fields. Unfortunately, that will have to wait until later next week (too many work-related deadlines), but I should be able to get to them. Chavey 22:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing the white frame from Amazon images
When linking to Amazon images, be sure to look at the URL and remove any characters between the two "dots", which will load a larger image and/or remove the white frame from the image. For example, in this pub you gave the URL  http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FDSV4RBWL._SL500_AA300_.jpg  and you get this. If you remove every character between the dots/periods (leaving one dot before "jpg") and enter  http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FDSV4RBWL.jpg , you get this. Pretty neat trick, huh? Mhhutchins 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice! Thanks for showing me that. Chavey 01:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign language variants
I had to reject the submission that wanted to create a variant title (Trommeln in der Dämmerung) for Bradley's Drums of Darkness. We currently add foreign language publications under the English language title record, without making it a variant. (See here for an example.) The exception is made for works that were originally published in another language. The parent title record is the title it was first published and then the English title becomes variant of that title, as here. The Help page that covers this is here. Mhhutchins 01:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'l re-do that. Also, I just entered "Das besten Stories von Frederik Pohl", and entered the German titles of all of the stories in that collection. Once that's approved, do I then Merge those individual titles with the original English story? Chavey 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That would take many edits to get straight. You should clone the Pohl collection, changing all the applicable fields, leaving the English titles of the content section intact.  In the note field you can give the names of the German translated titles.  If I accept the submission currently on hold, you'd have to merge individually each of the content title records, obliterating the German titles.  It's up to you. I'd rather moderator a cloned submission. Mhhutchins 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tor Books merged into Tor
Please see this message when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Importing contents
I accepted the submission adding the same essay contents to three different pubs of the same title. These essays will now have to be merged. It would have been better (and a whole lot easier) to enter the contents in one pub, wait until the submission is accepted, then import the contents into the other two pubs. Looking down the queue I see you've done the same to two other titles with four publications. I would suggest canceling the submissions for three of the four submissions and import the contents to the remaining pubs. Also I've noticed that most of the titles don't use normal English capitalization. If this info came from OCLC, be aware that it is standard for librarians to capitalize only the first word and any proper names, but it is not the ISFDB standard nor most publications. I would bet that the essays as published were capitalized as standard English. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I had checked the "Help" pages to see if there was anything there about importing contents, and found nothing, so I thought it wasn't possible and that it had to be done by hand. (I hadn't noticed that sidebar menu under Publications.) I've cancelled those additional submissions and will use the import when the (one set of) contents are approved. I've done the Merges for "Anticipations", and will correct the capitalization after the merges are approved. I'd actually felt pleased that I had thought to correct all of their "V.T."s and "I.F."s to add the extra space that is our standard, but didn't think about that capitalization difference. Chavey 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A question: When I did the merge on M. Hammerton's essay Verne's Amazing Journeys, I noticed that there were four copies of the essay: three from different editions of "Anticipation", which I merged, and one from an 8-year-earlier issue of Foundation. I would hope that the 1995 version of that essay was substantially updated from the 1987 version, but similar as well. Should they be merged into one title? Should they be left as is with Title notes about the about version? Chavey 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Merge all the titles and then note in the title field if you're certain which, if any, of the later printings have been revised or updated.  The variant function should not be used to indicate a variant in text, although, unfortunately, (and incorrectly) you'll find it used that way throughout the database.  Variants are made for changes in title or author credit only.  Some editors get around this by appending "(revised)" or "(expanded)" to the title, and there's not a stated policy (that I'm aware of) which prevents this. Mhhutchins 20:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Great War with Germany
Approved the addition of contents to [this] then checked [Locus1], which has the complete contents listings and page numbers, though for the TP edition [no reason to think they would be different for the HC]. Seems most are extracts, but more than triple the number you've added. Just an FYI. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the TP &amp; HC versions should have the same page numbers -- they always have the same total book length. As the note mentions, I got this data from WorldCat, so it seems they didn't list enough. I'll check out the Locus reference and add the rest, although it may take me until Saturday to get to that. Chavey 01:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Locus will nearly always have the pagination, but better yet the story lengths are always noted, though their abbreviations are slightly different than ours. Plus the original date of publication and where is noted. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really mean to remove the ones you started with, instead of simply adding others? I will approve the removal, but that is a lot of work to redo, so I am just checking to be sure that is what you want.  --MartyD 12:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant to do that. While I was working on the Liverpool series, I had added the contents of "View From Another Shore" into this book instead! So I imported those contents into "View", and to update this book I need to then delete all of those other titles, 'cuz they're not in there. Then I'll add the correct ones. Chavey 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it. Done.  --MartyD 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(The) Glass Bottle Trick
Entered as "Glass Bottle Trick" in your verified pubs but also with "The" in the title. Since the two pubs you verified also credit the full title and the award nomination is for the full title would it be a good idea to merge the titles with the full name? There is also a discrepancy in year of publication between the titles and I don't know if the award nomination is for the year published or the year given. Thanks.--swfritter 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've submitted a merge changing the title to "The ..." and using the 2000 date instead of the 1999 date. I own at least one edition of each of the 4 publications that printed that story (I'll complete verifications tomorrow after one of the trade pb clones I submitted are approved). One of my editions is at the office, so I'll check it then, but the other three all list the copyright date as 2000, and all of them have "The ..." on the story's title page. You asked about the award year. The Tiptree list is for the year of publication, not the year the award is given. (I'm part of the Tiptree group, so that's one I know.) I also checked our official list of winners and nominees, and it's "The ..." there as well. I'll update my note after the merge is approved, to keep the comment about the 'wrong' title in parts of "Whispers from the Cotton Tree Root". Chavey 05:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge accepted. --MartyD 10:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dark Matter submission
Hi. Your proposed Dark Matter addition looks to me like it duplicates. But you probably cloned it, so I imagine I am missing something.... What is different? Thanks. --MartyD 10:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like I erred, because the existing one didn't have a contents list, so it didn't come up as I was looking for the books that contained "The Glass Bottle Trick". I'll cancel that submission and do an import of the contents instead. (There's one change in the contents, which is the page location of the introduction.) Chavey 14:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's odd. When I do a "contents import" it registers it as a NewPub (both in the submission button and in the "Pending Edits". Is it supposed to do that? Chavey 15:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The submission looked o.k. (from the moderators viewpoint), so I approved it. I'll try it myself one of these days. --Willem H. 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's just an oddity in the "Import Contents" interface, i.e. that the code for that began by using code from "New Pub" and that piece of it didn't get changed to something more natural, even though it doesn't create an actual "New Publication". I'll submit a bug report about it. Chavey 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cloning a pub used to call it New Pub, but that was recently changed. I suspect the common content-copying heritage was actually a copy (a clone? ha ha) of the processing and is another spot where "New Pub" could be changed to something more accurate.  Just a guess.  --MartyD 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty good guess. Internally, many of the "add"/"clone"/"import"/etc submission share the same underlying submission type, "NewPub". If we change them to another type, we'll need to change quite a few places which expect "NewPub" and that's time consuming and error-prone. The way it works on the Submission Queue page (after the last fix) is that every "NewPub" submission is examined before it is displayed. The display logic then decides whether the putative "NewPub" is actually a "ClonePub", an "AddPub", an "ImportContent", and so on. I need to add the same logic to "Recent Edits", "MyEdits", etc. Ahasuerus 17:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Crossing of Ingo
It's already in the database here. Mhhutchins 05:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd searched for it, but apparently I didn't, or mistyped something. I'll add it to the Ingo title series though, since it's not in there yet. Whoops, somebody else just added it! I know it wasn't there 10 minutes ago. Ok, I'll add its Wikipedia link! (I have to do something :-) Chavey 05:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mystery solved. From the Recent Integration list: 2011-02-07 22:55:43 / 1532586 - NewPub / Ahasuerus / Ahasuerus / The Crossing of Ingo.  Your submission was about two minutes later.  You have to be fast on the draw round these parts, pardner. Mhhutchins 07:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

View from Another Shore
Moderator: The submission I have in the queue is fixing up an error I made. I entered WorldCat data from one volume in the Liverpool Science Fiction series into the wrong volume of that series. The submitted import moves those contents to the correct location, and I will the correct the flawed contents in the other volume when that is completed. Chavey 05:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Submission approved. In the future, notices like this should be posted to the ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard.  Some moderators may not watch every editor's user page.  Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I put it here 'cuz I figured that if a moderator went to my page to query what I was up to, they would notice it. But I can see that the Moderator page is more natural. Chavey 06:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ballad of the Quick Levars" in "Liavek: Wizard's Row"
Please see this. I added "song" to the title of the Jane Yolen / Adam Stemple entry is Liavek: The Players of Luck. Thanks, --Willem H. 21:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that discussion. It seems to me that that's the right solution. I was thinking, though, that it might be useful to add to the notes in each version a direct link to the other version. If you agree, I can do that. Chavey 21:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course! Go ahead. Thanks, --Willem H. 21:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Seems to look and work well. Chavey 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Christening Quest
Is really by Elizabeth Ann Scarborough or just Elizabeth Scarborough? BLongley 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies for taking so long to reply -- my books were not well organized. (They will be in about 8 hours :-). The cover says "Elizabeth Scarborough". The title page says "Elizabeth Ann Scarborough". So, presumably, we leave it as "Elizabeth Ann Scarborough". Chavey 04:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackburne
Hi. What do you intend by "O'B." as the middle name in Blackburne's legal name? I searched around a bit, and I think the legal name should be "Casey, Elizabeth Owens Blackburne". I did not find any references to "O'B."? --MartyD 02:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me. The "O'B." comes from Locus1, and I wondered myself what that stood for, so I'm glad you discovered it. I'll replace the submission. Chavey 02:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Colin Andrews
It's not likely that the person who designed the covers of two books from UK publisher Michael Joseph in 1968 is F. Paul Wilson, who used the pseudonym on a few titles in the 1990s. I've disambiguated the records by adding "(artist)" to the cover designer credits. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that correction, and that disambiguation. Chavey 09:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking to Locus1
I noticed that you're linking to Locus1 as a source for pseudonyms. Noting the source is fine, but linking to Locus1 is not a good idea. Those links are not static. They shift when Contento adds entries into the database. That's one of the reasons you never (or should never) see linking to Locus1 in the ISFDB database. It's OK to use them in the Wiki discussions, which take a chance that the link won't shift in the short period when the discussion is current. But the Wiki Author Bibliographic comment pages are linked to the ISFDB database and it would be impossible to update all of the links on a continuous basis. Noting the source should be sufficient. Mhhutchins 16:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noting that; I didn't realize the links weren't stable. To make it easier for someone to look up a reference if they wished, can I link to the (Year, Novel vs. Story) link? For example, do you know if the link for 1999 short stories be stable? Or should I maybe say something like "Locus1 - 1999 stories"? Chavey 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The only links that I'm certain of their stability are the TOC start pages for each of the various parts: 1984-1998, 1999, 2000, etc. Honestly, I don't think the links would add much value.  Ordinarily "Locus1" is sufficient to indicate your source.  If one were to give Rock's Who's Goes There? or Bates' Pendex as the source, or even Tuck, Reginald, Contento, or any number of secondary sources, you wouldn't be expected to link them. I'll leave that decision to you. Mhhutchins 05:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll just leave it as "Locus1". Chavey 13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Utopian and SF by Women
I'm assuming you entered the contents for this book, including this title record. Is the spelling supposed to be "Foreward"? (Don't laugh, I've seen this word actually used in the foreword of a book, and couldn't tell if they were being ironic or just bad spellers.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake! Silly one too. I've corrected that. Chavey 13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Her Progress Toward Utopia
More than half of this consists of fiction by Gilman, which under the current rules would qualify it as a COLLECTION type instead of NONFICTION. And I wonder if the first 114 pages could be considered a lengthy ESSAY titled "Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Her Progress Toward Utopia" by Carol Farley Kessler. What do you think? Mhhutchins 06:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. It's also likely that the "Collection" part is what will be of the most interest to potential viewers. I'll change that. Chavey 13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything looks good but I forgot something. The book should be credited to Gilman alone.  Kessler, as the editor, is only credited in the notes. (Maybe someday we'll give the editor of collections their proper respect. Until then...) Mhhutchins 18:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good idea. Kessler isn't just the editor, she wrote 116 pages of the book. Amazon lists both Kessler and Gilman as authors; the Liverpool series lists Kessler as the sole author; Locus1 lists Kessler as the sole author. I think we should include Gilman, but dropping Kessler's name completely is inappropriate. Chavey 19:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The only way to credit both is to revert the type back to NONFICTION, and that would rub against current standards. If we credit both, Kessler would be considered a co-author of the collection, and that's not correct either.  Regardless of the length of the essay, it could just as well be considered an introduction to the fiction which follows.  If you don't make Gilman the author of the book, this collection of her fiction (60% of the book) will not appear on her summary page, an even more troublesome state. Giving the editor credit in a collection also establishes a precedent which could be used by other editors to make changes in hundreds of books already in the database.  That's my stand.  Feel free to present your case on the Rules and Standards page. (Also, it's not a good idea to use Amazon as the basis for authorship.  They've been known to give author credit to illustrators, narrators and other contributors.) Mhhutchins 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Evidence
I see you made a single content record for the reviews in this pub. It would be better to create records for each of the reviews. Barring that, just placing a statement in the note field about the number of missing reviews should suffice. A content record for "56 Reviews (various books)" on Clute's page and the pub record really doesn't add value to either. Mhhutchins 05:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; I made the change. Chavey 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That Darn Squid God
You can't change the author(s) of this title record. That was how the books were credited. You have to create a variant if a pseudonym was used. I've rejected the submission. Mhhutchins 01:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I thought I had created a variant. I'll try again. Chavey 03:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was a title update in which you were changing the author from James Clay to Phil Foglio. The subsequent submission was a Make Variant, and it worked. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And that's why we have moderators :-) Chavey 05:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Garrison science articles
I have mixed feelings about accepting the submissions making the Omni articles into variant records written by Craig Shaw Gardner. Nothing in his background or other writings would lead one to think he's a writer of science articles. The fact that he used the pseudonym for a series of novels isn't sufficient evidence to assume he also wrote the Omni pieces. Do you have any solid sources to indicate otherwise? There happens to be an author whose real name is Peter Garrison who has written articles for Smithsonian, Conde Nast Traveler, and Flying magazines. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The three novels that were listed under that author's name are attributed by Locus1, e.g. at The Magic Dead, to a pseudonym of Craig Gardner. I think you're quite likely right though that this is a different Peter Garrison than the one that wrote those essays. In other words, we had already confused two different authors into that one listing, and we need to disambiguate them. Can you do that, or do you want me to try? (I have very limited experience trying to do that.) Chavey 03:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll disambiguate the two authors. Give me some time to think about what we should name the science writer.  Do you have any suggestions? Mhhutchins 03:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia page refers to him as "Peter Garrison is an American journalist ...", so I suggest "Peter Garrison (journalist)". By the way, did you notice the last line in his Wikipedia article? It says: "Mr. Garrison is sometimes confused with Peter Garrison which is the pseudonym used by Craig Shaw Gardner, a prolific science-fiction writer born in 1949." Yup, that's us! But we keep getting better :-) Chavey 03:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It had been a while, so I went ahead and did the disambiguation myself. I needed a little practice at that anyway. Chavey 19:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not following up on this. Your solution works pretty good. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Disturbed by Her Song
I accepted the submission creating a variant of this title, but changed the author of the parent title to simply Tanith Lee, who is apparently the canonical author for both of her co-authors. Don't you just love bibliography? Mhhutchins 03:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I hadn't noticed that. I was trying to reduce the authors to two, but I didn't realize that Judas Garbah was another pseudonym for Tanith Lee. I just read the introduction to that book, on Amazon, and that certainly is right. Yup, bibliography is fun! Chavey 03:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)