User talk:Ahasuerus

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Ahasuerus/Archive

Contents

Situation with pseudonyms

Can you please check out this discussion with Roglo and advise how to proceed from here? I'm holding two of the submissions, but accepted the first two without much deliberation. Thanks. Mhhutchins 12:11, 2 Jan 2008 (CST)

Hell's Pavement

Correct cover? BLongley 08:10, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

That's the one, thanks! Ahasuerus 15:13, 5 Jan 2008 (CST)

Future wiki and editor series

Now that's a wiki jam-filled with information. But the Editor series is looking a little wacky. --swfritter 22:13, 10 Jan 2008 (CST)

The Future Editor series looks wacky because at one point I began breaking it up into a bunch of sub-series, one per title, and then remembered that we have no way of ordering sub-series within a superseries, so I was making things worse :( Adding a new field, "Order number within the parent series", to the series table is something that has been on the list of things to do for a long time, but no such luck so far. Ahasuerus 22:19, 11 Jan 2008 (CST)

I believe Mike Christie was working on Fantastic Universe, Infinity, and Venture and half way through the bibliographic tasks. I also notices that many of the issues looked like this without a length for the stories. A legacy from the past? In any case, I could use a break from Futurian madness and want to make sure there is no reason why I shouldn't tackle these relatively more relaxing challenges since they seem to have lied fallow for awhile.--swfritter 22:13, 10 Jan 2008 (CST)

I don't think there are any pressing issues in the Futurian land, although I will do a bit more reshuffling once I am feeling better and can think straight again. As a general rule, mixing and matching different tasks seems to be the best way to avoid burnout. There is often satisfaction in completing mini-projects, but longer ones can become stressful unless one takes occasional breaks :) Ahasuerus 22:19, 11 Jan 2008 (CST)

Eyes of the Overworld

One of your books is on the bad ISBN list: Eyes of the Overworld. I suspect 0671832921 is correct rather than 0617832921, but can you please double-check when you get a chance. BLongley 09:43, 12 Jan 2008 (CST)

Sure, will do! (But it will have to wait until mid-February...) Ahasuerus 12:41, 12 Jan 2008 (CST)
You seem to have the last two entries on the "ISBN fields that don't start with '#', and aren't 10 digits long" (snappy title, eh?) list as well, so please add The Other Foot and In Deep to your ever-increasing to-do list (although I hope these will be as fast to come OFF the list as they are to put on!). Manor Books and Leisure Books seem to be especially beyond our psychic bibliographic abilities. :-( BLongley 16:58, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)
To Do list updated. And I am sure it will start shrinking any century now :) Ahasuerus 20:32, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)
The Eyes of the Overworld was one of the first pubs that I verified when the Verification feature was added in 2006 and it needed a second pass anyway. The ISBN situation is peculiar: it has "617" on the spine, but the ISBN on the copyright page is, as you guessed, "671". All fixed now :) Ahasuerus 23:46, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)
My editions of The Other Foot and In Deep were published in 1971 and 1972 respectively. My attempts to derive working ISBNs from the SBNs on their spines were clearly unsuccessful, so I have changed them to the catalog IDs displayed on the covers. The SBNs are documented in the Notes field and if anybody has more luck converting them to ISBNs, more power to him :) Ahasuerus 23:57, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)
Coincidentally, I got my "In Deep" today and I seem to have been robbed of one whole (but very short) story - is "The Handler" worth tracking down elsewhere? (I also passed up on an "Eyes of the Overworld" thinking I already have it, but I'm not so sure now... Multiple Verifications are needed soon, my memory can't cope with the increasing discrepancies between my "Have Verified" and "Have Got" lists!) BLongley 16:58, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)
Well, like many/most Damon Knight stories from his middle period it contains a commentary on the human condition and the commentary is rather bitter. If you like Knight or if you happen to come across the story elsewhere, it's worth reading since it's short and punchy, one of his better efforts. BTW, it occurs to me that Knight and the recently discussed Lem had quite a bit in common: exceedingly bright boys who never grew up and could act like major jerks at times. Ahasuerus 20:32, 13 Jan 2008 (CST)
I'm accumulating more Knight and Lem than I've read before, but they haven't bubbled to the top of the "To Be Read" pile yet. I think I'd read more Lem if I found more "Pirx", and may yet bump Knight up the pile as there's a lot of short stories even I can find time for. I think one major difference might be that I've never read a Lem story from a T-shirt, whereas I have with Knight ("Eripmav") - now there's a binding type we probably haven't got yet! BLongley 14:23, 14 Jan 2008 (CST)
I think the consensus opinion (for what it's worth) is that Knight wrote quite a few good stories and novellas in the 1950s and 1960s, but always seemed to have trouble with novels. As far as Lem goes, the Pirx stories were fairly solid and The Invincible was another solid effort. However, he was at his most playful and creative in the The Cyberiad/Robots' Fables universe and in some Tichy stories. A darker and more bitter side of the same creativity can be seen in Memoirs Found in a Bathtub and The Futurological Congress, whose style of paranoia is similar to some of Dick novels (Lem was a big fan of Dick's work).
One word of caution is in order, though. There is a great deal of difference between Michael Kandel's translations of Lem's stories and everybody else's. The former range from excellent to brilliant, while the latter tend to be mediocre at best. The difference is particularly striking when the story is heavily dependent on Lem's dexterous use of the language, which is the case in roughly half of his output. Ahasuerus 22:31, 15 Jan 2008 (CST)
That would explain why I never finished Solaris then. :-/ BLongley 12:35, 16 Jan 2008 (CST)

Search the Sky

Correct cover? And as you seem to have the 1977 Bantam edition too, can you shed any light on why the title record says it was revised in 1977 by Baen, and your/our pub says it was revised 1985? Was someone suffering temporary Bantam/Baen/Ballantine Blindness? BLongley 16:12, 15 Jan 2008 (CST)

Well, considering the fact that Jim Baen didn't start his own company until 1983, it's probably fair to say that there was no "1977 Baen edition" :-) I will check my 1977 edition in mid-February, but I am pretty sure that the changes were not made until 1985. That's when Pohl went back and rewrote a bunch of old Pohl/Kornbluth collaborations to "update" them for the 1980s. I'll add it to my list of things to do, though. Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:57, 15 Jan 2008 (CST)

Walkers on the Sky

I've added an image to your verified publication. The odds are really high that your copy has the same cover as mine. Marc Kupper (talk) 16:34, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Looks right, but I will double check on February 16, when I have access to my collection. Thanks! Ahasuerus 16:44, 19 Jan 2008 (CST)

Space Gypsies

I've added a cover image to your verified publication. It's pretty likely this is correct as I think only one cover was ever used.

I also updated the comment from "Stated first printing of the first edition. Original paperback." to "First printing that states "First Avon Printing, June 1967" and "This Avon edition is the first publication in any form of Space Gypsies."" Marc Kupper (talk) 10:21, 20 Jan 2008 (CST)

Looks right, I'll add it to my list of things to check on February 15 :) Ahasuerus 12:11, 20 Jan 2008 (CST)

Is there a place to request changes?

I'd like to request that verification/edits should have a link to take you back to the publication or better yet the title after completing the change. Holmesd 22:30, 20 Jan 2008 (CST)

There's already a feature request on file for that. It's item 90107 on ISFDB_Feature_List. Marc Kupper (talk) 20:20, 21 Jan 2008 (CST)
Thanks, Marc! :) Ahasuerus 20:22, 21 Jan 2008 (CST)

Data Consistency/Short Fiction-Novel Mismatches

When you get a chance, would you be able to run the script for this list using the latest backup? Most of them have been fixed, but I was wondering how well. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhhutchins (talk • contribs) .

Sure, I'll rerun the script later tonight (travel gods willing)! Ahasuerus 17:15, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)
I have rerun the script and posted the new table at the top of the page. It still needs to be reconciled with the pre-existing table since I am out of time tonight :( Ahasuerus 23:59, 22 Jan 2008 (CST)

Binary Stars #1

I've started verifying my paperback anthologies and came upon this one that you've previously verified. Concerning the interior artwork by Freff, do you think that having a record for each of the two pieces (under the names of the stories they illustrate) would make a more "solid bibliography" of this publication? (Sorry, I just read that term used by Al in his description of his "Intended Order of Work" and thought it was a rather neat description of our attempts here.) :-) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:16, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Also, the book is titled Binary Star No. 1 on both the cover and the title page. Binary Star #1 is used only on the spine. Sure, it's nitpicking, but then no nit leaves unpicked in this database. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:48, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)
I can't check the book until mid-February, but both points seem to be quite reasonable based on my recollection of the series. Also, I seem to recall that Binary Star #5 was changed to Binary Star No. 5 in a similar fashion a few days ago. As far as nitpicking goes, that's what we do here and, by golly, we do it well! Ahasuerus 19:08, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)
Good. So did you want to wait until next month, or should I just go ahead and make the changes? Mhhutchins 20:01, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)
Sorry, I should have been more clear! Please go ahead and make the changes when you get a chance and I will add it to my list of things to check on 2008-02-16 in the unlikely event that I have a different printing. Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:34, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)
No. 1 is fine based on my copy. I also verified No. 3 and then, based on my copies of 1,2,3 and 5, changed all Anthology Titles to use "No. N" instead of "#N". I don't have No. 4, but OCLC lists it as "Binary star no. 4", so I think it's a safe guess. Ahasuerus 17:48, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

Wizard's First Rule (note on wrong talk page?)

I think you may have left the note for this reject on the wrong page. It should have been Holmesd's not Valmet76's. :-)Kraang 22:29, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)

Big oops! <blushes profusely> Thanks for catching it! :) Ahasuerus 22:45, 26 Jan 2008 (CST)

Past Master

I've added an image to your verified publication. It should be accurate as what's visible in the Amazon image seems to match what you entered. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:21, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Oh yes, I remember those dogs well :) Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:17, 28 Jan 2008 (CST)

Date of an OCLC record

I recall awhile back seeing a pub where you noted the date the OCLC record was created (can't remember exactly which one at the moment.) Where does this appear in the OCLC record? I've looked all over and just can't find the date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:18, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

It's the "Entry" field in the full OCLC record. For example, the record for "Captain Future's Challenge" has the following fields: 
Captain Future's challenge / Edmond Hamilton
1967
English Book : Fiction 128 p. ; 18 cm.
New York : Popular Library,
Libraries worldwide that own item: 15
Find Items About: 	Hamilton, Edmond, (max: 3)
Title: 	Captain Future's challenge /
Author(s): 	Hamilton, Edmond, 1904- 
Publication: 	New York : Popular Library,
Year: 	1967
Description: 	128 p. ; 18 cm.
Language: 	English
Series: 	Popular Library ;; 60-2430;
Genre/Form: 	Science fiction. 
Class Descriptors: 	LC: PS3515.A42516
Responsibility: 	by Edmond Hamilton.
Material Type: 	Fiction (fic)
Document Type: 	Book
Entry: 	19780705
Update: 	19960322
Accession No: 	OCLC: 4024628
Database: 	WorldCat
thus the entry date is 1978-07-05, last updated on 1996-03-22. Of course, what eventually became Worldcat didn't start until the 1970s, so any "entry" date for books published prior to the 1970s is useless, but it helps with more recent releases. Does this make sense? Ahasuerus 19:17, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)
I don't get the "full OCLC record" when I search on Worldcat.org. This is what I get when I search for your example. Do I have to register at Worldcat or is there another site for full OCLC info? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:43, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)
Ah, I see what the problem is! The Worldcat.org interface works OK for quick searches and has a few nice features, but it doesn't show you the full record, most notably the "Author" and the "Responsibility" fields, which roughly correspond to our "Canonical name" and "Pseudonym" fields. To quote Sources of Bibliographic Information:
  • You can access the data in this catalog in the following ways:
    • Public WorldCat interface is a beta Web interface available for free since August 2006. Only a few basic bibliographic fields per record are available via this interface and there is no Z39.50 access as of mid-2007. User-submitted reviews have been enabled.
    • FirstSearch is another Web interface to the WorldCat catalog and it shows all fields in each bibliographic record. FirstSearch access is provided to OCLC's subscribers, primarily libraries. Some subscribers have chosen to make it available on the Web for free, but there is no guarantee that it will remain available indefinitely.
The second interface is a little clunkier since you have to enter the search string first and then click on Worldcat when a list of databases appears, but once you are in, you can use various powerful search capabilities by experimenting with the "Search" (and "Sort") buttons. Have fun exploring it, there is quite a bit of juicy data there :) Ahasuerus 22:58, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Broken link

The link to the original version of ISFDB:Policy on your user page is broken (it goes to http://isfdb.tamu.edu/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Policy). I am not clear if you wanted it to go to the current policy page (in which case a simple wiki-link is probably best) or to an archived version of the original (In which case i don't know the correct URL). -DES Talk 10:51, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)

Thanks for the heads up! "isfdb.tamu.edu" used to redirect to "www.isfdb.org", so we used them interchangeably for a long time, both in Wiki URLs and in the Python code that links the ISFDB application to the Wiki. Then, some time in mid-2007, TAMU changed something on their side (reverse DNS or some other TLA) and all kinds of links got broken. I think we have mostly fixed them by now, but a few isfdb.tamu.edu stragglers remain and we put them out of their misery as we find them :) Ahasuerus 11:30, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)
You are welcome. I will change any such links in the wiki that I notice. -DES Talk 11:43, 30 Jan 2008 (CST)
Ahasuerus, since you seem to be getting sharp at the database stuff why not scan the wikitext for any stray references to isfdb.tamu.edu? Marc Kupper (talk) 03:25, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)
I took a stab it it using wget and grep and cleaned up the more important pages. There's still about 100 pages but many of those are bug reports, archives, and talk pages. It's getting late for me but these pages are left. I just go into edit mode, and search for tamu.edu. Some of these may already have been cleaned. I was also removing the {{protected}} tags and unprotecting pages as I saw them.
We could certainly clean up a lot of these links, but I suspect that many of the pages listed above should be simply archived. I haven't done as much archiving as I'd like to in the last few months due to other commitments :(
As far as unprotecting Wiki pages goes, it's easy to find all protected pages in the Protection Log, but I don't know of any way to perform mass unprotection, so it may take a couple of man-hours to clean things up. Ahasuerus 11:04, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)

Columbia Publications Chapbooks

When you were doing the 1940's Future run did you by any chance happen to add these chapbook titles? The Voice Commands and The New Life. I am currently entering the missing 1940's Science Fiction titles from secondary sources and this is where they first show up. Any problem merging magazine titles with chapbooks?--swfritter 21:30, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)

That's right, I entered all 6 of them at the time I was doing the "Futures": "Martian Martyrs", "Valley of Pretenders", "The Machine That Thought", "The New Life", "The Voice Commands", and "Rhythm Rides the Rocket". I have a couple of these pamphlets squirreled away somewhere, but I doubt I could easily find them to do physical verification. I have a complete run of Science Fiction and it's readily available, but I am not sure I will have enough free time to Verify all issues when I am in town over the Presidents' Day weekend. I was thinking that the Marvels or the Fantasy Books would be more doable.
Unfortunately, there is no support for "Publication series" yet, so these pamphlets are not linked except in the Notes field at this time. I am sure it's OK to merge the Title records. Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:04, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)
P.S. The reason I am 99% sure that the stories were reprinted verbatim is that the ads in my Futures explained that Lowndes was getting a lot of fan mail requesting certain back issues. Since Columbia had no back issues left and was not in a position to print more, they identified the most frequently requested stories and reprinted them as chapbooks. Hence the conclusion that the likelihood of any textual changes was very low. Ahasuerus 23:41, 7 Feb 2008 (CST)
I did merge a couple of them and it seemed to work fine. Of course, like half the stories in these mags, they were pseudonymous so I also had to merge the variants. I have worked up another Google spreadsheet for the pre-fifties titles and noticed there are a number of titles for which we have no coverage that I can verify from both Day and Contento. It has been by number one priority to enter missing titles and these will be one of my priorities. The Google spreadsheets can be published automatically when they are updated and I would like to post the addresses someplace so others can view our progress or perhaps even participate. Bibliographic Projects in Progress is I guess the best place?--swfritter 12:49, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)
We could create a new Project page for this "magazine reconciliation" project, but it will probably need to be advertised on a more popular page like the Community Portal. Not everybody checks Recent Changes and even fewer people seem to have "Bibliographic Projects in Progress" on their Watch list. Ahasuerus 13:03, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)
That sounds like a good idea. It will give me room to explain the entries and also a place for people to place specific questions or comments.--swfritter 13:10, 8 Feb 2008 (CST)

Quick Link to Issue List

Look at Amazing Stories. I have placed an {Issue List} link there that takes the user directly to the list. Would this mess up any future plans? Good Idea? Run it through Community Portal?--swfritter 19:07, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

It looks at best useful and at worst harmless, so I would just mention it over on the Community Portal as an FYI. There is a good chance that magazine support will be revamped at some point in the future because the current EDITOR/Wiki system is so cumbersome, but I don't think that an extra link like that would cause any problems. Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:12, 9 Feb 2008 (CST)

Laumer's House in November

I've updated the date of publication of your verified copy of this edition. Also added a note about source of date. Mhhutchins 12:17, 10 Feb 2008 (CST)

Nice to see that the gutter code project is bearing fruit! :) Ahasuerus 13:12, 10 Feb 2008 (CST)

SFBC edition of Nova 2

I've updated your verified copy of this pub with the month of publication, and adjusted the note field accordingly. I also added the cover graphic, but since I don't have this edition can you check to see if the cover matches? Thanks! Mhhutchins 21:12, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)

Hm, I verified my Novas just a few months ago, but for some reason I don't recall this cover. I should be able to check on Saturday - thanks! Ahasuerus 21:57, 11 Feb 2008 (CST)
Checked -- the cover is correct. Ahasuerus 16:33, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

Alan Dean Foster's Mission to Moulokin

I've updated your verified edition of this pub with the month of publication, cover art and adjusted the notes accordingly. Mhhutchins 14:19, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

That's the one -- the gutter code matches yours. Ahasuerus 17:03, 17 Feb 2008 (CST)

Roy Rockwood -- going onward?

I have now entered all the Roy Rockwood titles that are included in the "SF Bookshelf" at PG. A number of other works are listed in worldcat/OCLC, and skeleton entries could be made from that source. Ads included in some of the PG HTML versions would allow placing some of these titles into series. Do we normally create titles and publications from that sort of source, with nothing more? -DES Talk 12:20, 19 Feb 2008 (CST)

Yes, we do create records based on secondary sources, including OCLC, but when we do, we record where the data came from in the Notes field. OCLC data is derived from roughly 10,000 library catalogs and some librarians are better at cataloging than others. Also, in Roy Rockwood's case series data can be found on the Fantastic Fiction web site. They also have cover scans, which we have permission to link to. By the way, are you familiar with the back door to the complete Worldcat/FirstSearch catalog, which is documented over on the Sources of Bibliographic Information page? Ahasuerus 13:49, 19 Feb 2008 (CST)
I've been going into Worldcat through the first link on the Sources of Bibliographic Information page -- I understood the text to mean that one had to have some sort of special account via a library or use the second link. Is that incorrect? -DES Talk 15:25, 19 Feb 2008 (CST)
Basically, you have to have access to a library system that is hooked up to the FirstSearch service provided by OCLC. Not all libraries purchase this service from OCLC since it's pricey. The ones that do generally make it available either to their own librarians or, in some cases, to their on site patrons. A few (very few) libraries -- like the one linked on the Sources of Bibliographic Information page -- make the service available on the Web so that anybody could use it. I am not sure whether OCLC knows about this, but if they don't, it's possible that if and when they find out about it, they may ask these libraries to shut the service down since they may be losing money because their premium contents is now available for free on the Web and anybody can access it. And I clearly need to rewrite the relevant section of the page to make it clearer :) Ahasuerus 17:45, 19 Feb 2008 (CST)
Also, I have been unable to determine, from oclc records, what the binding type is. Can you tell me how a volume is indicated as being hc, tp, or pb there? I find typically a page count number, and a single measurement in cm (often 19 or 20), and it is not at all clear to me, even after reading through help on MARC records, how to determine the binding from those records. Any advice is welcome. -DES Talk 15:25, 19 Feb 2008 (CST)
"18cm" is pretty much always a mass market paperback. "19cm" is either a small tp/hc or a British pb, which tend to be a bit taller. 20+ is either a tp or a hc, but distinguishing between tps and hcs can be tricky. Sometimes OCLC will print "(pbk.)" next to the ISBN, which is self-explanatory, but if they don't, then it's time to check other sources. Price is not always a reliable indicator, but it can help. If the book was published pre-WWII, it's almost always either a hardback or, in some cases, a pamphlet since paperbacks didn't take off until WWII -- first in the UK, then in the US. The worst case scenario is that you have to leave the binding field blank and record the volume size in the Notes field.
Hey, nobody said investigative bibliography would be easy! :) Ahasuerus 17:45, 19 Feb 2008 (CST)
Thanks, this will be helpful. Perhaps some of it should be in a help page somewhere?-DES Talk 18:48, 20 Feb 2008 (CST)
Most British paperbacks are about 17.5cm by 11cm, and count as "mass market" in US size terms. Blame rounding errors for the "18cm" entries? Or Amazon.co.UK for even more variations like "17.8 x 10.4" - in practical terms, I have no qualms about grouping US MMPBs with UK "PBs", I don't have to adjust shelf sizes to mix them. BLongley 16:33, 21 Feb 2008 (CST)
"Trade Paperback" is a term we've imported from the US, it seems, and doesn't actually reflect the UK market at all. It just means "Bigger, more expensive, paperback" to us. 19.5cm by 12.5cm seems common, 20cm by 13cm too. You could probably reverse the definitions of "Trade" and "Mass Market" editions for the UK - only a true bookshop will sell the hardback, trade paperback and then the paperback editions: the supermarkets will often sell hardbacks and then trade paperbacks but not bother with the ("mass-market") paperbacks as the margins have got too low by then. The UK publishers have got some internal terms to note too - e.g. "A Format", "B Format", and NO, they don't match the Wikipedia definitions. :-( But basically, UK TPs are notably taller and deeper and a bit more expensive than the pb, and annoy me as that near-inch difference spread over an entire bookcase could be the difference between me getting another shelf in or not. And particularly annoy me when some authors (Iain M. Banks and Jasper Fforde) only seem to be available in TP format. If you want me to be arbiter on TP versus PB for UK pubs, feel free to send me the books and I'll tell you how much they please my shelves. ;-) I'm happy to return the favour with the accursed "Library Bindings" that nobody has yet explained to me satisfactorily... :-( BLongley 16:33, 21 Feb 2008 (CST)
Some UK books go through all 3 (large, regular, small) usual sizes in paperback; e.g. I've seen all 3 sizes of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, and The Algebraist has both large (same as hc size) and regular paperback UK editions, which both would be recorded as tp. (I see I'll have to add the large one to ISFDB.) --Roglo 03:37, 22 Feb 2008 (CST)
True, there are occasional "same size as hardback" paperbacks but I think a lot of these are book club editions - poor quality versions of the hardback that only sell because they're out at the same time as the hardback - the official trade paperbacks are far better. (Still annoying though.) But I don't think it's a common format: I normally see hc, tp, pb as the usual progression. (If it's worth multiple printings of course!) The only "same size as hardback" I've ever owned was an Omnibus which would have been painfully thick if done in normal ("A format") paperback size. BLongley 13:07, 22 Feb 2008 (CST)
I've got a few "same size as hardback" and they look just like hc but without the 'hard cover' glued on. Some have even pages sewn, so they are easy to rebound. And they are sometimes called 'trade paperbacks' by their publishers (on verso of t.p. of one such book from Gollancz, 2002) or called 'C-format' (The Algebraist). They were sold on Amazon UK, in non-UK bookshops and sometimes at airports. I don't think I've ever seen them in London's bookshops such as Waterstones or WHSmith (but Bookends had them). --Roglo 07:53, 24 Feb 2008 (CST)
We have a Help:How to page, which has pointers to more specialized Help pages. If another editor's explanation looks useful and the information is unavailable elsewhere in the Help system, please feel free to create another "How To" page and link it from the main "How To" page. Take a look at Help:How to parse data in library catalogs, which I created a few minutes ago, for an example. Also please feel free to ask any questions you may have about OCLC/WorldCat/FirstSearch and/or other library catalogs of interest to SF bibliographers. I should really spend some time adding this information to Help in case something happens to me, but there are always a thousand competing priorities... Ahasuerus 00:22, 21 Feb 2008 (CST)
I'm pretty bad at editing help pages too, but feel I can provide useful UK information at times - feel free to put anything I say, anywhere here, somewhere findable and useful. I'm not good at guessing what IS going to be useful, and even less at organising it - but apparently some of the things I've said in "What if Bill gets hit by a Bus tomorrow?" brain-dump speeches for major organisations are still being passed around 10-15 years after I spoke them and someone else wrote them down. Of course, those were in the days of "Bill's leaving, he'll speak to you, PLEASE take lots of notes" and in these World-Wide-Wubbish days everyone may assume I've said it all anyway. I haven't, and am always open to direct questions. BLongley 17:01, 21 Feb 2008 (CST)

Fantasy Book & Others

I assume (and hope considering the notes for V1, N1) you have all of these. I have five of them if you are missing any. I think I've got the pre-50's issue list pretty well straightened out. It lists all the issue documented in Ashley's "The Time Machines" plus another column to indicate the titles in Day. I have been putting in Captain Future using two sources. The only other Day titles we are missing are Fantastic Novels, Fantasy Fiction/Fantasy Stories (1950), Out of This World Adventures and Scientific Detective Monthly/Amazing Detective Tales. Captain Future, Fantastic Novels, and Fantasy Book seemed like the most important ones to me. Ashley also lists The Shadow and such marvelous titles as Terence X, O'Leary's War Birds but they are not too high on my priority list. Unless you want to do them from the mags I am planning on doing Fantastic Novels from secondary sources fairly soon. If you have anything to add to the spreadsheet let me know and I will give access to you or anyone else who might have data to add.--swfritter 18:37, 20 Feb 2008 (CST)

I do have the "Fantasy Book" issues from 1947-1951 (7 in one easily accessible place and one in a difficult to access place), although I am missing nine 1980s issues. The problem, as always, is my "collection time" or lack thereof since I am back on the road as of this afternoon and won't see my collection again until mid-March. I hoped to enter another issue or two on Wednesday morning, but our editing tools were borked and then I had to leave. Always something :)
I think it's great that you are entering Captain Future, Marvel, Science Fiction, etc from secondary sources. The fact that I own all of these issues but don't have time to enter/verify more than a few per month has been very frustrating, but the curse of the Wandering Jew is not easily broken. At this time it looks like I may be wandering until at least the end of March and, more likely, the end of May (and possibly beyond). Getting all Titles in the database is an excellent start and addresses the ISFDB "incompleteness" problem that people on rec.arts.written occasionally complain about. Which reminds me that I need to post about Dissembler's lack of "paranormal romance" coverage and how we can rectify it soonish... Ahasuerus 00:45, 21 Feb 2008 (CST)

Binary Star #1

In your verified pub you list the editor as "uncredited". In the forthcoming books column "The Aleph" from Galileo Magazine #9, the editor is given as Terry Carr. The column lists the same price, date, and publisher as your pub, and correctly lists the two works contained in the anthology. Is this a sufficiently reliable source to change the pub record? "The Aleph" was mostly based on advance info from publishers, but included lots of mini reviews, so someone was reading advance copies of actual books for it. -DES Talk 00:21, 25 Feb 2008 (CST)

Actually, there is an added twist here. You were looking at the publication record and we don't have pseudonym information captured at the pub level, we just record publication level data "as is". However, if you click on the Title link for Binary Star No. 1, you will see that it is a variant title of Binary Star No. 1 edited by James R. Frenkel and if you click on Frenkel's name, you will see that he is currently credited as the editor of all 5 Binary Star anthologies. A quick online search finds a fair amount of evidence that he indeed edited the series, e.g. there is a copy of Binary Star No. 3 signed by Frenkel for sale or the attribution in the 2001 Locus Index. Still, there is no harm in adding a Note at the Title level about a different attribution in Galileo. The more sources, the merrier! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahasuerus (talk • contribs) .
Oops, on rechecking my source, I was off by a line, and Galileo credits Frenkel. -DES Talk 00:51, 25 Feb 2008 (CST)
Better yet :) Thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 00:56, 25 Feb 2008 (CST)

Use record number to link to mags?

I noticed that your entry for Fantasy Book v1, n1 uses the pub id to link to the mag instead of the tag. Am I right? Seems to make more sense since the tag can be changed. Entered v1, n1 Mystic Magazine and picked up the id from the sql generated by approving and that worked. Wave of the future?--swfritter 18:14, 29 Feb 2008 (CST)

The Tag field was something created in the antediluvian past (1996?) and used by outside sites to link to ISFDB publications. That was long before we started using SQL, so row IDs were not available. I am unaware of any currently active sites linking to us using Tags and, as you note, they can be changed manually, so I figure internal IDs are safe, if not safer, to use. Unlike Title records, Publication records can't be merged, only deleted, and the IDs are not re-used when a pub record is deleted, so it's a pretty safe approach. Hopefully :) Ahasuerus 23:11, 29 Feb 2008 (CST)
If we someday convert all our wiki references to use publication IDs, then we can do away with the tag altogether. Alvonruff 07:44, 1 Mar 2008 (CST)
Uh-oh! I've been linking the titles selected by the SFBC to their listings on the SFBC publisher pages -- and using the tag ids, not the pub ids. The tag ids are the ones that come up in my address window, and that's what I've been copying and pasting for the URL of the links on the SFBC publisher pages. If this is wrong, I'll have to change A LOT of links. What's the simplest way to get the pub id? The only way I've been able to get it is from the advanced search page under publication search. Or does this only concern mags? I knew that tags could be changed, but it never occurred to me that they could possibly be eliminated. Is Al's method of conversion to pub ids an automatic process or will they have to be changed one by one? I'll stop linking until something more definitive has been established. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:53, 3 Mar 2008 (CST)
You can also get the pub_id when you create or update the pub. It is in the generated SQL text when a pub submission is approved. The Fantasy Book entry was the first time I had seen a pub id used for linking purposes.--swfritter 18:21, 3 Mar 2008 (CST)
Most of the titles that I'm linking from already have pubs, but there are a few that I have to update. In any case, it would be too much trouble to "update" unnecessarily just to get the pub id. Doing the advanced search method would be easier. MHHutchins 18:42, 3 Mar 2008 (CST)
And you need to remember to grab the id - thanks for the tip on being able to grab them with advanced search.--swfritter 20:20, 4 Mar 2008 (CST)

Thrilling SF, Summer 1969

I was glancing through those issues of Thrilling that you've been verifying and noticed this oddity in the Summer 1969 issue. Is the artwork for "Descending" on page 2 and the story on page 89? MHHutchins 21:21, 24 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Peculiar, isn't it? There is a squarish looking blurb in the right corner which explains that the picture illustrates the Disch story. My guess is that Cohen didn't have the space for this full page picture in the magazine proper and used it on the front end paper. Either that or he didn't feel like spending additional time/money on the fep :) Ahasuerus 22:00, 24 Mar 2008 (CDT)
I supposed he felt that since he owned it and didn't have to pay again to use it, he was gonna put it in there regardless of the integrity of the art and the story! Thanks for clearing that up. MHHutchins 22:34, 24 Mar 2008 (CDT)
And checking the next 8 issues, I see that he used the same stratagem in 4 of them! Worse, he began concentrating on recycling Amazing's 1940s/early 1950s cra^H^H^H stuff starting with the 14th issue :( Ahasuerus 22:42, 24 Mar 2008 (CDT)
The man obviously wasn't reading what he was reprinting. With 40+ years of stories to draw from, every issue of the Ultimate reprint digests should have been, well, amazing. Even on their own, the Cele Goldsmith years were a treasure trove. I eventually plan to create a Wiki page for the remaining Ultimate digests. Do you think combining them on one page would be a good idea? The nine titles had only one to six issues. MHHutchins 19:12, 25 Mar 2008 (CDT)
After reading the first two issues of Amazing Stories for 1953 and subjecting myself to entering data for a number of Ray Palmer publications I would have to say that, with the exception of the early issues of Fantastic, the Cele Goldsmith years provided the only true treasure trove. It was truly a pleasure to update the late 50's issues. Her predecessor, Paul W. Fairman, was the epitome of mediocrity.--swfritter 20:55, 25 Mar 2008 (CDT)
As far as I can tell after a few minutes of googling around, Cohen began reprinting older and inferior stories to save money. In August 1967 SFWA pressured him into signing an agreement to pay writers for any reprints although Amazing apparently owned the "second rights" and didn't have to pay anything for reprints. But then Cohen tried to ignore/obfuscate the agreement and presumably he found it easier to get away with it when reprinting older stories. Ah, the joys of dealing with publishers!
Re: combining the remaining Ultimate digests goes, I am sure there is no harm in trying it. It will be easier to explain their (often convoluted) relationships that way and if we decide that the page is too busy, we can also split it up later. Ahasuerus 23:32, 25 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Fantasy Books

All but v1n2 and v1n5 are in the database. Looking at Tuck I notice there were actually 3 different editions of each issue with the newsstand edition being distributed in California. Issue three mentions that there were different covers for different editions of issue two. Make all the changes you want. Hopefully you will have some different editions and the issues I don't have. Just got all nine issues of Lowndes' "Famous Science Fiction" on ebay. Luckily somebody topped out $4.00 under me. I'll crank them into the system as soon as they arrive. Helps make up a little for missing out on getting all 36 issues of "Magazine of Horror" which had a set price - somebody beat me by a few minutes. And just got December, 1935 issue of "Wonder Stories" for $1.41 - quite worn but all there. There is a positive side to recessions. --swfritter 20:12, 26 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Thanks, I'll see what I have on Saturday! Looks like I will also get to spend some quality time with my collection Thursday-Saturday next week; I'll poke around to see what I can enter during that 3 day period.
P.S. Careful with Ebay hunting; it can be as addictive as (and more expensive than) any other sport! :) Ahasuerus 20:33, 26 Mar 2008 (CDT)
My new rule: Set my maximum price and don't change it. Almost paid way too much for the one issue of Fantastic Story Magazine I don't own the other day - thankfully I lost and when somebody else notices how much that issue went for there will probably be five more copies show up for sale. Oh, if you happen to have the April, 1958 issue of Amazing Stories handy we can finish the bibliographic tasks for 1951-1960. Neither Rkihara or I own it and I can't find a copy on the internet. Maybe somebody is collecting Ed Valigursky art? or maybe somebody is a Rog Phillips collector?--swfritter 20:47, 26 Mar 2008 (CDT)
My Amazing digests are neatly organized, so I should be able to check it easily. As far as Rog Phillips goes, I remember paying $6 (?) to complete my collection of his books and thinking that I must be the only Rog Phillips collector on this planet... Ahasuerus 20:58, 26 Mar 2008 (CDT)
Yes, the only one on this planet. The other one is living on one of the moons of Jupiter. I suppose the stories he wrote as Sanandana Kumara are your favorites. He was a very capable writer but like one of my favorites, Milton Lesser (the recently deceased Stephen Marlowe), it takes a little work to dig out the gems from the millions of words both wrote.--swfritter 14:45, 27 Mar 2008 (CDT)
Admittedly, neither one was a consistently good writer any more than Silverberg was a good writer in the 1950s, but there are times when you see a flash of something that makes you wonder whether they may have evolved the way Silverberg did. Of course, Lesser did sort of evolve, just not in the same field. And speaking of Rog Phillips, who is this rog phillilps guy in Amazing Stories, February 1953? :)
Rkihara would have caught that one - I think we all need at least three people looking over our shoulders. Entering known names in lower case is great for finding typos plus it frees up one hand for holding place in the magazine. In my stacks of recent acquisitions from the last year are a number of his books - the Chester Drum novels are terrific. He also did some romances and Jakes-like historicals but I don't thank he ever sank to doing pornography like Silverberg and Ellison and so many others who lost their source of income as result of the magazine extinction event of 1958. His Columbus novel probably had the most critical success but it is a difficult read.--swfritter 16:03, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)
P.S. Fantasy Book, Vol. 1, No. 2 entered and the Wiki's price data updated based on the editorial. I have also corrected the spelling of The Machine-God Laughs (Part 2 of 3) in No. 3. Once I finish entering Vol. 1, No. 5, we should have all the contents covered and then we just need to reconcile the editors' pseudonyms :) Ahasuerus 15:06, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)
Great. Crawford certainly has the publisher's record for most uncompleted serials in his magazines. Six or seven of them - and I think at least one or two never saw a complete publication in any format. P. Schuyler Miller's "The Titan" would probably have been considered one of the ten best of the 30's if it's full publication hadn't been delayed to the late 1940's.--swfritter 16:03, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)
Vol. No. 5 has been entered and an Editor series has been set up. I have also double checked Vol. 1 No. 3: price ($0.25) added, the page number that "Blurb" starts on changed from 26 to 27, Chad Oliver's letter added, the way The Well of the Unicorn is credited in the review stated in Notes, "The Book Shelf" attributed to Lilith Lorraine. Interestingly enough, "Lilith" is spelled "Lillith" in some other issues; we'll need to check all of them and set up variant titles. I'll try to do the missing Amazing next and then double check as many Fantasy Book issues as I can before I have to head out tomorrow morning. Ahasuerus 20:23, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)
I have double checked the rest of the issues (except the last one that I can't seem to be able to find and may not even own -- the horror!) and added notes throughout. I think we are in a pretty good shape, although Crawford's magazines tend to be rather quirky, so it's hard to be sure. For example, why would they print "Lilith Lorraine"'s first name with three "l"s in two separate issues? Oh well, as you said, Crawford had pretty bad luck and never fully broke out of the semi-prozine ghetto. He explained in one of the later issues of Fantasy Book that he secured a deal with a national distributor before he started the magazine, but then the distributor promptly collapsed and he was left with lots of copies of No. 1, no way to distribute then and a completely messed up publication schedule.
I have also done Amazing 1958-04-00, which turned out to have a unique title. All previous Amazings were known as Amazing Stories and all subsequent ones were published as Amazing Science Fiction Stories. This one appeared as Amazing Science Fiction, so I had to reshuffle some EDITOR records. Hm, now that I have checked Tuck, he claims that the March issue was also called Amazing Science Fiction. I can't check it right now since I have to run, but I'll pull up the issue on Thursday unless you get to it first :) Ahasuerus 22:55, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)
Must be what makes the April issue collectible. For March it is actually Amazing Science Fiction on the cover and Amazing Stories on the table of contents. Table of contents text for April? Our standards generally indicate that we should prioritize inside data but also give us wiggle room so I will change it so that it is consistent with other sources. The title eventually changes back to Amazing Stories in 1960. I have generally used the generic title 'Amazing Stories' for columns no matter what variations there are to the the actual title. In this case I don't think doing so creates much ambiguity. The title is so commonly referred to as 'Amazing Stories' that it might even cause some people to think an essay is from a different magazine. The generic title is being used with Analog essays where there are so many unusual and lengthy permutations to the title.--swfritter 15:42, 30 Mar 2008 (CDT)
Sounds like a reasonable approach! (I am reunited with my collection, but need some R&R before I can start working on verifications.) Ahasuerus 13:49, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)
I've added links to the cover art for those issues of Fantasy Book (6 of the 8) from Phil Stephensen-Payne's website. Please check to see if they're the correct images. MHHutchins 23:45, 29 Mar 2008 (CDT)
Thanks, will do when I am back to civilization on Thursday :) Ahasuerus 08:41, 30 Mar 2008 (CDT)
The 6 scans that you linked last week do match my copies. I have also confirmed and linked the other two issues that you can find on Phil's site you follow his More Images link, so we are all set now. Thanks! Ahasuerus 13:49, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)
Noticed that the "The Machine-God Laughs" in issue #4 was entered as 2 of 3 instead of 3 of 3 (probably by me). Must have had a case of Crawforditis. Fixed. Luckily I was doing a dupe check for a Festus Pragnell story in Famous Science Fiction when the duplicate serial titles caught my eye.--swfritter 15:41, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)

The Invaders

We've crossed on another series of TV novelizations, "The Invaders" including our old friend Peter Leslie that we met in the U.N.C.L.E. series. I don't know if you have more to add, but:

  1. Did I get the right cover for your verified pub here?
  2. Do you have any idea why Rebellion (1935) by John W. Campbell, Jr. is in there?
  3. Do the "Parts" in my UK version match your US version for this title?
  4. Apart from the above, do the numberings make sense?

No hurry, I know you're away for a bit. BLongley 13:29, 31 Mar 2008 (CDT)

1. The cover scan does match the cover on my copy, thanks!
2. "Rebellion" belongs to a totally different Campbell series, The Machine; I have now moved it there. By the way, some well meaning editor has messed up Campbell's Mightiest Machine series by merging 3 variant titles of The Mightiest Machine novel. I will need to pull up a bunch of backup files next week to find out what the original attributions were.
3. The three parts in the US version have the same titles as the three parts in the UK version.
4. 1 and 2 certainly make sense. The fact that Army of the Undead and The Night of the Trilobites are both entered as #3 seems puzzling.
BTW, the Wikipedia article needs to be cleaned up at some point to eliminate numerous errors in the "Books" section. Ahasuerus 21:24, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)
Thanks for 1 and 3 comments: I hope I didn't cause/approve 2 (unlikely as I don't recall seeing that title before now). BLongley 17:27, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)
As for 4 - well, I actually LIKE to cause some confusion over series while we don't have multiple series support, I think it might encourage people to go and click the Wiki link and see what the real information is. (I constantly get confused over the series view as I never know whether it should be actual or pseudonymous versions that should be in it - I don't mind too much either way so long as we get to the real book eventually.) I left The Girl From UNCLE in the same sort of state - there is no "definitive" series as both the US and UK series are incomplete when you view them overall. But I'm open to workaround suggestions if you have any. BLongley 17:27, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)
Well, eventually the Series page will use the same display logic as the Summary page, at which point variant titles will be displayed correctly and we won't have to worry about any of this. For now, I usually add the canonical title to the series and remove series information from any related variant titles. This approach helps make the Series page look good, but it also makes it impossible to see Series data in any collections/anthologies that use the variant title. There is no silver bullet, I am afraid :( Ahasuerus 23:34, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)
And for the unnumbered comment - no, I not going to edit Wikipedia for anything more than the most trivial of corrections, I don't have time to defend edits there. It currently looks as though owning the book itself isn't going to be enough, you'll need to quote a book that describes the book you actually have... :-/ BLongley 17:27, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)
I feel your pain! In late 2005-early 2006 I spent well over 6 months building up various Wikipedia articles and by May 2006 my watch list was over 700 articles long. At some point I realized that I was spending more and more of my Wikipedia time "protecting" existing text instead of improving articles and gave up. As it happened, Al had just finished migrating the ISFDB to Python/MySQL, so I had my hands full testing the new version of the ISFDB software anyway.
Our relationship with Wikipedia is admittedly a strange one. We link to their Author and Title articles, but based on prior experience we half expect them to be messed up. Oh well... Ahasuerus 23:34, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Amazing April 1958

Don't forget ellipses need spaces.

Oops! On the plus side it's trivial to write a one line script that finds all "..."s in the database. Ahasuerus 21:49, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Also per the above discussion about using actual title of individual mag or canonical title to modify column. I slightly prefer canonical in this case. I might also note that the title of the April issue is "Amazing Science Fiction" but the columns have "Amazing Science Fiction Stories". Substituting Andre Norton's name: Many other leave the pseudonym and I have followed that practice if it matches lexically - I might note that there are three other reviews for the title that match the North variant. Fingers crossed!!! when we can link titles this may not matter although we still have the problem of which title to link to. Also noted that the letter column is credited to "The Readers". The documentation sort of keys off the editor replies and I, and many others, would use uncredited in this case although I have always been tempted to do as you have done.

Now you know why the OCLC catalogs have so many duplicate entries even though the OCLC has very detailed guidelines for data entry: no two librarians enter the data the same way no matter how many pages of standards you throw at them ;-0 In this case the column was signed "The Readers", so I entered it verbatim; we have but a few dozen titles attributed to "Readers" and "The Readers", so it should be relatively easy to change to "uncredited" if/when we decide to clean it up. Ahasuerus 21:49, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)

"One of Our Cities is Missing": Most of the "complete" novels published in this span are right on the borderline with a number of them actually being complete novels. Some of them even have font and line count changes midway through the stories. Good candidate to check out my word count spreadsheet.

And the illos come in all shapes and forms to make things even more "interesting" :( Ahasuerus 21:49, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)

I know you were in a hurry (hope you didn't forget your luggage) but the Chandler story still categorized as shortfiction.

Thanks, fixed! I'm sure we'll write another one line script at some point, one that finds all "sf"s in the database. Ahasuerus 21:49, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Just to prove that people will always do nearly everything differently - I noticed that you used the day to sort the Editor series while I generally use the month. Two or three more passes through the magazines and we might start looking good.--swfritter 15:13, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

I think I re-used the pre-existing sorting logic in this case since I was in a hurry. No worries about the luggage, though; after a couple of centuries on the road, it becomes second nature :) Ahasuerus 21:49, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Speaking of Rog Phillips

Rkihara found Rog Phillips Bibliography by E. T. Kemp. Interestingly is has this entry

  • Aug 1947 So Shall Ye Reap! (n) [complete novel] [serial]

Since I just added at least 10 (mostly pseudonymous according to Contento/Miller) Phillips stories that were in Mystic Magazine I will probably contact him. I am kind of curious how much data he may have gotten from The ISFDb.--swfritter 15:20, 2 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Well, Kemp is using Contento's convention for designating novellas ("na") and novelettes ("nv"), so I suspect that Contento's indexes (including Miller/Contento) were his first source. We can always ask, of course :)

Gamma Cleanup

I have found Gamma Vol. 1, No. 1; still looking for #3. #5 verified and the publication month corrected -- there was some kind of confusion between #4 and #5, but all cleaned up now. Fritch's pseudonyms straightened out and an EDITOR series set up. Lots of unrelated Title merges for Fritch et al to make their biblios more consistent. Ahasuerus 22:38, 3 Apr 2008 (CDT)

P.S. Vol. 1, No. 1 done. No. 3 found and will be entered on Friday. Could you please check what Ashley says about the former's publication month? Tuck mentions "mid-1963" and "July" in two different places, but if No. 2 was published in July, then No. 1 presumably appeared earlier in the year. TIA! Ahasuerus 01:38, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Looking at the other sources:
  • #1: Ashley & Contento/Miller both say July.
  • #2: Ashley & Contento/Miller both say November.
  • #3: Ashley & Contento/Miller both say June.--swfritter 12:25, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)
Thanks! I have changed the dates of all stories in No. 2 from 1963-07-00 to 1963-11-00 and corrected the Note field. Also, does your copy have an "Everybody out There Likes Us . . ." department on page 68? My copy is missing pp. 69-70 due to what appears to be a typographical error, so it's hard to tell what's going on. Ahasuerus 23:08, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)
Yes. I will put it in there. I think the reason I did not it in on the first pass is that is mostly a number of one line blurbs by Rod Serling, Ray Bradbury, Anthony Boucher, August Derleth, and others. It is essentially advertising and contains little information of value or interest.--swfritter 13:36, 5 Apr 2008 (CDT)
As far as Vol. 2, No. 2 goes, does your issue have "Remember . . .", an uncredited essay on page 2? I see that you entered "Hans Off in Free Pfall to the Moon" as "shortstory by unknown [as by E. A. Poe ]". As far as I can tell, it's an abridgment of Poe's "The Unparalleled Adventure Of One Hans Pfaall" -- see the full text at http://www.kingkong.demon.co.uk/gsr/hpfaall.htm or Gutenberg. Do we want to enter it as such? Also, does the title of "Don't Touch Me, I'm Sensitive" have a comma on page 106? My issue doesn't, although the comma does appear in the table of contents entry. Finally, I have entered No. 3, so Gamma should be in a reasonably good shape now :) Ahasuerus 23:08, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)
"Remember . . ." is little more than a paragraph that basically tells us what we already know from the cover - the is a Special Outer Space Issue. Will add it. The E. A. Poe story contains some exact wordage. Contento/Miller lists it as a pseudonymous work without supplying the name of the actual author. Make E. A. a pseudonym of Edgar? and then a variant title with explanatory note? or add a note to title in parenthesis.? No comma for Stamer's story - I will change and note that the TOC entry and the page headers have a comma.--swfritter 13:36, 5 Apr 2008 (CDT)
I think our best bet is to make "E. A. Poe" into a pseudonym of "Edgar Allan Poe". Unfortunately, we already have it set up as a pseudonym of "unknown", which can't be undone at this time, so we will end up with a bifurcated pseudonym, which will be a little misleading, but oh well. A variant title with "(abridged)" in the title seems preferable since it will make it easier to find/adjust it once we have support for abridgments. If we knew who abridged the story, we could make it a collaboration the way E. Nesbit's YA abridgments of Shakespeare's plays are currently set up, but no such luck. Ahasuerus 19:06, 5 Apr 2008 (CDT)
Well I guess we could make the collaborator "unknown" and then that assignment would make some sense.--swfritter 19:50, 5 Apr 2008 (CDT)
Excellent point! And as an added bonus, we can now claim that we had planned it all along! :) Ahasuerus 20:45, 5 Apr 2008 (CDT)
That was fun-making a variant title a variant of another title. Now all I have to figure out is a way to make "Deadly City" by Ivar Jorgenson (from If) a variant of "Deadly City" by Ivar Jorgensen (credited that way when anthologized) which is actually a pseudonymous story by Paul W. Fairman. The Jorgenson credit was apparently a typo but Silverberg later went on to use the Jorgenson form.--swfritter 16:47, 6 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Data Consistency/Non-fiction-Novel Mismatches

I've finally finished the "Data Consistency/Non-fiction-Novel Mismatches". When you get a chance can you do a new run to see what's been missed or is new. Thanks :-)Kraang 22:24, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Thanks a lot, I'll run the script against the next backup file, which should be ready some time on Monday :) Ahasuerus 23:08, 4 Apr 2008 (CDT)
I have re-run my script and updated the page. It looks much better now, except for the ubiquitous Stevenson. Ahasuerus 01:57, 10 Apr 2008 (CDT)

Space Plague

You verified Space Plague but I'm wondering if it's The Space Plague.

I have a copy of an earlier edition which has Space Plague on the cover and spine but The Space Plague on the title page. I remember reading this as a teenager and the story never left my mind. Marc Kupper (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I will check it on the 19th when I have access to my collection! Ahasuerus 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was The Space Plague after all. I have updated the pub and merged the two variant Titles. I have also updated the publication record for the first Avon printing to indicate that the source of the publication date was Tuck (and zapped a double negative in the process :-) Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And yes, it's a memorable novel, probably Smith's second best after The Brain Machine, although it's hard to compare the two because they are so different. Too bad he had to stop writing after TBM because of a coronary, a new job and all those other pesky RL things. If only he had not called it The Fourth R, which apparently contributed to the book's abysmal sales because it happened to approximate the name of a completely unrelated religious show, perhaps he would have had enough money to continue as a writer. TBM seemed to open up a whole different direction in his writing career and he tried to pick up where he had left off after he finally retired, but his retirement proved to be very short. Every time somebody says "Oh, sure, I may do it when I retire and have more free time", I think of George O... Ahasuerus 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Green Girl

I added the cover image[1] and it looks like it should be right. Here's a link to the back cover[2], they don't write them like this any more!Kraang 12:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. There were quite a few over the top uber-pulp SF covers in the UK in the 1950s, but the US market tended to be more subdued, so this one is an oddball. One heck of a nice scan, my copy hasn't survived the last 55 years nearly as well! Ahasuerus 18:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Highways in Hiding

Correct cover? BLongley 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Publisher:Tandem

I see you started this page. I've added a bit more data and some examples. I'm tempted to separate "Tandem Science Fantasy" , "Tandem Fantasy" and "Tandem Sci-Fi" imprints as best I can (I have quite a few), link them all to parent "Tandem", which would link to its parent of "Universal Tandem". If that works then people can add the Tandem-Target imprint (I've some of those too) and eventually explain the Universal-Tandem magazine structure and all the other worm-cans. BLongley 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically I need a smallish British publisher I own many examples for, with some useful imprints and interesting parents, to use as an example: there's not many I can find that don't require messing with someone else's verified pubs in the long run, but if I can work WITH someone that's already researched an area it'll be easier to show the proposed structure, the sort of details people want recorded against each level, how the links should work, etc. Tandem looks comparatively easy compared with Sphere, Orbit, Panther, Granada, Grafton, etc, but if you'd rather I didn't qualify your OCLC data with sub-imprints, there's still plenty of other possibilities for me to look at! BLongley 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tandem looks like a reasonable guinea pig to perform unspeakable publisher experiments on. I'll be happy to help in any way I can (which may be limited to trawling OCLC and the 95 UK libraries that I can search), but won't we be limited by the fact that we can't set up publisher relationships within the database yet? We can certainly create a web of Tandem-related links in the Wiki, but I thought the ultimate goal was to add "variant publisher names" to the database? Ahasuerus 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've no idea what Al's ultimate goal is - I'm thinking more of Publisher/Imprint hierarchies than variant publisher names, and canonical formats for each name. But so far Al hasn't really got series working and my envisioned publisher hierarchy would be similar. If it's to be merely "variant publisher names" and regularization isn't enforced, we're going to have problems with multiple Wiki pages for the same underlying entity: but if the Publisher Wiki pages move to become database fields that would be alleviated, e.g. we don't fill in all the author details on every variation of an author's name. Hmmmm.... maybe I should mock-up an example elsewhere first rather than try and demonstrate my ideas with Wiki links: a tree-view would show it more clearly, for the first stage at least. Later problems will be showing transfer of ownership of imprints, publication history across several imprints, etc. BLongley 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to where this publisher project is headed. ISFDB publication records are being used to capture what's stated in publications with the publisher field being the weakest in terms of reliable/consistent data. Is it "Avon Books" (103 pubs), "Avon Book Co.", (6 pubs) or "Avon Publishing Co." (3 pubs)? (hint - trick question!) I suspect there would need to be a second round of verification with a focus on publisher names and documenting or verifying "division of" or "imprint of" - perhaps narrowed to publications that can be dated very reliably so that a data point such as "A Fawcett Gold Metal Book published by Ballantine Books, a division of Random House, Inc. New York" can be used. That pub is Oct-1983 and per Wikipedia Ballantine Books acquired Fawcett Books in 1982. Considering Fawcett Gold Metal and paying extra attention to pubs does someone then document/track track when the logo changes from a hanging ribbon with rectangular gold badge to the round badge, to the large U shape that contains "FAWCETT / Gold Metal" which then shrunk between 1975 and 1983? It's these sorts of issues that make me curious as to where the publisher project is headed as it clearly could scope-creep to something huge but I'm not sure what the log term value is. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope there really WASN'T a 'Gold Metal' imprint as I've corrected a few of those to "Gold Medal"... :-/ I HAVE documented Logo changes at times, it could help date publications, but that's not a priority of mine and can wait until I have a few more scans uploaded (and maybe higher-res scans of JUST logos stored on an ISFDB server). I like the Hierarchy idea as it can reduce the number of records to deal with - one record can cover a name from when it was an independent publishing house, through several changes of ownership, absorption into different divisions etc, usage, differing logos, Catalog Number series & ISBN ranges, etc. That's a bit separate from "what's actually recorded on the pub" as the time-lag between actually ownership changes and what appears on the books themselves can be YEARS. This is why I think imprint is useful, but would also like publisher on each pub. "What's actually recorded" is often going to get messy as spine, cover, logo, copyright page, title page may all say different things. So far, I'm finding ISBN and Publisher Searches very useful for spotting data-entry errors, and start-dates too, when we have that data for a publisher. Imprints and Sub-imprints influence my buying: E.g. I can't just buy "Panther" books and get what I want, I need to know if they're Panther Science Fiction: but I could buy "Tandem Sci-Fi" quite happily and mostly ignore "Tandem Fantasy". At this level we could almost replace imprint with Publication Series though, except that we'd have to maintain it for each printing. BLongley 12:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - “Gold Metal” was my typo (I hope). There is a "Heavy Metal Magazine" with a smattering of pubs and some of them have images that confirm that spelling. Using the proposed series logic for publishers sounds like a good idea. It seems that as more tools come on line that people will pay more attention to the publisher name spelling/formatting and that that area will get cleaned up and also gets me thinking about ways to link the DB to the wiki so that we could do something like a publisher name change or merge and it would know about and take care of the wiki pages. I was on a site yesterday and saw that the guy doing it had fixed up the wiki's "talk" tab to link into forums software so there seems to be a trend to wiki+other thing integration. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

host-tracker.com seems to be usable again

I know in the past ISFDB was monitored using http://host-tracker.com and from ISFDB:Operations it looks like you discontinued it. With the switch to a new hosting service it seems this tracking service can be used again. I personally use http://www.pingplotter.com but that's something that runs from a personal computer rather than a web site. I like it as it's a graphical tracert plus ping -t meaning you see where in the connection between you and a site there was an outage. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My free Host Tracker account has been continuously active, but it stopped working for us back in August. At the time I thought that it was related to certain changes in the way Host Tracker handles free accounts, but then we moved to the new server and I began getting notifications again. Perhaps you are right and TAMU did something to their network in August 2007 which prevented Host Tracker from getting accurate information, but that doesn't explain why I stopped getting weekly/monthly summary reports. Most peculiar!
Oh well, the service seems to be working again, so I'll go ahead and update ISFDB:Operations.
As far as Pingplotter goes, I remember using it in the 1990s when the internet was slower and less reliable. It was a simple, useful and stable product and it's good to hear that they are still around! Ahasuerus 23:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag comment on your User page

Yours is worth watching. Tags haven't exactly been overused. One of the Essay subtypes I would like to see is 'filler' but until then I was thinking about using tags to mark such inconsequential material. I might also start doing the same thing for the much desired shortfiction subtype 'vignette'.--swfritter 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags are a potentially versatile tool, but keep in mind that they can be added/edited/deleted by any registered user without moderator oversight. So far it has resulted in occasional tag duplication, e.g. "vampires" vs. "vampire", and funky tags like "This is not SF but a good read", but nothing serious. However, if we start using the tag system for serious work, there won't be anything preventing a malicious user from registering and wiping out most of our tags before anybody even notices. Something to discuss on the Community Portal, perhaps? Ahasuerus 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've almost wiped out a few of my own tags when adding other tags. It's an easy mistake.--swfritter 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup! The tag system was really an after thought that Al coded in a day or so. We may want to review and improve it before we ask editors to spend much time on it. Ahasuerus 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
And actually no real substitute for implementing more reliable and organically logical changes.--swfritter 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a user can only modify their own tags. A tag is a 3-way tuple: {title, tag, user} so a particular use can only wipe out tags created by that themselves. Alvonruff 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well at least you can see I haven't had the nerve to attempt to wipe out anybody else's tags. That piece of information opens up potential possibilities. It even provides a potential for tagging the titles that I own without having to worry about anyone messing with the tags; although before doing that although I think we should decide if it is an acceptable concept. Thanks!.--swfritter 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's good to know! I wonder, though, if it may be prudent to let moderators modify other editors' tags, e.g. to merge "vampires" and "vampire" or to remove tags like the aforementioned "This is not SF but a good read". Also, we don't have a way to view all tags in the database unless you use "Add Tag", do we? Ahasuerus 03:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I see Al has sneaked in a new search option for tags. No sign of a way to merge yet though. BLongley 12:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, one step at time! :) Ahasuerus 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Where else would you find this information?

See my note about MariAn Cox. Just by chance I happened to read her letter in "Startling Stories" this morning.--