User talk:Anniemod


Jump to: navigation, search



Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, 2018-part2, 2019-2020

The Unraveling redux

I've just submitted an edit to move the pub date of the ebook back to May, per the data that Amazon UK and B&N are showing. However, for the hc, Amazon (both UK and .com) are showing it as also rescheduled to May, but not available to pre-order, whereas B&N are [1] still showing it as being published next week. The publisher's site still claims it came out on Tuesday, which seems unlikely. (I don't see anything on social media related to any 2021 pub dates.)

Don't suppose you care to have a look at this and make a guess as to when (if?) it might get published? ErsatzCulture 05:32, 8 January 2021 (EST)

This Book will be the death of me. It is officially scheduled for May now - let’s see if that will be the last delay. All sorted. I will check it again in a few days just in case if by any miracle they did publish. But I doubt it and it is not visible anywhere. Annie 05:47, 8 January 2021 (EST)

UK pubs of Chana Porter's The Seep

Just looking to add these, and I was initially a bit puzzled by your - I think? - note about this being <40k words, when the UK pub is reported as 272 pages, and Kobo has it as 46k words, which would seem to be novel territory.

However, on closer inspection - fortunately Kobo has a preview available of the UK edition - it seems the UK pub includes an extra short story, which presumably is 6k+ words long. This leaves me with two possibilities:

  • Add the UK pubs to the existing CHAPBOOK, and add this extra story as extra content
  • Create them as pubs of a new COLLECTION

The latter seems more correct - although I've not been able to find anything on the Wiki about the exact criteria for categorizing these - but is less obvious to a user who stumbles across either the UK or US CHAPBOOK or COLLECTION pages, and doesn't realize the others exist. This could be mitigated by adding title notes to each, linking to the other title record with a brief explanatory note about the additional/missing story.

Any thoughts before I wade into this mess? ErsatzCulture 10:39, 10 January 2021 (EST)

Look at the length of the audible - it needs to be a lot closer to 4 hours to be a novel :) Usually the 40k works end up at around 4.5 hours but anything over a bit under 4 is suspicious. At 3 hours and 5 minutes, that cannot be long enough for a novel - unless it is a very weird one. Thus the note - this appears to be too short. If it is proven to be otherwise, we can always convert again but from all I had seen, unless the audible length is incorrect, it is most likely a novella.
It can be done either way - chapbooks can have a single story added as long as it is not added to the cover and is in essence an add-on. I’d probably leave it as a chapbook and a note in the chapbook record that the UK edition added an additional story. But up to you. Annie 04:59, 11 January 2021 (EST)

Heads up: new(ish) "Hodder Studio" imprint

Apologies for continuing to clog up your talk page, but this might be of relevance when you're processing the Fixer submissions....

I just submitted this edit, which has already been accepted by Rtrace, so I'm guessing you wouldn't be otherwise aware of it? The pub note change and mod note cover the key details, but I see there's at least one other title coming from them in the next couple of months that appears to be ISFDB-eligible; (currently) it is showing as from "Hodder Studio", but whether it'll have the same confusion on the title & copyright page re. publisher, who knows?

This Bookseller story vaguely mentions a few titles that sound like they're probably ISFDB-eligible; I'll see if I can dig out more details, and submit where relevant. The imprint isn't currently known to the database, and I dunno if Fixer would need to be configured to pick up any of their pubs? My browser extension that uses Ahasuerus' Fixer dumps indicates that Fixer has some awareness of at least this ISBN. ErsatzCulture 10:48, 14 January 2021 (EST)

No worries at all :) Thanks for the note! Fixer is an equal opportunity grabber - if it is tagged with our topics, it will grab it regardless of the publisher. Sorting is different but this is close enough to an existing not to be sent directly to Q3. So we should be fine. UK titles just come slower due to how we need to grab them (no API). I may need to adjust the name manually but we will cross that bridge when we see it. :) Annie 11:21, 14 January 2021 (EST)
Thanks. Part of me asking the question earlier today about scriptbooks on the Rules page, is that Hodder Studio have put out such a scriptbook that is unambiguously from that imprint, so I'll submit that in the next day or so, and then add some notes, links etc to the new publisher entry. ErsatzCulture 12:13, 14 January 2021 (EST)

Spec Ops Z series

Sorry, me again...

Do you have any idea/recollection of why this series exists - it seems to have been created based on a Fixer submission you accepted?

Based on this author tweet, it doesn't seem like there are any more actively commissioned or being worked on. Is it maybe because it has "(Special Purposes)" in parenthesis - at least on Amazon UK - as you might expect to see if it were in a series? Although in this case, it's a weak indicator that it's a reissue cf this. ErsatzCulture 17:29, 18 January 2021 (EST)

Fixer does not create series, I do... He just serves weird titles. :)
In this case, it was because served the title as "Spec Ops Z (1)" which 99.99% of the cases means that it is a first in a series so I just added it without thinking. When this is up for review in a month or two or when an ebook/audio book shows up for it, I would have realized it is indeed not a series and killed it. Which I just did :) No clue how I missed that it is a reissue -- let's chalk it to not enough coffee - I tend to check for this kind of stuff on new books and usually catch it when adding it on the initial run but sometimes I miss them. Thanks for finding it! Annie 17:38, 18 January 2021 (EST)
And yes, there is a history of that typo - if the TITLE itself was not edited, it inherited from the PUBLICATION so the history is here. I finished the fix you started - don't forget that the two titles are now separate so if you change the title record you need to change the pub record as well (and the cover one plus any interior arts and essays containing the title if created). We do miss some history but in such cases, don't forget to check the pub level history - the title one will only show what was changed on the TITLE itself, not as part of a PUB edit. Annie 17:48, 18 January 2021 (EST)
Re. the reissue, the only place I have seen this mentioned is the author tweet linked in the edit note. (Goodreads had it as a new book, until I just merged it with the old one there a second ago.) ErsatzCulture 17:54, 18 January 2021 (EST) probably updated their listing some time between when I worked on it and now to read "A handsome new re-issue of a high-octane military-SF, as Russian Spetsnaz commandos are turned into zombies in ‘80s New York.". There is (almost) no way it was there when I added the book even if I was fully asleep - weirder things had happened but I know I am watching for these so... And if GR did not know either... Oh well - all sorted. Annie 17:59, 18 January 2021 (EST)


I hope life is treating you well.

I am keeping plenty busy adding url links for scanned magazine copies. After Astounding, and Analog through 1979 ( has them thru 1979), and Galaxy (mostly up to 1979, and then a few from 1994 and 95), I'm currently working on Worlds of If. At least some people that I know in the SF world are pretty happy about this.

Next up will the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. has them from the start through 1979. I am not sure why, but does not have any SF magazines after 1979. The Internet Archive has them through about 2005.

I was comfortable adding the 1994-95 Galaxy issues, as the publisher of those issues (the Institute for the Development of the Harmonious Human Being, Inc) is clearly not publishing any such magazine anymore, and has not done so for over 25 years.

I am more concerned about when to stop adding links to scanned F&SF issues, given that it's an active, currently published magazine.

I am wondering if there has been discussion about this kind of issue before. If so, what was the result?

If it has not been discussed, I would still appreciate your advice.

Thanks and best wishes, Dave888 19:11, 19 January 2021 (EST)

Adding F&SF - A Question


I hope life is treating you well.

I am keeping plenty busy adding url links for scanned magazine copies. After Astounding, and Analog through 1979 ( has them thru 1979), and Galaxy (mostly up to 1979, and then a few from 1994 and 95), I'm currently working on Worlds of If. At least some people that I know in the SF world are pretty happy about this.

Next up will the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. has them from the start through 1979. I am not sure why, but does not have any SF magazines after 1979. The Internet Archive has them through about 2005.

I was comfortable adding the 1994-95 Galaxy issues, as the publisher of those issues (the Institute for the Development of the Harmonious Human Being, Inc) is clearly not publishing any such magazine anymore, and has not done so for over 25 years.

I am more concerned about when to stop adding links to scanned F&SF issues, given that it's an active, currently published magazine.

I am wondering if there has been discussion about this kind of issue before. If so, what was the result?

If it has not been discussed, I would still appreciate your advice.

Thanks and best wishes, Dave888 19:12, 19 January 2021 (EST)

Annie: See here. I don't know if we should be linking to sites with the full magazines scanned unless we are sure they are out of copyright. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 19 January 2021 (EST)
Yeah - I saw that one and had been thinking on that. The old magazines are/were fine but these are a way too new and definitely under copyright - at least in the States. Annie 23:22, 19 January 2021 (EST)
Dave, let’s halt for a bit here until we figure out what we want to do on new magazines Annie 23:22, 19 January 2021 (EST)

Got it. I will halt all such activity until I get direction on what is old and ok and what is not. Thanks. Dave888 16:44, 20 January 2021 (EST)

Pi Editions

Hi Annie, I saw that you beat me to it by adding Sultana's Dream via Fixer. It's probably worth letting you know that Pi Editions is my own small press, started in October under lockdown for something to do. I have a few publications now, mostly ebooks of public domain works and also a collection of my own non-fiction/essays over the last 20 years. If you have any queries about Pi Editions pubs, just holler. Cheers. PeteYoung 07:33, 22 January 2021 (EST)

Ha. Congrats. Yeah - Fixer is bound to find things. Will do! :) Annie 14:57, 22 January 2021 (EST)
Cool! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:50, 22 January 2021 (EST)

Feb 2020 UK pubs (or not as the case may be)


This is likely something you already know about, but I'm just starting to go through the UK pubs I have scraped data for, which were scheduled for early Feb publication (when I scraped them), and it seems that the majority have been rescheduled for April or May. I assume this is due to the current UK lockdown and all UK bookshops (the main chains at least) being closed, and not even doing call/click-and-collect service. The impression I get, from the small sample set I've looked at so far, is that more pubs have been pushed back than in the lockdown period last Spring.

Some of these pubs were already in the DB - e.g. the Gollancz New Horizons collection that's been bounced around any number of times - so I've submitted edits for them, but it looks like there are more that Fixer hadn't yet submitted. I know you check the info Fixer submits, but just a heads up to avoid wasting your time.

I'll see about resurrecting the list I had on my personal Wiki pages of delayed pubs, if only for my own benefit. ErsatzCulture 11:25, 24 January 2021 (EST)

Welcome to my life since April. :) Last year the pushing was worse on this side of the pond - there were a few weeks when I was adding on the day of publication - it was that bad and then we did not add more than a week or so ahead of time through the summer. That way books got rescheduled before being added. Thanks for the heads up :) Annie 12:29, 24 January 2021 (EST)


How I undo a rejection of a entry that I clicked wrong? --Paulotecario 17:40, 27 January 2021 (EST)

It looks like you figured it out but generally: go to My Pending Edits and you can see what you have pending and reject the ones you made a mistake in :) Annie 18:31, 27 January 2021 (EST)
Ah, unreject. Only a moderator can unreject so post on the Moderator board and someone will do it for you. I just did that on this one :) Annie 18:33, 27 January 2021 (EST)
Thank you!! --Paulotecario 13:58, 28 January 2021 (EST)

Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2020 - Several questions

Hi Annie. I hope life is treating you well.

I have a tp copy of the 2020 "The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy" (Diana Gabaldon, Ed; John Joseph Adams, Series Editor) from the library. Looks like a great anthology. (The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2020, Publication Record # 798555)

I noticed that there are no TOC details on the tp (or any of the other versions) of this on ISFDB.

I'm thinking I might as well edit the publication entry to add the TOC contents, but I have several questions before I do that.

1. Given that this is a reprint anthology, all of the contents were printed elsewhere first. I checked, and most of them have ISFDB entries already for the source appearances. So, I assume that I need to be really careful to use the same author and title for those TOC entries, to ensure it connects with the story publication record. Is there anything else I need to do on this to ensure it connects with the correct database entry for the story?

You can import them. :) Look at the left menu on the publication. There is an Import menu. You will use Option 2 and just add the IDs of the titles that are inside. :) No need to do all of them - you can do them in batches if you prefer. For the ones that have a title we do not have yet, you add as usual.

2. For some of these entries, ISFDB does not have the story or source as a publication. I don't have those original publications either. I can at the very least check online (Amazon, publisher, etc) to ensure it's a real publication, correctly identified, etc.

Given that I do not have those original publications myself, is it preferred to just add the source to the Notes for the story entry? I would be reluctant to do a full entry for the source, given that I don't have that in my possession.

Nah, if you want to, add the missing publications. Just do not verify them. :) And add a note on sources for the record. We want them in the DB. But it is up to you. Any and all help is welcome.
Two More questions on adding a publication.
A. One of them is a 2019 New Yorker. There is not yet a "New Yorker - 2019" title. Is that generated automatically when I add the specific issue, or do I have to do something else? ::Dave888 12:32, 4 February 2021 (EST)
You add the magazine and do not worry about the yearly record. When the first record for 2019 is created, a second submission will rename it to the yearly format. That's valid for any magazine - joining the yearly record or renaming it is always a second step :) Annie 12:47, 4 February 2021 (EST)
B. The other two appear to be webzines. i) One of them is "Nightmare Magazine". There are a number of 2019 issues already in the DB, but not the November issue for the story concerned. This appears to be an ongoing webzine. I assume it is OK to add this the November issue and TOC from the webzine. ii) The other was first printed at, in their "Future Tense" feature from January 26, 2019. The story "Thoughts and Prayers" is in ISFDB, but it does not list this first publication. The copyright info for the book lists the Slate/Future Tense appearance. There appear to be other Slate/Future Tense fiction and non-fiction entries that have genre pertinence. ::Dave888 12:32, 4 February 2021 (EST)
Nightmare is also an ebook - so you can either add it as a webzine or as an ebook (we need both technically so feel free to add either or both). And yes - you can add the contents from the webzine if you are sure it is the same (Lightspeed for example has additional contents in the ebook).
Look at our rules of Acquisition for what web contents we actually allow in - just being relevant to the genre is not enough. For webzines we need them to have "issues" basically. Here is the exact text:
  • Speculative fiction webzines, which are defined as online periodicals with distinct issues (note: online periodicals without distinct issues are not considered webzines)
  • Special speculative fiction issues of non-genre webzines
  • One time speculative fiction anthologies published on the Web
  • Online publications available exclusively as a Web page, but only if:
  • published by a market which makes the author eligible for SFWA membership , OR
  • shortlisted for a major award
Slate is eligible only for its fiction with a bit of a wink: see here - we treat each story as a single "issue" and under the "Special speculative fiction issues of non-genre webzines" sub-clause basically :) It is a bit of a stretch but as they published some of the bigger authors, it kinda makes sense so we count it as this. So you can add the story and any other FICTION that way but not the non-fiction (again - don't worry about the yearly records, just add the individual issues using the same title format as in the ones we already have).
Hope that all this makes sense. Annie 12:47, 4 February 2021 (EST)
Thanks. That all makes sense. I do appreciate your help - I do try to use the various Help features, but some coaching is sure a plus. Please feel free to tell me to just go back to the general forums if you get tired of my questions. I'm glad I asked about the webzines and ezines - that is pretty darn nuanced.Dave888 13:03, 4 February 2021 (EST)
Ezines are always eligible (if there is an ebook, it is in no matter what - same way as if it was printed), webzines - only sometimes :) We used to disallow webzines completely except for that last point (awards and membership) but opened for the "issues" ones a few years ago.
If you do not mind waiting for me to get back to you (which may happen slowly sometimes), it is ok to ask here. The only reason to post on the general boards is so more people can see it but depending on the time, it may still be me answering anyway :) And if I am gone for long enough, another editor will jump in and answer on my page as well :)
And no worries - the DB is big and complicated and there are nuances inside of nuances. Always happy to help with an explanation. Annie 13:14, 4 February 2021 (EST)
Your guidance would be welcome. Thanks again and best wishes.
Dave888 12:32, 4 February 2021 (EST)

3. I'm planning on editing the record for the tp copy, as that is what I have in front of me. It appears that the TOC for the ebook version is identical (aside from the lack of page numbers); I need to confirm this. What is your advice on how to best deal with the ebook?

Fill in the Tp. Then we can import from there into the ebook directly (Option 1 on that Import menu is for this usecase) and clean up the page numbers by adding | to all of them thus keeping the order.

4. I am not planning on doing anything for the audio CD editions. Let me know if you have a different suggestion.

No worries. After we have one of them filled in, importing into these will be trivial. I can do that easily. :)

Best wishes, Dave888 18:17, 2 February 2021 (EST)

Answers inline. Don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Annie 01:40, 3 February 2021 (EST)

Harlan Ellison's Watching

Hello Annie. You recently approved changes I made to this publication. I uploaded a scan of the dustwrapper for this edition not realising (a) it had the same image as the limited edition and (b) my copy was a 2nd printing. I made notes regarding the detail differences between the two editions - text colour on the spine etc - so the image is actually the dustwrapper of the limited edition not the trade edition [trade edition having white text on spine not orange, and my trade edition's dustwraper is badly scuffed - mind you it only cost me £20 so there's that - bought as a reading copy]. I do have a photo of my slipcased edition (out of it's slipcase with dustwrapper opened out) but I suspect if I tried to upload that it would over-write the existing one. Is that something easily rectified ? --Mavmaramis 02:34, 6 February 2021 (EST)

It is the old problem with the tags - the cover was added in one of the publications and then when the second one was created/updated, instead of adding a new image, the path to the existing one was used. I untangled it - you may need to reload the page to see the change. If an image is not the one you want (I was not sure what to leave in the Trade so left yours basically - so you may need to replace it?), you can now upload a new cover in one and it won't carry into the other. :) Annie 04:10, 6 February 2021 (EST)
Thank you Annie. I've uploaded the photo of the unboxed slipcase edition to that record and scanned the dustwrapper of my trade edition for that record - you will note the difference in text colour on the spines. --Mavmaramis 04:33, 6 February 2021 (EST)
Approved the last edit and now we should be all set in all 3 :) Annie 04:46, 6 February 2021 (EST)

Standardized name format

Based on the Edit History, you were the last to modify this publication. My question is: should the name be standardized to include the comma? The reason I ask is that I've been following up on the Community Portal entry Cthulhu's Creatures and one ToC entry uses the non-standard name format (no comma). I propose to include the comma. ../Doug H 10:11, 10 February 2021 (EST)

Is there a comma on the title page of the story? If yes - then - yes. We do not have a format that requires adding commas where they are not there... or am I missing something here?
Looking at it - I added a translator and fixed the parent only on the story and added notes on the Moreno Pavanello story in the publication so I do not have an opinion one way or another on the title :) Annie 10:20, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Oh, you meant the author name, didn't you? I need coffee... :)
Yes we should I believe unless there is a very good explanation on why not but Dirk made the alternative name so you may want to ask him why... I did not even notice when I was doing the translations... Annie 10:31, 10 February 2021 (EST)
There's no access to title page, so I'll add the comma and explain in the notes. I'll also ping Dirk just for fun. Everyone keeps on about the 'coffee' stuff, I may have to try it some time. ../Doug H 11:10, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Nah, if it is the author name, the title page does not matter. We have a rule on authors name like this one. In the mornings, I am known to say that there is too much blood in my caffeine system... Annie 11:11, 10 February 2021 (EST)

A Question of Direction

Hi Annie.

At the moment, I have finished doing all of the edits and other ISFDB improvements that I had planned to do.

I know that there might be edits needed on magazines to add links to scans, but I am waiting for policy direction on that per our prior discussion. As I stated previously, I will not be doing anything on this until I get guidance.

I am wondering if you have advice on what kinds of ISFDB editing/improvement would be most useful with my interests and skill and knowledge levels.

The two things I can see myself working on are:

1. Filling in missing magazines on some of the recent webzine/ebook publications, especially those that appear to be fairly major and viable in some ways and that have major authors with major and perhaps award winning works. I would be working from either publisher websites or Amazon kindle preview info.

2. Cleanup Reports - I took a brief look at this, and there sure appear to be a lot of opportunities for dealing with issues that may need to be dealt with.

I am not in any hurry, and I sure have plenty of other things to do in my life that will keep me busy. At the same time, I do like to be useful and there do appear to be opportunities, and I would appreciate any guidance you could offer.

Best wishes, Dave888 15:09, 12 February 2021 (EST)

Up to you - do what interests you: we can use the help with both of these things. We used to have an editor that worked a lot with short fiction but she is not active anymore so a lot of our magazines are falling behind. :)
If you go for the cleanup reports, make sure you know what you are supposed to be doing there - some of them are a bit... interesting. I am always around to answer questions as well.
And you can do both things in parallel as well - both tasks can be annoying so switching between them may be worth it. And then we have the reports that contain empty magazines and collection/anthology records - which also can use a contents being added from them. :) Annie 15:46, 12 February 2021 (EST)
I appreciate your thoughts. It does look like some of the magazines/webzines/ebook magazines are pretty current, while some have some holes. At the same time, it might be fun to try to deal with some of the Cleanup Report issues. If I do that, I will generally take a cautious approach, especially when doing something new, and try to ask for help if I just don't get what to do or how to do it. Also, if :: I try something new, I'll typically try a single edit, and then wait for moderation to see if I nailed things or not, etc.


Dave888 19:49, 12 February 2021 (EST)
Whatever you do, try to have fun :) Annie 01:03, 13 February 2021 (EST)
No worries. I would not be doing this if I did not think it was fun in some way, although my idea of fun may be different from what others may think or feel. Perhaps I am looking for a combination of fun and rewarding.
Dave888 12:09, 13 February 2021 (EST)
My point was - if it starts feeling like a chore, move to something else for a bit. Data quality declines when people get tired of doing the same thing over and over but feel that they must - and people get burned out and leave. Which is not something I want to happen here - thus me saying to make sure you still have fun no matter what you do. :) Annie 12:36, 13 February 2021 (EST)

Weird Business Editing


ISFDB has an entry for Anthology "Weird Business", edited by Joe R. Lansdale & Richard Klaw. It is an anthology of graphic stories.

I found in the Cleanup Reports that it had no contents. I happen to own this, so I am planning on entering the contents. There are issues that I want to be sure I am on track for before starting.

1. All of the stories are graphic stories, with writer, adapter (for some), artist, and perhaps others on each story. I assume we just keep adding them until we get them all for each title entry.

2. A number of the stories are already in ISFDB as short fiction entries, with either identical or almost identical titles, that are prose only. As this is a comic script vs. a work of prose, I believe they are not the same text, even though they are probably the same story.

Based upon what I have seen in the Help files and Forum discussions, it appears that I should treat them as new stories but add to the Notes to explain that there is a prose version also. I saw one suggestion to add to the titles to ensure they are clearly different, such as "Gorilla Gunslinger (graphic story)" or some such. I lean towards adding the Notes, probably to both versions of the story, rather than changing the title.

3. Some of the titles are similar but not identical. Given the conclusion in 2) above, I assume that there is no need to "Variant" the new titles, as they are different.

4. Story introductions - Most of the stories have an introduction, some multiple pages long. I assume I should add them.

Thanks for the input. Dave888 18:38, 13 February 2021 (EST)

If it is graphic content only, it is probably not eligible at all and the whole anthology may need to be deleted. We have a discussion going over in R&S if we want to allow graphic adaptations - so hold off of adding contents here for a bit until it is decided what the rules will be. If they get added then yes - notes will need to distinguish them. And adaptations don’t get varianted - only translations and differences in author and title credits. Annie 18:53, 13 February 2021 (EST)
I'll hold off until I hear. For what it's worth, this appears to be horror, and it appears to be a mix of adaptions of existing material and new works that are graphic novel style stories. Lots of authors that are genre, like Robert Bloch, Neal Barrett Jr, Charles de Lint, Michael Moorcock, etc. Thanks.
Dave888 20:57, 13 February 2021 (EST)
i took a quick look. There are 600-700 titles with the [graphic format]. Mostly English, things like "Watchmen" and "The Dark Knight Returns".
Dave888 22:47, 13 February 2021 (EST)
There are exceptions under which these are allowed - authors above threshold (so all their fiction is eligible) or single stories in otherwise text publications and magazines (especially magazines) - that’s why we have the flag. If you read the Rules of acquisition, comics are specifically excluded from the definition of speculative fiction - so the ones that make it make it through the exceptions allowing non speculative fiction. And there are also a few that need deleting. Plus the flag is newish so there are more that are not marked. Old DBs with changing rules can have some entertaining properties :) Annie 00:57, 14 February 2021 (EST)
Thanks. I need to re-read the discussion on above threshold and what it means. Regardless, I will move on to something else and not do anything on "Weird Business" until I get guidance.
Dave888 11:55, 14 February 2021 (EST)

Upcoming UK tp(s?) of Star Wars: Shadow Fall

So this one is confusing me...

The database has 978-1-78746-484-1 which came via Fixer and was approved by you a few weeks ago, but there are a couple of weird things:

1. There's no cover image. Looking in the edit history, it looks like it was maybe submitted with a placeholder image, which seems a bit odd for something being published in less than 2 months from submission, and which already had a cover from prior hc/ebook pubs (so it's not like they were waiting on an artist or something).

2. It looks like the placeholder image was maybe removed in a second edit, but now I'm confused by the red error about the title ID not existing - is this maybe some artifact of merging/varianting titles?

I stumbled across this one because I have an alternative ISBN for a tp published by Del Rey/Cornerstone the same day: 9781529101447. If you go to the Penguin product page and click on "View more editions", you can see they (now) have two 2021 tp pubs, with the one currently in our database lacking a cover. Waterstones has that ISBN as publication abandoned, and neither Blackwells nor recognize that ISBN. (I'm not sure about Amazon, as they reworked their UI a couple of weeks ago, that makes it harder - IMHO - to see the different pubs for a format.)

My guess is that Waterstones is probably correct, and that the existing pub should be 0000-00-00 pub-dated, and the other one submitted. I'll do that - although it might not be for a day or so, as I want to make sure I have up-to-date data from as many sources as possible - but I thought I'd run this one by you first in case (a) you'd seen anything like this before and/or (b) had any thoughts? ErsatzCulture 16:44, 14 February 2021 (EST)

The no cover is not surprising for Arrow - it is a bit of a pattern for them 2 months out for some reason. And the red thing is indeed because of a merge - and the cover removal is normal when it is a placeholder. :) Let’s leave the one there as is for a few days - it may be an international edition - once the date passes, we will see if it crops up somewhere (the Australian and Canadian sites for example) or needs date change. Add the other one by all means. Annie 17:26, 14 February 2021 (EST)

Alternate Name/whatever challenge

Hi Annie. I am working to enter the contents of Uncanny Magazine 37. I have found an author of one story who appears to have had a name change. "The Span of his Wrist" is noted everywhere by "Lee Mandelo", on the Uncanny site, on the author's own website, etc.

"Lee Mandelo" is a new name for ISFDB - there is no current author record for the name. There is an entry for "Brit Mandelo", for the 2016 story in Uncanny Magazine, "The Sincerity Game", and for other works through 2017.

Upon looking at the author's website,, "The Sincerity Game" is listed as by Lee Mandelo.

There is an interview of Lee Mandelo at Uncanny Magazine. See, also in Issue 37. In this interview, it notes there is a 2nd story for Lee Mandelo in Uncanny. I assume this must be "The Sincerity Game".

Clearly the same person. The information I see suggests this may be a trans name change, but I am not 100% sure on this. My first assumption is that this is a case where a new alternate name is appropriate.

This person has been nominated for a number of awards, including the Hugo, Nebular and Lambda.

I know this can be a very sensitive issue, and I'd like to do the right thing.

Thanks. Dave888 00:34, 21 February 2021 (EST)

We record the names as they are used in the publication - so yes, we will create an alternate name here. Now, our rules for what names is the canonical are based on what name the author is known under in the SF community. Usually even after a name change, the old name is prevalent for awhile - although we had had some discussions fir cases like that. So record the name as printed in the magazine. Once the magazine is approved, submit the alternate name and the variant (or I can if you prefer). Annie 02:13, 21 February 2021 (EST)
Thanks. I'll take care of that, and try to take care of the alternate name and the variant. If I run into trouble, I'll check in.

Dave888 17:28, 24 February 2021 (EST)

Hi Annie. I just attempted to take care of the variant for one of the alternate name titles, and I'm hoping it works. I do have several questions about this whole area of canonical names and alternate names. 1) Submitting titles by alternate names, it seems like some of the time the whole "by canonical name (as by alternate name)" issue is taken care of automatically. Am I just fantasizing, or is this the unseen effort by a moderator, or what? 2) I am somewhat surprised that we need to variant a title's author to establish the connection in the canonical author bibliography. I am assuming there is a very good database reason this could not be taken care of when the alternate/canonical connection is made?
Best wishes.
If you are just adding a book to an existing title, the variant is already there. Otherwise - either a moderator was helping behind the scenes or someone fixed it based on the overnight cleanup report. :)
As for why - think about house pseudonyms - they are not very popular now but used to be. Even now, there is Erin Hunter for example. There is no way for the system to know which of the many authors who use that name wrote a specific book - so the DB had to allow for this scenario. And even on 1/1 pseudonyms/alternative names, there is no telling if this "John Doe" you just added a book from is actually the pseudonym for the canonical we know about or a brand new John Doe who needs his own record (see Erin Hunter again) or if it is not a new author who is now using a house/joined pseudonym that needs a new canonical attached and not just being sent to the one we already know about. So we create all variants manually as opposed to allowing the system to guess and then hope that someone will fix it when the system makes a mistake. It is a lot easier to monitor the ones that are NOT created than to need to check every single one made in a day to make sure that the system did not create something it should have not. Hope this makes sense. Annie 17:08, 28 February 2021 (E
Annie, thanks for the explanation on both issues. On the first issue, I'll continue to monitor this and do the variant thing to connect stories when needed. Especially on the 2nd issue, that is the kind of thing I was expecting. At the same time, I am surprised that you can't variant/whatever all of the titles of an alternate name by connecting to the canonical name using the record number for the canonical name. I'm sure there is some database reason for this.Dave888 18:40, 28 February 2021 (EST)
It had been discussed. Part of the challenge is that even in this case, you do not always want to create new parents - sometimes the canonical author already has the title and you just need for variant into it. That happens a lot when an author changes their name or when one adds translations. So it comes down to priorities - what is worth developing and if the effort is better used elsewhere. It can be done eventually but it will lead to a lot of titles that then need to be merged once it is used. Plus especially with translations, the parent will need a new title and language and a year even if it needs to be crated anew. And then there are the serials which get varianted into complete works and the split novels. Varianting like the one you just encountered is just a single usecase in what that feature is used for. And that complexity makes it very hard (and somewhat dangerous) to attempt automation - people click on things they don’t always understand so having an easy button can end up with a lot of cleanup. Not that I won’t love having one for such cases but...  :) Annie 19:45, 28 February 2021 (EST)
One more varianting/summary bibliography question. Upon looking at Brit Mandelo, there are two entries for the title I just varianted for Lee Mandelo, one for "The Span of his Wrist" and one for "The Span of his Wrist (only as by Lee Mandelo)" These are the same thing, and I'm pretty sure there should not be two entries. I suspect you told me I needed to do something more here, but can't remember or find what that was. Do I need to merge those two entries? Thanks.Dave888 11:56, 1 March 2021 (EST)
Yep. You could have used Option 1 on the varianting but as you created a new title, now they need to be merged. :) Annie 11:58, 1 March 2021 (EST)
Done. Thanks for the guidance.Dave888 23:50, 1 March 2021 (EST)

One more trans "deadnaming" question. I just saw the recent controversy and outcome on "deadnaming" transgender people at Wookiepedia, as reported at File770. Is this question coming back to ISFDB, or is this still settled at the moment? Just curious. Thanks.Dave888 13:26, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

If you want to change how we record canonical names, please open a CS discussion. The current rules had not changed in ages - we use as canonical the name of the author as they are known in the field (which usually means the name under which they have the most titles). Annie 13:38, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
Actually, I don't want to change how we record canonical names. I was just curious if there was any obvious discussion about this point, especially among the moderators. I think our current practice is practical, but at the same time I can see it becoming potentially controversial in the future. The main reason I asked was that the recent "Wookipedia" example was in another user-edited online site, and the category seemed not unlike ISFDB in some ways. Thanks.Dave888 13:42, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
We don't have a secret place for discussions :) If there is a discussion, it will be in CS or R&S or in Moderator's forum - all of them are publicly visible. Annie 13:43, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
That is what I thought, but I was lazy and figured you would know. Thanks.Dave888 13:48, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
Nothing since last time we talked (that I had seen anyway) :) Annie 17:05, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Sense of Wonder edit question

Hi. I am attempting to add titles to the Leigh Grossman anthology "Sense of Wonder", ebook version. I am starting with the new titles that are not already in ISFDB. Upon attempting to submit a batch of them, I'm getting an error message "only MAGAZINE and FANZINE publications can contain Editor titles". I am sure this is something simple and obvious, but I do not understand what I am doing wrong. Thanks. Dave888 19:48, 6 March 2021 (EST)

Check very carefully all the Essays you are trying to add - introductions and so on . One of them is marked as an editor by mistake - non fiction pieces inside books are called essays (except for interviews and genre reviews which have their own types and sections) but it is very easy to mess the two types. The Type Editor is reserved for magazine/fanzine title records and is not used for editorial essays. In short - unless you are editing a magazine/fanzine, do not use the Editor type and inside of these two, it is used for the main title (for novels both the pub and the title type is novel; for these two the pub is magazine/fanzine; the title is editor. :) Annie 20:40, 6 March 2021 (EST)
You nailed it. I had missed my mistake on one of the entries. Thanks!Dave888 11:18, 7 March 2021 (EST)
Anytime! Common issue. :) Before the check was added, we had to go back and clean these when they got missed and approved as editors - between mistakes (2 e-s on the list - my finger slips occasionally as well) and people thinking that EDITOR should be used for editorial essays, we had a lot of cleanup almost daily. So the check was added :) Annie 14:59, 7 March 2021 (EST)

One More "Sense of Wonder" question, which is more general. This is a pretty huge work, with 375 title entries overall. I am doing the new titles in batches, just to break it up a little bit. I'll be doing the import for the existing titles (and there are more than a few) separately. I assume that I should not submit an additional batch of new titles until the last batch has been approved. Do I also need to do the import sequentially and not in parallel with the new titles? Thanks.Dave888 11:39, 9 March 2021 (EST)

Technically having a few of those at the same time will not be a problem UNLESS they clash or a title get merged somewhere. Considering that these require a lot of work though and not just clicks, redoing them when something goes wrong is a pain so I would submit one batch at a time and then proceed with the next post approval. Annie 11:46, 9 March 2021 (EST)
Thanks. I suspected as much. So, it sounds like I could do some submittals in parallel, but there is substantially more risk if there are challenges. With that, I'll continue with doing them one by one.Dave888 12:31, 9 March 2021 (EST)
One more question on titles. In addition to the fiction titles, there are author bios and other essays galore in this volume. It's clear for the author bio entries, that I can't just put "James H. Schmitz", but that I need to put "James H. Schmitz (Sense of Wonder)" to differentiate from the other "James H. Schmitz" entries. There are also many, many other essays on more general subjects of interest, like "Time Travel" for instance. Upon checking, I see that there are multiple existing essays with that title, and so my entry is "Time Travel (Sense of Wonder)". There are a number of essays that are so far unique in name that I have not added "(Sense of Wonder)" to yet. I am wondering if I should be adding "(Sense of Wonder)" to all of these other essays, just for consistency, or only those where there are duplicates. Your thoughts would be helpful. Thanks.Dave888 12:46, 10 March 2021 (EST)
It does not matter if we have tons of the same named essays in the DB, the real test is if the same author has an essay with the same name. For the standard titles, we won't even check that - Introduction and so on are so common so we always add to it. I would not add the name of the book to an essay called "Time Travel" quite honestly - unless the author already has an essay under that title. Although IF most essays have the book name, I may decide to. Annie 13:26, 10 March 2021 (EST)

Audio book contents

Hi. Occasionally I notice that there is an audio book version for a title I am editing that is not yet in ISFDB. I am mostly not able to find any specific TOC for the audio book. Do we just assume that it has the same contents, or what? I have also seen one or two where the audio content was slightly different; for instance, on at least once "Best of the Year" anthology, the audio version omitted some of the supplemental essays (Honorable Mentions, say) and included only the stories. One obvious option would be to add an audio book version of the title and say nothing about the contents. Thanks.Dave888 14:40, 8 March 2021 (EST)

If you know the contents and feel like adding them, you add them. If you do not ( or you are not sure) either leave it empty or add the ones you are sure about (the stories for example) and add the {{incomplete}} template like I did here for example. If you are importing from another pub (or cloning), before submitting put "del" or "delete" as the page number on the ones you want to be ejected as they are not there in this version. Then either a moderator will see these when they approve and kick them out or if they do not, you submit a removeTitle post approval :) Annie 14:48, 8 March 2021 (EST)
Thanks.Dave888 15:15, 8 March 2021 (EST)


Good morning from France. I suppose that other moderators are waiting for you to tackle this waiting submission. I've located what seems to my russian-ignoring eyes the original publication here. As I' don't want to create some horrors to a native reader, I'd prefer that you take charge of the varianting (and creating of authors and all the rest). Note that I've miscopied the ISBN in my submission (I'll change it later). I also have doubts about the cover artists (the french publication implies that they are two of them), can you confirm this information from original sources? Thanks AlainLeBris 02:24, 10 March 2021 (EST)

Good morning (well, almost evening there but morning here :) )
Is that essay really an essay or is it an interview? The Russian novel has an interview in every edition I am seeing (the title is "When we run out of oil").
No credit for the artist anywhere on the Russian sites that I can find but I will do some more checks in a bit.
You can fix the ISBN now and unless we need to convert that essay, I think we are all good here :) Let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Annie 10:43, 10 March 2021 (EST)
Thanks. The essay is IMHO really an essay and not an interview, it's a kind of letter from the author to the readers, it starts with "Chers amis" (Dear friends). AlainLeBris 11:47, 10 March 2021 (EST)-
So it is not the Russian interview from the originals :) All set then. Let me know if I can assist with anything else :) Annie 11:55, 10 March 2021 (EST)

A curious Orbit UK ISBN

A review of an upcoming Megan E. O'Keefe novella came up in my Twitter feed earlier today, and I hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere before now, so I thought I might be able to claim all the glory for adding it. Unfortunately, you and Fixer beat me to it, way back at the start of Feb :-( However, there's something a bit odd about the UK version, that I'd like to pick your brains on...

Searching for the author on the Hachette and Little Brown UK sites, I found this pub with the ISBN 9780356517148. However, neither Amazon UK nor Kobo (GB) know that ISBN if you search for it. Kobo (GB) lists the US ISBN, but Amazon UK has a different ASIN (B08TBMYYQP) from the US one. FWIW, doing a general Google search for that ISBN finds no matches, as if they don't crawl Hachette's sites?

I'm inclined to add this as a separate UK pub, but with a note that (currently) the ISBN isn't recognized outside of Hachette's sites. However, I know there have been Orbit UK<->US weirdnesses before, so I thought I'd ask if this sort of thing rings any bells, or if you have any better ideas on how to handle this? Pub date isn't until March 30th, so it may just be easiest to wait a couple of weeks in case things change?

BTW, the entry here for the US pub doesn't have a cover image, I'm guessing because Amazon US didn't have one at the time? Amazon UK has one though, if Amazon US is still lagging: ErsatzCulture 11:27, 11 March 2021 (EST)

Me and Fixer are very good at what we are doing on US publications - especially major authors and publishers. :). Yup, no cover when I added it - I added it now. :)
The reason we carry ASINs on ebooks is exactly because the ISBNs are inconsistently applied and linked (and the direct links are based on ASIN). If a paper book is there, they will often add the ISBN of the ebook as an alternative so the search gets it but not always. An ebook only since they stopped using the ISBNs at all? 50/50 chance...
A 356 ISBN is UK's Orbit so yes, there is a second ebook out there so I would add it based on the Hachette site and with the UK ASIN. This is not unusual, I won't even add a note on the ISBN being unrecognized at this point but up to you. We can check post-publication to see what happened but I would add it now if I were you (or if Fixer gets the ASIN in a few weeks/months). Annie 11:53, 11 March 2021 (EST)


Hello Annie. Re this publication. I've corrected the error and merged the cover art title to match the other Sphere editions with the same artwork however I am puzzled as to why it said "Sphere Science Ficiton Classics" was a new series when that series already exists and that specific edition seems to be in a series all on it's own. --Mavmaramis 05:12, 12 March 2021 (EST)

You could have responded on your page - I am monitoring. :) Thanks for taking care of that. Annie 08:18, 12 March 2021 (EST)
Yes I realise that but it was more in relation to the issue with the series that seened to be very odd to me. Another inconsistancy that occassionally makes me wonder if I am going mad. It isn't an issue that I am fully aware or competant of knowing how to correct. --Mavmaramis 09:58, 12 March 2021 (EST)
Ah, sorry missed this. It is because you spelled "Ficiton" and not "Fiction" and I also missed it last night :) Fixed now. Annie 10:20, 12 March 2021 (EST)
I'm going to blame my deteriorating eyestight/bad typing for that. Thanks. --Mavmaramis 13:04, 12 March 2021 (EST)
I did not see it either so... :) Happens. I should stop doing things that late. Annie 13:21, 12 March 2021 (EST)

Another alternate/canonical name question

Hi. I just realized that one of the "Sense of Wonder" authors, Wendy Gay Pearson, has existing entries for both "Wendy Gay Pearson" and "Wendy Pearson" in ISFDB. Looking at the two different bio/publication entries at Western University, Canada, this is clearly the same person. There are a similar number of entries for each name, 8 from 2008-13, and 11 from 2001-06. It's not at all jumping out to me which should be the canonical name, but they need to be connected. I would appreciate your guidance. Thanks.Dave888 17:58, 13 March 2021 (EST)

In such cases, when the numbers are so close, I usually go with the longer form of the name as canonical unless a SF encyclopaedia or something like that has it differently. :) 11:18, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
Thanks. There is no entry for Wendy Gay Pearson (or Wendy Pearson) is the SF Encylopedia, although I found the name cited in two other entries. I also found "Wendy Pearson" cited in one entry. I'll go with Wendy Gay Pearson as the canonical name.Dave888 12:31, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

IV or VI

SFJuggler fixed Jason Lives. My pending list still has your name attached. It's not necessary anymore. I was right. --Username 11:40, 14 March 2021 (EDT)

Being right this time does not change the fact that we have a process when the book is primary verified: check with the active PV(s); when they are not available and/or active we change with a note in the Notes explaining what was changed post verification and why. That ensures that we do not lose data and we mark the source of the data properly (in a PVd book, unless otherwise stated, the source is the actual book the PV holds).
You can cancel your own submission or I can reject it for you. Annie 11:17, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
Title was changed but series # wasn't (it still said 4) so I fixed that. --Username 13:42, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
Which was always going to be a separate change anyway :) I did not handle the other update. Approved that last one and we should be all set with this one. Annie 13:44, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

Format for SFWA Bulletin Issues

Annie, issues in the data base for The SWFA Bulletin beginning in 1987 are given as quarto format. But they are slightly smaller, 7.5" x 10.5". I have most issues between 1983 and 1990, and they are all the same format, but I haven't entered them yet. Do you think I should use the quarto format? If not, what? Bob 23:14, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

The rule with the magazine formats is "closest format you can find" or to quote the help page: "Note: If a magazine is between the sizes of these categories, use the one with the closest description, and add a note in the record. Small variations do not need to be noted.".
Quarto (8.5" × 11") is the closest (the next closest is the classical pulp at 6.5" × 9.5" but it is 1 inch away on both sides as opposed to the 1 and 0.5 on quarto. So I would use quarto but always add a note: "Size: 7.5" x 10.5, entered as quarto as the closest available format, saddle-stapled" (or words to that effect - if it is saddle-stapled indeed). Especially if it is saddle-stapled, I'd stay with quarto. Hope this makes some sense :) Annie 23:22, 15 March 2021 (EDT)
I think that makes sense, and I'll give the size in the notes for these mags. Earlier issues did have true quarto dimensions (or octavo in some cases); I was just concerned that there should be some differentiation between the newer issues and the older ones. Bob 11:15, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
The in-between formats are very annoying indeed :) Annie 12:30, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

By canonical name (as by alternate name) question

Hi Annie. I'm sorry to be slow here, but I am struggling with something that I know you have advised me on. For the "Sense of Wonder", I have quite a few titles that are currently entered "as by Leigh Ronald Grossman" that need to be revised to "by Leigh Grossman (as by Leigh Ronald Grossman)" to ensure the entries show up for both names. You have advised me that I need to use the "Make this title a Variant" process for this, and have further suggested that it would be better if I used Option 1 to do this. I am struggling with this; Option 1 is asking for Parent # - I rather assume this would be the parent number for the title itself. What am I missing? Thanks.Dave888 14:57, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

You use Option 1 when the title already exists on the canonical list. For example "This book" is reprinted under Name after being first out under CanonicalName. Then you have a record on both pages - so you connect them when you add the book under Name (if you use option 2, you will create a new title on Canonical list -- and we will need to merge with the existing one.
But if there is no existing record on the canonical name page, you can only use Option 2. Hope this makes it clearer? Annie 15:07, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
I'm still struggling a bit. Let me give you a concrete example, and please tell me if I have it. One of these titles within "Sense of Wonder" is "Karel Čapek (Sense of Wonder)", which is an author bio for karel Capek and is title record #2841855. It is showing up as "by Leigh Ronald Grossman", when I need it to show up in "Sense of Wonder" as "by Leigh Grossman (As by Leigh Ronald Grossman)" for it to show up appropriately both under Leigh Ronald Grossman and Leigh Grossman.
Option 1 requires the parent record number, which I assume is #2841855. Do I have it, or am I still confused? Please accept my apologies - I usually think I am fairly quick to get things, but this one has been problematic for me for some reason. Thanks.Dave888 18:41, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
Dave, stop apologizing :)
This one is confusing because the initial entry for this essay is wrong. See Karel Čapek (Sense of Wonder). It is already under Leigh Grossman - the only one from these essays credited under that name and not the longer one. To become what you want, you need the following:
  • Change the author on this one to Leigh Ronald Grossman. This is the entry in the book - it needs to be as printed in the book - in this case taking the author form from the book itself.
  • Now create a parent for it with Option 2 swapping the name Leigh Ronald Grossman with Leigh Grossman. You cannot use Option 1 UNLESS you already have an existing title under each of the names.
However - before you go and do that, look at the number of titles. Leigh Ronald Grossman has a LOT more titles than Leigh Grossman so switching the canonical name around actually makes sense. It does not make sense to make 150 variants when we can reverse the pseudonym and then only need to make 13 (and break the ones that are done). Do you want me to reverse the pseudonym, cleanup the created variants and then let you do the needed variants in the other direction (or I can do them as well)?
Does this help make it clearer? Annie 18:54, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
yes, this is clearer. I do agree that a better canonical name for him is "Leigh Ronald Grossman" anyway, and I sure like the idea of only dealing with 13 vs 150. I was wondering about that, and I might have asked you about that up front if I'd been smarter. If you can stand it, I would like to try to reverse the pseudonym and then try to go from there on my own. I can see myself getting partway through this and then asking for help. On the other hand, if you are tired of my neediness on this kind of thing, feel free to do what you want to do and let me know what is left. I'm good either way.Dave888 19:06, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
All yours :) I am here if you need to bounce something by me :) Let's start with the easy part - breaking the current pseudonym and creating it in the other direction. Then you deal with the titles that were not varianted already. When you get to the ones that need full reversal, I have a handy trick to share that cleans them in a single edit per title. Step by step. :) Annie 19:13, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
Several more "Sense of Wonder"-related alternate author name questions. I have 2 author names that are associated with this book that have other entries under alternate names, Wendy Gay Pearson (Wendy Pearson) and Leigh Ronald Grossman (Leigh Grossman). I believe I need to use "Make Variant" to ensure the alternate name entries show up in the canonical name bibliography, with the "as by alternate name". 1) You have mentioned that I should use Option 1 for the "Make Variant". Option 1 requires the parent title record number. I assume this is for pertinent fiction title record number? 2) Do I need to do this individually for each of the alternate name titles? I assume so. 3) Is there anything else about this that I need to know? My apologies again - I feel like this is another area where I have really been slow to get it. Thanks.Dave888 17:00, 18 March 2021 (EDT)
1. You use option 1 only if the title you need as a parent already exists on the canonical author page. Think of Stephen King's Richard Bachman novels - for example Thinner. If someone publishes it in a new book with the title "Thinner Again" (new title never used before) and author Richard Bachman, if you use Option 2 on the varianting, you will create a new record for "Thinner" by Stephen King and we will need to merge it into the existing book later. Instead you find the actual novel ID 513 and use Option 1 with ID 513. Same if the new publication is "Отслабване" by Стивън Кинг (another pseudonym - this would be a translation). Does this make it easier to understand? Option 2 is applicable for reprints and translations usually; new/original works will always use Option 1 because the canonical author has no record for this title yet. When I mentioned to use it, you were varianting reprints :) If you are not sure, forget about Option 1 for now. go with Option 2, we can work on that later
2. Every title, one by one. :)
3. Nah, you are good. Annie 17:42, 18 March 2021 (EDT)

Second Opinion

Would you mind looking at this conversation? Hauck and Bluesman were pretty diligent about their submissions (though human like the rest of us). I'm assuming that there actually were two separate covers with different external prices. We could enter two separate records (in which case I will reject the submission, clone the existing, and use the data Mavmaramis submitted so they don't need to repeat their work) or leave as a single record and add the disparity to the notes. Thoughts? -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2021 (EDT)

That is extremely weird - see also the usage of Eire vs Rep of Ireland in the two sets of prices and look at the mess that Sphere and Sphere Books are in these years - see the ISBNs on books using Eire in 1978 and 1977. So I wonder if whatever the reason for splitting of the two publishers is what causes this discrepancy - and then our split is as always messed up...
And the whole set of prices do not make sense as a whole. The non-pound ones are close to a November book but that late in the year the pound one should be 0.85 and not 0.65. The prices we have now with the 0.65, are consistent with the books form earlier in the year here and over in Sphere. Something is off.
Looking at the image - there is something on top of where the UK price is. Can we ask Mavmaramis to confirm that is is 0.65 and not 0.85 (or if you can see that back cover better than I can maybe you can spot it?). Because IF that turns out to be 0.85, all of the prices will be consistent with other books from late in the year - and then we most likely do have two separate printings (or maybe 1 printing, 2 separate covers - one printed later to allow the increase of the prices for unsold and unbound books?)? If THAT is the case, then all this will make sense. Including the Eire/Rep. of Ireland usage and the double set of prices for a second printing.
I do not know enough about Sphere and Sphere Books in the 1970s to know how possible that may be... but that is the only way I can see this happening... Annie 16:39, 18 March 2021 (EDT)
So in short - two covers with different prices (possibly including the UK one?) is the only thing that does make sense - sorry for the long note - wanted to put on paper how I got to that. :) Annie 17:42, 18 March 2021 (EDT)
Well, this did not help - the UK price is obliterated :( . Considering the Eire vs Rep of Ireland and the rest of the stuff, I think the cleanest way would be to clone, put the new prices in a different publication, add notes to both explaining the discrepancy despite both being Second Printing and ask Mavmaramis to move his PV (and sort out all the covers). I really cannot see both Herve and Bill missing all the prices (not totally impossible but very very unlikely). Not sure what else we can do. Annie 04:49, 19 March 2021 (EDT)

The Curse of Jonathan Matthew

I don't understand rejection of my edit for this book; cover on ISFDB is a totally wrong one for a non-fiction book about summer jobs. I provided correct cover and cover artist from this copy: [2]. --Username 07:58, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Apparently I forgot to unreject before going to bed - the double mix of OCLC and Amazon is amusing and tripped me for a second and then apparently I forgot to fix it. Let me see if I can puzzle out where the artist is credited in the book - as you keep ignoring any request to provide proper sourcing :) Annie 09:47, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

I already entered the name of the artist in my edit for this book, so type that name into the link's search box. --Username 09:55, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

So... using the ID from the image you posted here, find the book first, then do the search inside to find the list with the artist name, then grab the proper link here. Of course, why not - it would have been too easy to just post the link directly. :) Approved and note fixed. :) Annie 10:30, 22 March 2021 (EDT)

Sense of Wonder - missing subtitle

Hi Annie. One last question on "Sense of Wonder". When I came on the scene, the title I found in the title record was "Sense of Wonder". The title in the publication records was also "Sense of Wonder" for both tp and ebook. Upon looking a bit further, I found that the actual title is "Sense of Wonder: A Century of Science Fiction". I can see two choices: 1) leave it as is, but note the subtitle in the Notes, or 1) edit all 3 entries (title and both publication records) to include the subtitle. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks.

Dave888 11:23, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
Talk to the other PV and you two make a decision together? :) If the subtitle is on the title page, we record it usually. I would add it in this case. Annie 12:44, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
Thanks for the input. I have queried the other PV, and I'll see what I hear. If the decision is to do it, is there anything more complex to this than editing both the publication record and the two title records for the title?Dave888 14:32, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
No cover and no interior art so nope, that is all :) If you had covers or interior art, you would have needed to change their titles as well. But that is it. Annie 14:43, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
When posting on people's pages, please post into their Talk pages, not their User pages. I moved the one you left over for Sjmathis‎; to the correct page. :) Annie 15:09, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
Sorry about that. I missed that, and should have figured it out, but will not do that again. Thanks.Dave888 16:21, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
No worries - almost everyone does that at least once ;) Annie 16:23, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

Non-Genre Editors

Hi Annie - I believe you are incorrect about the requirement that in order to list actual editors of non-genre publications (in addition to the "Editors of..." Editor), that they be genre editors/known authors. the help page has no such requirement. I had rejected edits of Taweiss attempting to remove such editors with a note that it is not required to do so and a link to the help page. Today I noticed that the edits had been re-issued and approved and I subsequently discovered the discussion where Taweiss was advised to delete them. I've asked them if they can add the editors back in. If you are aware of some other standard excluding such editors, let me know, but it would odd since the specific instructions say that adding the known editor, while optional, is allowed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:18, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

We interpret the word "optionally" differently. I do not think that we should be adding (and encourage the adding) of the editors that are not from the field - that defeats the whole point of using "Editors of". I will be happy to take this over to R&S and hash it out -- so we can clarify when we include them and if the agreement is that we want to add non-genre editors, I will personally fix these. Yes - I know they are allowed but the practice had always been not to - at least in any magazine I had seen that uses the Editors of - even when they are very well known. Annie 18:23, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
We can start an R&S discussion if you'd like. I can give this example, but I'm probably the one who added Smith to all those records. To me, the plain meaning of "optional" is that entering isn't required, but if the editor wants to do it, they may. I certainly wouldn't delete any data that another editor had added at their option. Perhaps we should have left The Dragon as a genre magazine. Both Locus1 and Miller/Contento list it. They even have shell records for issues without any fiction. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:48, 24 March 2021 (EDT)
Genre magazines have their complete contents eligible for addition - that is the difference between genre and non-genre publications... So Dragon is definitely not a genre publication under our own definition. Which makes it non-genre by definition. So it should be treated so - we do not have a "semi-genre but still leaving most of the contents ineligible" type. Which is how Dragon had been treated. I will start an R&S discussion on the "Editors of" situation. Annie 19:06, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

(unindent) Reading the linked Help page, it would appear that Ron is right. The text says:

  • If the actual name of the editor(s) of a non-genre periodical is known, their names may be listed as co-editors along with "Editors of PERIODICAL NAME"; and
  • If the actual editor is known with reasonable certainty, you may optionally enter the name(s) of the editor(s) as co-editors, but leave "Editors of PERIODICAL NAME" as one of the editors in any case.

There doesn't appear to be a requirement for editor names to be known SF personalities. I haven't done much with non-genre magazines lately, so I am not up to date on the intricacies of current usage.

If memory serves, back when this Help text was debated, there were three separate concerns. The first one was the difficulty of identifying the editors of obscure non-genre periodicals. The second one was the desire to make all issues of the same magazine appear on the same Summary page. The third one was the desire to avoid creating Summary pages for editors with no genre connections.

The current version of the Help page doesn't address the third concern, but I don't remember whether it was a conscious choice. We could try to find the original discussion and any follow-up discussions that may have been held.

Also, the two Help sentences that I quoted above may need to be consolidated. They are duplicative at best and provide different guidance re: "reasonable certainty" at worst. Ahasuerus 19:18, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

I started a R&S discussion. For most magazines we had followed the "add the "Editors of" and leave it alone" policy. Why do we even bother with "Editors of" instead of using our usual "unknown" as we do for books if known editors can be added - while old magazines had had issues, editors in the last few decades are almost universally known (and never recorded here except in a few special cases)? Showing up on the same page is even more valid concern for Genre magazines and yet we do not use anything to achieve that... - and we have the series pages to show them together now. I am not arguing that the help page is open to allow it but when something does not make sense, I think we need to find out why we are doing it to start with... I have no trouble changing how I enter non-genre magazines (and will even redo the Dragon ones that started all that) if that is what we agree on. But let's figure out what we want to do and why first. Annie 19:28, 24 March 2021 (EDT)

Locus 690 Question

Hi Annie. I see that Locus #690 had a "Approved Publication Update Submission" by you in it's history after my original NewPub submission. Is there something I need to do differently in the future, or is this an inevitable Moderator process, or what? My apologies if this is something you have already coached me on. I did not mention it to you, but I am a long-time Locus subscriber and reader. I don't keep them forever, but usually for a few years, so I certainly have at least the last 4-5 years. Seeing that there are holes in Locus issues and Locus contents, I'm planning on getting Locus up to date. Thanks and best wishes.Dave888 13:05, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Nope, nothing major.
There was an extra comma in the title - between the number and the month - see how the rest here look. Most magazines will have the comma but Locus is handled a bit differently for some reason so we follow the lead. :) The other changes were capitalization ("The" instead of "the" in both interviews) - and while I was there, I brought it into the yearly record - that is always done as a second step. It was a good submission :) Just a few cosmetic issues. :)
Have fun. I have Locus on my long list of things to get to... so if you want to update them, have fun! :) Annie 13:17, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
Thanks. I try to pay attention to all of that stuff, and usually take screen captures of the edits on a similar issue to compare to, but I appreciate the help. I will have fun.Dave888 13:21, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
There was a later merge - my edit actually has a moderator note: "capita;ization and making it look like the rest :)" but it is hidden if it goes into the red table for missing ID. Which is why I did not leave you a note. Let me check if we can get that to show up on the top so it is clearer. Annie 17:08, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

Adam Blade / Glaki, Spear of the Depths possible US/UK confusion?

Thought I'd try to make some progress on these, but didn't get very far before encountering something weird :-(

This late 2020 title has 2 pubs, both purportedly US ones from "Orchard Books / Scholastic". However I was confused that my tools matched them to UK pubs, except for the Kindle ebook, which turns out to have a different ASIN on Amazon UK. (Hachette UK links for the tp and book.)

Any chance you could have a look at the Amazon US previews for this, to see if they are genuinely US pubs, or if they're gr[ae]y imports? The Amazon UK preview doesn't show the copyright page, but does show a title page with a couple of URLs. I'm loathe to change these existing records to have UK publisher, price etc, given that they're relatively recent. Thanks :-) ErsatzCulture 09:02, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

Apparently today is the day to finish sorting out all the misplaced books in the Orchards that I had been chipping at slowly. :) These are the Hachette books. Fixed now but give me a few hours to shift the rest of the misplaced ones and to add the double ASINs on the ebooks. Annie 09:58, 1 April 2021 (EDT)
No worries - any excuse to put off looking at the Adam Blades for another week :-) ErsatzCulture 13:08, 1 April 2021 (EDT)
All Orchards were sorted out. There are 2 more books left under a third publisher which is the same as the US one - I need to talk to a verifier there and figure out what we want to do. The UK ones are all sorted; most of the ebook ones even got their double ASINs (UK/US distribution of the same ebook by Hachette's imprints).Annie 13:40, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

Apollo & Apollo / Head of Zeus

These should probably be merged? Apollo, Apollo / HoZ. They only have 2 titles and 3 pubs between them, all via Fixer, so it doesn't seem like something anyone else will know/care about.

(Spotted whilst trying to work out whether this should be submitted or not - the lack of any reviews makes it difficult to tell whether the references to ghosts are literal or figurative...) ErsatzCulture

I thought I got these two sorted when I found the latest book there. Merged. As for the book - if you add it, add a note "It is unclear if the ghosts in this story are speculative or used as a metaphor.". I would skip this one if I need to make the decision - feels like non-speculative ghosts to me. Annie 10:29, 1 April 2021 (EDT)
Yeah, I did consider doing that - and will add a note along those lines if/when I do submit that title - but for now I think I'll wait until I see some reviews that might hopefully clarify the subject matter. ErsatzCulture 13:08, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

The (perhaps aptly named?) "Tempus Fury"

Me again, hopefully the last time I'll be bugging you today...

I suspect this pub is probably not coming out on the date currently recorded. Impressively, I have 4 different pub dates scraped from 4 different sources, at different times:

  • Amazon UK on 2020-12-24 : said it would be published on 2021-04-06
  • Titan Books (yes, them again) on 2020-10-29 : said it would be published on 2021-01-05
  • Waterstones on 2021-04-01 (today) : says it will be published on 2021-06-08
  • on 2020-12-24 : said it would be published on 2025-12-01.

Right now, the first 3 are all reporting the June 8th date, but now thinks it's April 6th... if it wasn't for that last one, I'd submit an edit to make it use 2021-06-08, but it strikes me that consulting you for a second opinion might be advisable? FWIW, I have just checked B&N who also show June 8th.

An ideal candidate for the { { WatchDate } } template? ErsatzCulture 17:40, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

Had I mentioned how much I love Titan lately? I changed the date, added the publisher link and added the template. This is what we got it for... Annie 18:28, 1 April 2021 (EDT)

Rejected edits/forced

I had two edits that show as rejected with a comment of “Forced” for title merges, but the merge was completed Is there something I did wrong? TAWeiss 10:18, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Forced means that the edit is not viable - a title does not exist anymore. In this case, someone did the merges before you - so when your edits were up for review, they were invalid. When that happens, all a moderator can do is to force reject. Annie 11:08, 5 April 2021 (EDT)
Got it. Thanks! TAWeiss 16:39, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

Xanth questions

Annie, please take a look at this when you have a few minutes Xanth questions. John Scifibones 11:32, 11 April 2021 (EDT)

Resurrection, Inc.

Annie, please look at submission 4962707. Help me make it look as professional as possible. Will be sending the link to the publisher Scifibones 17:21, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Here it is. Did some changes. I need you to supply information - see where I added the two formats that did get published? Add the third one in there as well with a note at the end (never published). Feel free to edit anything else again while adding this. I am around to approve when you submit. And I am thinking a bit what else we can move around in the meantime. Annie 17:58, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Also - is it just a single introduction by all 3 Janet Berliner and Bentley Little and David B. Silva or are there separate introductions? Annie 17:59, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
I like your editing, I didn't know you could nest unnumbered lists. Three brief, but, separate introductions. I will submit an edit for that and the never published edition. Scifibones 18:24, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
There is only one title for the Introduction. However, each author's comments are separate and signed. No page break. I'll leave it as one while you think. Scifibones 18:34, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
The full Introduction title reads "Introduction to the Tenth Anniversary Edition". I should not have shortened it. sorry. Do we want a statement first hardcover edition? That everything I can think of. Scifibones 18:44, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
I'd split them especially because the copyright page splits them and because they each wrote their part, right? OK, I did a few more changes. Maybe add a note explaining that three introductions share a title but are separate segments? I can be convinced to collapse them into 1 again IF they are indeed a single article? A few more things:
  • I do not see a source for the November in the date or for 1999 really (we do not date based on copyright)? We need a source for this dating. 1999 I can see on the publisher site and that we can add. But November?
  • Add a page number on which the novel starts so it can go under the essays. And fix the essays pages if they happen to start on next pages (page breaks are not required). Annie 19:06, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
I originally had the date attributed to Amazon. I took it out because I left a msg for Dave to confirm it for me. Hasn't got back to me yet. I'm sure he will tomorrow. I would rather attribute it to him than Amazon. I notice you removed the capitalization of sterling edition on the title page quote. Inside quotes, I try to put exactly what is in the book. Same comment for slip case. It is properly two words. Inside the quotes I misspelled it as it is on the copyright page. On my note I had spelled it correctly. Were you just trying to make them match? I'll hold off submitting till after you respond. Scifibones 19:19, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
Well, it will need to temporarily be until better source is found. As it is now, it will need to be 1999-00-00 if Amazon is not used. So either change the dates or add back.
Not me on Sterling - I had not touched that line. I combined the different copyright lines; the very first line had been like that since the beginning. Go ahead and fix whatever needs fixing :) Annie 19:32, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
I guess it was me. I just looked up slipcase, It is one word, I must be getting senile. This should do it unless/until the publisher confirms the publication date. It was a lot of your time, but, it will reflect well on the ISFDB. Scifibones 19:54, 12 April 2021 (EDT)
No worries. If I am around, I am happy to assist. :) Annie 19:56, 12 April 2021 (EDT)

Stanisław Lem: Dzienniki Gwiazdowe (1982 edition)

Hello, Annie. I wanted to let you know that I now have the 1982 library edition of Dzienniki Gwiazdowe. I have scanned the first nine pages (which contains both of the fictional introductions), and I have also scanned the table of contents (which appears at the end of the book). I have posted the scan at and I hope that this will help you determine whether the second introduction "Wstęp" is the same as the identically titled "Wstęp" at . Also, I noticed that the first introduction (listed at ) "Przedmowa" in the 1982 edition is signed with a different form of Lem's fictional pseudonym. It uses the name "Astral Sternu Tarantoga" rather than "Professor A. S. Tarantoga" (as listed in the ITTDB). I don't know whether any earlier publications of this introduction used the alternate form of the name.

I hope this is some help. I will keep the book on my shelf until August (when it is due back at the library) in case you'd like to see anything else.

All good things, Michael --Main 16:27, 13 April 2021 (EDT)

Thanks! Let me finish something and will update these and ask any other questions I may have. Annie 16:48, 13 April 2021 (EDT)


Just for the fun of it, can you point me to where the information about "As the main language of the DB is English (notes, summaries and so on), the current practice is that non-English series, the English name can be added after / once the series is translated into English." is located (I didn't find it). You know that Old Europeans like me are quite touchy about issues of cultural imperialism. In this case that's exactly what's in the balance. We do not title this book Le livre de Swa / The Book of Shai nor is the series' name translated. AlainLeBris 03:05, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

That specific practice predates me even joining the site (and annoys me to no end when I work on Eastern and Central European books). Let me dig through the old discussions tomorrow and see what I can unearth - I think I remember where the discussions are. The main reason was the same that enforces the summary and notes language (namely - we are an English language DB which deals with international publications) but things had changed quite a bit in the last years so maybe that may need to be poked a bit.
By the way - even if the rename was good, I would have rejected it (or at least came over to your page to explain that we do not throw away information) and asked you to leave the English name in the notes - see here for an example. One day we may get a proper support for languages so each language shows the correct series name but for now, it’s what it is but we still should not lose information. :) Annie 03:35, 14 April 2021 (EDT)


I found something that says it's an imprint, [3], which has an article by John Russo that says: "As I write this, I'm getting ready to make a movie called HELL'S CREATION, to be distributed by Arrow Entertainment. The novel tie-in is going to be published for Halloween release by Commonwealth Publications under their Ravenmor imprint." If you don't agree then I think adding "A Ravenmor Book" to notes would be OK. I see on Russo's wiki that Hell's Creation is listed as by "Ravenmor", plus there's a book called The Sanity Ward also by that publisher which is not on ISFDB. There's no mention of Commonwealth on his page at all. --Username 21:49, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

Then it needs to be the other way around : the format is Imprint / Publisher so Ravenmor / Commonwealth Publications. As Commonwealth is not mentioned, you can even just go with Ravenmor (and then add the note on what you found about them in the Publisher notes). Either way works. :) Annie 21:53, 14 April 2021 (EDT)

A small favor

Next time you have a minute, would you mind looking at this exchange with MagicUnk? Not worried about the specific publication, only if my method and conclusions were right or wrong. I ask because I respect your opinion and you know I am trying to be an asset. You can answer on my talk page is you prefer. Thank you, John Scifibones 11:57, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

I will post on his page :) Annie 12:00, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

The Clan of the Cave Bear

I want to PV the first edition of The Clan of the Cave Bear. While the 1980-09-00 date would indicate this is it, the pub note confuses the issue. The banner on top of Chavey's talk page says he is unavailable till summer. I left a note on his regular talk page hoping he might see it. It has been a week. Thoughts? John Scifibones 17:26, 19 April 2021 (EDT)

The note just explains where the date comes from... Does the book contain a month/year somewhere inside of it? Annie 17:39, 19 April 2021 (EDT)
No, I was planning on citing the copyright notice. I have a number of edits, just didn't want to make them unles this is supposed to be the first edition. If it isn't I can clone and create a first edition pub record. Scifibones 18:05, 19 April 2021 (EDT)
Does your edition says anything about printing at all? It seems like there is more than one September printing - thus the question. If yours has a stated printing, that would be different from this one. If yours does not, I'd say to consider this the first September printing, add a "Assumed first printing. No printing statement anywhere in the book" and leave it at that.
For the dating, leave the existing note (as it comes from a book after all) AND add also the copyright one as well as a confirmation ("Confirmed as per....").Annie 18:16, 19 April 2021 (EDT)
My Edition is marked "First Edition" It has a complete number line, all the detail you would expect. Now I think we are on the same page Scifibones 18:24, 19 April 2021 (EDT)
Some of the old data looks like this. I *think* that this is meant to be the first printing BUT I'd clone anyway - none of the other editors mentioned the number line or the implication of it (aka that this is the first September printing). Chances are that it is but... we know we have at least 4 September/October printings... and Chavey tends to be good at his notes. We will deal with a duplicate later if need be. I'd still copy the notes from this one into the new one. Hope this makes some sense. :) Annie 18:31, 19 April 2021 (EDT)
I will put is note in, but, I think it will look odd. Hopefully you will be the reviewer so you can fix it on the fly if you change your mind. Scifibones 18:52, 19 April 2021 (EDT)
A second set of eyes never hurts. :) I will also think on it a bit more... old records can be... incomplete. Annie 19:37, 19 April 2021 (EDT)
It's submission 4969238 . I did not create a title for the endpaper map, I used a note instead. Editors of later volumes created some and variated others, looks like a mess. I will be verifying all volumes in the series. The endpapers in each volume have subtle differences, will require some variating. If you prefer content titles, I could probably sort it out.
P.S. The edits for the first Xanth books are in my submission queue, when they are approved I will take care of those and come back to the Earth Children series. Thanks John Scifibones 19:55, 19 April 2021 (EDT)
Annie, Biomassbob aproved the edit as submitted. I don't like the last pub note. What do you think? | The Clan of the Cave Bear Scifibones 18:25, 20 April 2021 (EDT)
We need some form of it I think - so it explains why we have two separate September books on the list and collaborates the date. How about "Month of publication confirmed in the May 1982 edition which notes 4 printings of this book in Sept. & Oct. of 1980"? Or if you rally dislike it, drop it, the other one has it I guess.I'd leave it though. But your book, your decision. :) Annie 18:34, 20 April 2021 (EDT)
Am I confirming the truth of this note with my PV? If so, that's a problem. I have no idea if it is true or not. How about a link in a pub note to the other pub? Or, merge the two, transfer the PV's and it would be Chavey verifying that note. Scifibones 19:00, 20 April 2021 (EDT)
How about: "According to the note in (insert link), there are 4 printings in Sept. & Oct. of 1980. This record is for the first of them." Annie 19:05, 20 April 2021 (EDT)
Works for me. Ill write it up and submit it. Scifibones 19:43, 20 April 2021 (EDT)

Ben Bova Voyagers II and III

Title record for Voyagers II: The Alien Within and the individual publication records have series and title. Same for Voyagers III: Star Brothers. Should I take care of the title and publication records for all the pubs, while I am doing mine? John Scifibones 18:10, 21 April 2021 (EDT)

The Alien Stars & Watkins Publishing vs Angry Robot

This one seems messy...

The ebook is available for publication right now in the UK, so I've submitted this. However, it looks like it could be a screw-up - you might want to check what Amazon US has to say? B&N say the Nook version isn't out till the 27th.

Somewhat unrelated, are you sure about the publisher on these pubs? I can see that's what Fixer submitted them as, but if you look closely, the Angry Robot logo is in the top right of the cover images. The Amazon preview of the ebook also has Angry Robot on the title page, so I've also changed that in the aforelinked edit. ErsatzCulture 06:45, 22 April 2021 (EDT)

All US versions do not come out until the 27th so I added a note.
"Angry Robot, an Imprint of Watkins Media Ltd" which when loaded into Amazon was loaded as Watkins Publishing :) Will add it on my list of "look carefully when Amazon thinks it is the publisher". I'll check the old Watkins books as well in case others were loaded this way. Annie 12:16, 22 April 2021 (EDT)

Removing a Rejection

Annie, I've never had to do this before. Someone has asked me to unreject an item that contained a lot of information, and he would like me to unreject it. I have no big objection, but don't know how. Please instruct me. Bob 10:40, 25 April 2021 (EDT)

O.K., figured it out. Bob 12:00, 25 April 2021 (EDT)
All set? Annie 15:12, 25 April 2021 (EDT)

Cleaning up after PVs

A few weeks ago, you showed me how to best update pubs that I was then going to PV so that the initial entry data was not lost. I've been using that method ever since and am happy with the results. However, looking back at changes and PVs that I did before changing my method shows me that I did a real poor job on a lot of pubs that I then PVed. In more than a few cases, it looks like I changed or lost the initial entry data but it looks like I can reconstruct it from the edit history. I want to go back and fix those pubs (maybe around 200 where I'm the only PV). If I could, I'd remove my PV for each one, make the corrected changes, and then PV again. Since I can't do that, how would you recommend that I make the necessary corrections? Phil 09:26, 30 April 2021 (EDT)

You can remove your PV if you want -- same place you do the PV, you can remove it. :) Annie 16:37, 30 April 2021 (EDT)
Perfect! I didn't see that option. So much to learn! :) Phil 22:17, 30 April 2021 (EDT)
The radio boxes there change based on what you had done before - None, Transient and Permanent are the three possible states of your own verification. When you hold one, you see the other 2 options only. So you won’t see the None until you PV and go back to the page. :) Annie 22:31, 30 April 2021 (EDT)

Linden Lewis vs Linden A. Lewis - the unwanted sequel

Just submitted an edit to fix the UK tp, similar to the fun on the hc/ebook documented at User_talk:Anniemod/Archive-2019-2020#Linden_Lewis_vs_Linden_A._Lewis.

(If it's any consolation, this one had been showing up as needing to be added in my tools for a few weeks, and I'd already looked at it once in the database, and assumed it was some weirdness/bug in my tools, forgetting that prior issue over authors.)

There's a sequel scheduled for August, so hopefully we can avoid a repeat... ErsatzCulture 07:46, 2 May 2021 (EDT)

You're invited in

Hi Annie. If you are around, I would love to have you jump into You have confused me John Scifibones 13:21, 6 May 2021 (EDT)

Sorry, managed to get myself admitted to a hospital... and just resurfacing after a recovery period... :) Annie 14:10, 21 May 2021 (EDT)
No apologies necessary, I'm glad you're okay. John Scifibones 15:04, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

John Brunner "China" series

Hi Annie.

John Brunner had a number of very late career speculative fiction stories set in China. He married a Chinese immigrant in 1991 (LiYi Tan), which may have influenced this writing in the years before his death in August 1995. I had read "Good with Rice" in Leigh Grossman's "Sense of Wonder: A Century of Science Fiction", and thought it good enough to track down the others.

At least 4 of these stories are wholly or partially in a version of the current (early-mid 1990's) China. 1. "Good With Rice", Asimov's March 1994, definitely science fiction. 2. "The Plot of His Ancestors", Asimov's March 1995. Probably genre-adjacent, but a good story. 3. "Amends", Asimov's March 1996. Set in ancient China and then modern China. Possible fantasy elements, perhaps not. 4. "Blood and Judgement", Asimov's April 1997. Definitely science fiction.

These two stories are not set in modern (1990's) China at all. 5. "All Under Heaven", Asimov's December 1995, set in ancient China, with an alien from elsewhere. 6. "The Emperor Who Had Never Seen A Dragon", Ruby Slippers, Golden Tears (Datlow/Windling, 1995). Definitely not 1990's China, and perhaps a fantasy.

There are all in ISFDB. From what I gather from Asimov's, these were all purchased for publication before he died.

I think it would be appropriate to set up a "Series" and apply it to at least some of these.

I checked. There is no "China" Series in ISFDB. I could see either "China" or "Brunner's China" or "Brunner's China Fiction" or something like that.

I would appreciate your advice.

Best wishes. Dave888 18:40, 28 May 2021 (EDT)

Publisher Imprints revisited

Hi Annie, if you have a minute, could we revisit using imprints. Take a look at this exchange with Bob. Ron accepted the submissions, you can see that Bob changed them back. This is frustrating. John Scifibones 08:06, 3 June 2021 (EDT) P.S. I'm not asking because I want to argue with Bob, want to know how to handle going forward. 09:00, 3 June 2021 (EDT)

Sigh... There are editors who are lumpers and some who are splitters. Let me look into this. Annie 11:54, 4 June 2021 (EDT)
There is no rush John Scifibones 14:47, 4 June 2021 (EDT)

Chasm City: ebook or pb?

Stumbled across an old submission of yours, whilst doing some research around a mistake I made: is this US pub of Chasm City a pb (per the format field and the note about "later printing") or an ebook (per the reference to ebooks, and search results for that ISBN)?

I expect you to remember the details of an edit you submitted ~4 years ago perfectly, of course! ;-)

(The reason I spotted this one, was that I did a local SQL query to see how many tp/pb/hc pubs had both an ISBN and an ASIN, in the hope that maybe that would indicate ebook pubs with incorrect format values. As it happens, there are just over 3000 of these records, most of which look to be selfpubbed stuff, for which I guess ISBN+ASIN is valid - but Chasm City stood out as one that I knew was a trad-pubbed title.) ErsatzCulture 11:39, 4 June 2021 (EDT)

If you look at the edit, I'd say that it was part of the moving the ASINs to their new field cleanup. Whoever added it initially messed up the format... and I did not notice. Fixed now.
On the ISBN/ASIN stuff - any book with ISBN starting with 979 WILL have ASIN if properly entered so you may want to get these off your query. In addition, a small set of 978 ones also have one because Amazon can be stupid sometimes. :) Annie 11:53, 4 June 2021 (EDT)
Thanks. Filtering out the 979-* ISBNs gets the number of results down to just under 300. I checked three of them - on one, the ASIN links for both UK and US were broken; on another, the ASIN link came back with a third-party seller page (not sure if there's a policy for these?); for the third, the pub note explicitly called out the ASIN != ISBN-10 weirdness. Probably won't bother looking into this further in the short term... ErsatzCulture 12:36, 4 June 2021 (EDT)
The invalid ones may have been valid once :) The third party seller one - UNLESS we sourced something from that page specifically, I would remove it. There are a lot of older books which just do not have proper records in Amazon but there is a third party record which has a lot of images and/or information. We want these... The last one? Chances are that it is my handiwork :) I tend to point it out when I remember to so people do not delete the ASIN (as the ISBN link won't work). Annie 12:40, 4 June 2021 (EDT)

New cover

Hi Annie, I have found a much better cover version for Egil's Book by C. J. Mills. It looks like it was removed from sale as there is a hole punched in the upper right, but the view is a straight on shot and much much clearer. Should I try to replace this cover and if so, how should I go about it. aardvark7 02:56, 24 June 2021 (EDT)

Personal tools