User talk:BLongley/Archives/Archive09


Jump to: navigation, search


New feature ...?

There is a new feature on the Mod Screen/queue that seems to be intended to highlight submissions by Moderators. Think it needs a wee tweak. Somehow non-Mod submissions [did two earlier from NicolaT] and now a third one is in the queue from Hellblazer1138. I've held that one so you can see, the other two I accepted as it was very first screen of the day and I didn't connect the yellow highlight with anything then. And any submissions I've made don't get the highlight [I assume by design?]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahasuerus decided that newbie editors should get gold highlighting, as well as other mod's submissions getting yellow highlighting. The yellow/gold difference doesn't seem strong enough to me. BLongley 21:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah! I can't see any difference in the colors. And when do the 'newbies' graduate to no color? --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
After 20 Wiki edits. And I've just noticed that my own submissions do get highlighted in blue - although it's so subtle a difference between the blue on grey and the blue on blue that it's more of a lowlighting. BLongley 23:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Way too subtle for my eyes.... ‡-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, my intent was to make it unobtrusive, but it looks like I may have overdone it. Is there a better hex value that I should use? Ahasuerus 04:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
33CCFF? If we need blue on blue. I'm not sure we need to highlight our own submissions at all though, most of us can recognise our own name. BLongley 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the idea was to make it harder to click on someone else's submission by accident, but perhaps the implementation wasn't particularly successful. Ahasuerus 06:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As you have probably noticed, 1.8 in patch r2012-01 overwrote you changes in 1.7. I was going to merge the two revisions, but then it occurred to me that they require a little additional TLC.

In general, all interactions with the database should be contained in functions whose names start with "SQL" and these functions should reside in common/ This is needed because different SQL database have different performance characteristics (e.g. "count" is a hog in some and blazing fast in others) and even syntax, so if/when we move to another database it will be very advantageous to have all database calls in the same place.

Whenever is a few versions behind -- as it is at the moment -- I create the required function within the body of the current program and then move it to when the latter catches up. Would you like to create an "SQL" function within for now? (And I am off to bed to fight the virus du jour...) Ahasuerus 04:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Opoponax Invasion

Hi Bill, I see that you have verified The Opoponax Invasion as being the apparent first paperback printing. I looked it up in Locus1 and think it actually is the second, as the mass market paperback is dated September 1994 while the trade paperback (mine) is dated November 1993. --Dirk P Broer 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the trade paperback is earlier. If I don't state "trade" then I mean "mass-market" paperback - I usually don't call it that though as the phrase doesn't have any meaning here, it would be an "A-Format" paperback. (It's a shame that we don't use the British terms, especially now that the "pb follows tp" general rule has often become "B-Format tp follows C-Format tp" and we may never get to "A-format pb".) BLongley 12:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Livros do Brasil

Is there any particular reason for not sourcing these records? Mhhutchins 14:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The only thing I trust about these are the Publication Series number, and sometimes not even that. So if somebody looks at these, I want them to mistrust the data and do additional research. I do intend to revisit them all and add more data, but I'm not sure how much extra data is available to monoglots like me - I think Willem suggested there's only about 60 of them on Worldcat. BLongley 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You'll be 'visiting' for a week! Nearly 500 of them! That's a lot of yellow .... ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll probably do a hundred a day - second pass is always harder than the first, stub, run. You, or any other mod, can approve them, it's not like they're going to be hard to find afterwards. Sorry about the yellow - Rkihara is probably half-blind by now! :-/ BLongley 21:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to stick to smaller - much, MUCH smaller - runs of Portuguese pubs in future. If at all. I think I should stick to pushing the boundaries of ISFDB in ways that don't upset or overwork other mods - I need to find some paying work again and wouldn't like it other people over-loaded ME as a Mod. Does anyone want to give me a good reference for the stuff I have done here? Coding, coaching, testing, training, scripting, checking, or any other buzz-words that might find me some more lucrative work? BLongley 00:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
My question was about the source of the information as they are currently recorded. I'm assuming they didn't spring from thin air. Even "if somebody looks at these", how would they be able to confirm the data without your providing the secondary source for it? It's not likely we're going to find a collector of Portugese sf who will be made into a moderator so that he can look over your submissions and clear the queue. Even if you're unable to find "extra data", we should at least record the source for what we have. Mhhutchins 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'll definitely find extra data! The first pass came from here, but the second pass also uses this and I may filch some covers from Flickr where the license permits. I'm using too many sources to want to quote any of them, especially as some of the data is NOT at publication level - e.g. "Original title" - and I'm over-riding "obvious" mistakes. I can't even say for sure that these are real sources as I'm running them through an automatic translator which may not be the same as anyone else's, and is sure to be different from what a native speaker would read. These will be at least double and often triple sourced before I finish with them, and I don't want to spend more time noting sources than recording data. BLongley 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm done with this. Not because it's complete, but I've either taken the stubs as far as I can go without some formal training in Portuguese, or because the easy other bits are something I feel a bit queasy about - e.g. "borrowing" cover images from other sites. (I haven't deep-linked, but I also haven't copied all the pub covers available out there.) I have no qualms about leaving them as stubs for further research - I haven't even OCLC verified the ones I could find there, although I have added many OCLC references to notes. I know Michael and I disagree on when and what to quote sources for, hopefully we won't get into too much disagreement over this. I think I've found a few new Portuguese or Brazilian "friends" on Livejournal that may take this as a good start and improve the entries - and if they don't, we've still got many new entries that will help when we try and fix alphabet support. Some of the accents used confound our searches - well, MY searches at least - because of Windows versus Unicode coding, I think. So hopefully this can be left as "Bill tried it, didn't like it, but hopes it kick-starts some Portuguese experts into action". BLongley 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaur Planet Anne McCaffrey 1981

Added cover artist for this pub BarDenis 21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Other Side of the Sky

Hi, Bill! Added price to this verified pub. Cheers! P-Brane 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Fantastic Voyage

Hi, Bill. This is like splitting hairs, but... For this verified pub my copy has the same UK price (35p) but different Australia and NZ prices ($1.10 both). Could you please check. Cheers! P-Brane 05:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

Will do. If we didn't split hairs, we wouldn't be adding much data to the web! It might be that we need to record "country of printing" more often (as the Canadians and Americans seem to be finding) or that we need to find a way of recording fractions of printing numbers, or something. Thanks for the query! BLongley 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! "country of printing" sounds like a good idea. But I suspect that in this particular case it's a typo in "notes" field. P-Brane 05:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC).
At least two typos, if it was indeed me that entered the other prices. :-( I've found two of my editions and can confirm that this one should be $1.10 for Aus and NZ. Also, that I should have stated reissued 1973 rather than just reprinted. In fact, the only things I can say in my defence are that there is, apparently, a 1973 reprint of the 1973 reissue (according to my 1979 reissue of the reissue), that you may have, and it was a long time ago and I've learnt better since. BLongley 07:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I am always happy to point out mistakes of others:))

Thanks a lot! But now I need to bother you more, hope you haven't put these books too far away yet! What exactly is stated in this pub? You mention 9th printing in the notes, but I guess it's overall Corgi 9th printing, not 9th printing of this particular reissue? I am asking, because I'd like to know how many printings of "Corgi SF Collector’s Library" there are. The story so far (like yours, mine is the first printing of 73 reissue), is: Corgi edition published 66, reprinted 66, 67, 69, reissued 73, then gap, and then 79 (claimed 9th printing). So there are 6th, 7th, and 8th printings missing, do you have dates for them? Thanks a lot! Cheers, P-Brane 02:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

According to the 9th overall Corgi printing, the 6th, 7th and 8th were 1973, 1974 and 1975 reprints of the 1973 reissue. BLongley 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Chessboard Planet

Hi, again! Would like your opinion about the publisher of this verified pub. As I understand the situation, the paperback division of Hamlyn Publishing Group, an imprint very imaginatively called Hamlyn Paperbacks (along with the back catalog) was sold to Arrow somewhere in late 1983. Arrow kept the Hamlyn imprint for a year or so but, of course, the books were published with Arrow isbn (0-09-) instead of Hamlyn's isbn (0-600-). It is important to note that the rest of the Hamlyn Publishing Group wasn't sold to Arrow and was later absorbed into different publishing venture by Paul Hamlyn, called Octopus Publishing Group. If you look at the records under Hamlyn you will note that Hamlyn's books with Hamlyn's isbn persist into '90, and they are mostly hardback anthologies, classics reprints and film books. So, my point is, the '84 and '85 paperbacks, published by Arrow using Arrow isbn should have publisher as "Arrow" or "Hamlyn/Arrow" to distinguish them from books published by Hamlyn because these are two different publishers. What do you think? It's probably should be discussed somwhere else, but I wanted to know your opinion first since you've verified several of Venture SF books that also fall into this category. Thanks! Cheers, P-Brane 05:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

Just to clarify. The difference b/w the two publishers is clear when you compare copyright pages here and here, say. Cheers, P-Brane 05:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Piper's Paratime

I'm holding a submission to add cover artist credit to your verified record. Do you think the results of this discussion sufficient to accept the submission and add the source to the notes? Mhhutchins 19:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so. I wonder which way round it was originally painted? BLongley 20:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"New" BLIC

Checked it out? The main records no longer show prices. The MARC files/displays do. Interesting they now sponsor links to COPAC. I liked the old BLIC much better. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I hadn't realised it had changed. The network of interconnects is getting quite interesting - I can get to Amazon about 10 different ways now through "other Sites". BLongley 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
First impression: hate it. Can't even call it "blic" anymore! Let me get back with a more informed opinion later. Mhhutchins 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Other Side of the Sky Arthur C. Clarke 1974&1975

Added cover artist for these pubs: 1974 and 1975 BarDenis 19:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Man with a Thousand Names A. E. van Vogt 1980

I think this pub is the same with your verified pub and could be deleted. BarDenis 18:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The OCLC record shows "New English Library (Sidgwick & Jackson)" and the cover shows the NEL logo. BLongley 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Other Worlds Cyrano de Bergerac 1976

Added cover artist for this pub BarDenis 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lambda I and Other Stories 1977

Could you check your copy of this pub? Your note has "reprinted 1975, 1977", but my copy has "Reprinted 1967, 1977". I can't find any copies dated 1967 or 1975 for sale, so no help there. Deagol 23:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Ocean of Night, Orbit edition

Hi, I've made In the Ocean of Night, Orbit edition part of the Publication Series "Quantum Science Fiction", a trans-ocean series from Dell, the Dial Press and Futura. --Dirk P Broer 21:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. Good luck tracking down the rest of them! BLongley 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Here are 8 books in the series. Chavey 04:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughtworld Terry Greenhough 1978

I think this pub is the same with your verified pub and could be deleted. BarDenis 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Men in the Jungle

Hi, my copy of this pub you verified has a different price (35p); I have also found the date of publication (30 Mar 1972) on Amazon UK. If it is Ok for you, I will edit. Bye --Pips55 21:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right - on my copy the price is partially obscured so it could be 35p rather than 30p. Changed. BLongley 15:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Moorcock's King of the Swords

Can you look at the two 1984 records for Granada editions of this title and determine if they're the same book? One was verified a year after the first one, but otherwise appear to be identical. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No idea why I verified two, but they're obviously the same. Will delete the spare, thanks. BLongley 15:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: see if the spelling of the cover artist's name is correct. I've varianted a couple of my records that used the same spelling to the artist's real name: Bob Haberfield. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 23:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm holding Dirk's submissions to make the Habberfield credits into variants, until I hear from you that the credits are entered as stated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all four have the double "b". I guess Bob must be as annoyed as I am about "corrections" of one's surname. (I've even had official government documents thinking I'm "Bill Loneley". :-( ) BLongley 15:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I'll approve Dirk's submissions to create variants. I don't have trouble with spelling as much as with pronunciation. It's annoying when people want to add an "on" to the end of my last name: Hutchinson. I suppose because it's more common. But I really don't mind having my name confused with a certain dead Australian rock star, as at least they're pronounced the same. Mhhutchins 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
"Michael Hutchence" I presume? I must admit I'd never made that connection before. (Coincidentally, I just offloaded most of last week's windfall of old cassettes to a friend, and she was happily playing INXS back to me this morning.) BLongley 21:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, if I seem a bit distant or unresponsive at the moment it's probably because I am. Life is a bit complicated and I'm going to have to let you, or our other mods, take care of things for a while as I get back to "normal", whatever that is. BLongley 21:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. There's been many times I've felt the urge to just get away. Old habits keep bringing me back. Mhhutchins 04:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover art credit found

I've found the same art used for the cover of this record on the artist's website (but differently tinted). See #10 in the book cover gallery. Mhhutchins 00:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And for this book, see #8. Mhhutchins 00:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And this one (again different colors). See #6. Mhhutchins 00:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all correctly matched. I wonder why King of Swords isn't shown? It isn't much less work-safe than Queen, and certainly more so than "The Final Program". BLongley 15:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right. There were a few more book covers of his that weren't included either. Guess he didn't care for the King. Mhhutchins 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think "The Final Program" is one of the worst covers I've ever seen. But I'm not here as an art critic. BLongley 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Number of The Beast (Heinlein 1980)

Hi, I have a copy of this pub you verified with a different cover. States "First NEL paperback publication, January 1980" as the record present in DB, no other useful publication information (except 'First published in GB in 1980 by NEL'), and its price is £1.50. A yellow band in the lower left corner of the cover says "The long-awaited new best seller from the grand master of SF". Your opinion ? --Pips55 21:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


I've accepted a submission to delete a record that was identical to your verified record except for the title. Someone had set up a variant title as Thought World and created a pub record under it. I held off from deleting the pub because both the British Library and OCLC give the title as two words. Looking at the cover, I can see why there might be confusion caused by the way it's titled (as Thought-World), but wonder why both sources would get the title wrong (unless both share the same source). Can you confirm that the title page of the book gives it as one word? Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I just saw the note in the title record and assume that you wrote it. I'm going to delete the variant title record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think I wrote the title note. We can always restore the variant if someone with the hardback edition can confirm the title page. BLongley 23:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bird of Time

Hi Bill, I've made The Bird of Time (NEL, 1988)'s publication month May 1988 per Locus1. --Dirk P Broer 17:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover art credit for Destiny Doll

I've just added the content records of this artbook where Lucinda Cowell is credited for the cover of this publication and her work is reproduced in all its gigantic glory (without text) in a double-page spread on pages 26 and 27. When you add the credit would you mind making this record into a variant. Or, just ask and I'll do both. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. BLongley 14:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Couple of questions

1. Why my deletion of five "essays" from here has been approved but they still stand?
2. The same question about this being variant of this?
3. Is there anything wrong with At the UN being linked as a variant title of Beyond the Global Village?
Waldstein 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Removing titles from a publication doesn't delete them. If they don't appear in any other publication, then they can be deleted.
2) Your submission was actually to make Message to Comsat a variant of Message to Mars in the same publication. BLongley 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
3) No problem with that, but your submission was actually to link it to 17. I think you used the author ID instead of the title ID. BLongley 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

BLongley 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let me try again then. Waldstein 17:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
All right, points 2 and 3 seem to be OK now, but I still don't get No. 1. For example, this piece appears in only one publication and it shouldn't be there. How do I make it disappear? Waldstein 17:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Use Remove Titles from this Pub. Once that's approved, the five titles will appear in no publication and can be deleted in five other steps. BLongley 17:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover artist identified

The artist for this cover is credited in the Ian Summers cover-art collection Tomorrow and Beyond as Vincent Di Fate. Mhhutchins 23:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A Dog Called Demolition - Rankin 1996

Could you please verify the cover of this pub ? My copy has the same cover of the Doubleday edition, but it is the Corgi one. The same for 'The number of the Beast - Heinlein' (6 posts before this one). Thanks --Pips55 01:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will check, but I already suspect it's been adjusted after I verified it. (One of the known problems with Amazon images, which is why I encourage people to add their own.) I know Robert Rankin now has far more control over his covers and usually provides a sculpture or suchlike to get himself the cover credit (and more royalties?) but I quite like some of the originals. Rankin was one of the earliest authors I worked on and probably needs a revisit for all titles I've verified. BLongley 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
No royalties to Rankin for this one: the cover I have is by Ian Murray, very similar (or the same, difficult to judge based on the low quality of its Amazon image) to the cover for the Doubleday hc edition. I am quite fond of Rankin, especially the Brentford Trilogy, and I am now in the process of checking my copies: I will let you know about the covers. Thanks --Pips55 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
New cover image uploaded, is that better? BLongley 02:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I have checked my Rankins: I have found only this cover link to Amazon broken. --Pips55 23:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll recheck them all, it's been nearly five years and Amazon may have screwed us over in the meantime. But not tonight. BLongley 02:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
All the old ones rechecked now, let me know if you spot any problems. BLongley 20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I haven't forgotten the question about 'The Number of the Beast', but as that's only a Primary Transient verification I can't be sure I've still got it - that's why I invented such, to avoid questions! :-) But in fact there is a good chance I've still got it somewhere in my boxes of duplicates. That might be the nudge I need to organise them a bit. BLongley 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Transient Brilliant ! Now I see ... Sorry for the nudge --Pips55 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Sometimes a nudge will inspire me to do something, when I'm at a loss for a new project. BLongley 02:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Jingo Pratchett 1998

Hi, could you please confirm the publication year of Jingo ? I have just submitted what I believe is the first printing (no number line), which is dated 1998. Thanks --Pips55 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Best SF of Isaac Asimov

Can you confirm that the title of Asimov's poem in this collection is "The Foundation of Science Fiction Success" as opposed to the more common title "The Foundation of S. F. Success"? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is, in Acknowledgements, ToC and on title page. I guess someone decided that Brits may not have understood "S. F." BLongley 02:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Farah Mendelsohn/Mandelsohn

In addition to Farah Mendlesohn, we have two other spellings of this name:

Since you have verified these pubs, could you please double check the spelling? TIA! Ahasuerus 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I know Farah, and the correct spelling is Mendlesohn. (Which of course doesn't tell us how Vector spelled it.) Her personal website is here, and I'll correct the one we have listed for her. Chavey 02:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
235 corrected, that was my error. I can't find 206 at the moment. BLongley 17:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I can help as my copy of Vector #206 is by miracle easily accessible, in this case the review is part of the "Particles" feature and thus not credited (at least in the magazine) to any contributor. The mention of Mendelsohn (so wrongly spelled) is refering to her review in Vector #201. Hauck 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This situation had already been brought to Bill's attention last August. Mhhutchins 18:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that explains why I couldn't find it in its proper place! I guess it does no harm to change it to uncredited, as most of the paragraph is. BLongley 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Asimov's "Foundation's Edge"

Please check cgi?268167 with your verified cgi?224593. They seem to be the same publication. Hauck is the other primary verifier. Thanks.--Teddybear 01:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Witches of Chiswick Rankin 2004

Hi, I have a copy of The Witches of Chiswick, Mass Market edition 2004, which could be the same you verified. I could not confirm the month and day of publication (they are not on Copyright page) and provides 1 Jan 2003 for the MME ... Should I clone or edit ? Thanks --Pips55 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The exact date comes from Amazon UK - not sure where you get the 2003 date from, that's the copyright date. BLongley 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Foundation and Earth Isaac Asimov 1987

Want to upload new cover image (with back cover) for this pub. BarDenis 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, any improvement is welcome. BLongley 20:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded. BarDenis 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

2004 Grafton printing

Can you confirm that the publisher given in this record is correct? I'd assumed that by 2004, HarperCollins had discontinued the Grafton imprint. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Award problem

I'm trying to add the 1952 and 1956 Astounding Polls to the collection of awards under Analog. I used the same awards (hence it's called "Analog All-Time Best Book" poll, instead of mentioning Astounding), and then I created a different category than was used in the later Analog awards. Following the directions on the AddAward Help Page, I listed these awards by level (i.e. not as wins or nominations), so as to get a "Poll" appearance. That didn't matter; the awards page re-classified the "Level 1" book as a "Win", and all of the lower levels as "Nominations". Nothing I do can seem to convince the award page that this is a poll, and should have the poll number listed. My guess is that because the other categories of the Analog awards are win/nominations, that this one is forced to abide by those constraints. Do you know if there's any way to get this category of the Analog award listed as a poll? Chavey 05:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's currently hardcoded to allow only two "awards" to be "polls" - "Asimov's Readers' Poll" and 'Locus Poll Award'. When Ahasuerus finds time to catch up on the software changes I'll look into making this Mod-Configurable, it shouldn't be too difficult. BLongley 14:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thinking it might be hard-coded, but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Chavey 14:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No, you're not missing anything. "Awards" is one of the most convoluted parts of the ISFDB and really needs some severe attention. The outstanding changes will allow for new Award Types, but when that's in then we need to look at Award Levels (also a mess of hard-coding) and then we can get into the really tricky stuff like awards given more than once in the same year. And eventually we'll get to awards to translators... there's still plenty of designing/coding ahead! BLongley 15:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Towers of Toron

Hi, Bill! Could you please check this verified pub for cover artist. If it's not credited, please have a look at this one. I think ther is enough similarity to conclude that the artist must be Russell Fitzgerald. Cheers, P-Brane 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

The City of the Sun

Hi, Bill! Could you please check the page count for this pub. I have 4 unnumbered pages at the beginning, this [4]+153. Cheers, P-Brane 03:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

Sphere in '69

Hi, Bill. Could you please have a look at these three [1] [2] [3] verified pubs. They all have "derived" ISBNs rather than catalogue numbers. Could you please convert them back to cat#'s. Cheers, P-Brane 03:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

I think they're fine as they are. There's no problem with deriving ISBNs so long as you note that it is derived, and in these cases the ISBN means some "Other Site" links work usefully. BLongley 12:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Amazon Cover Art Checker

In this discussion, you said you would like to see the script I generated. I used the "E-mail this user" function about a week ago to send you a note saying I was done and could email it. Turns out, my ISP was rejecting emails from ISFDB, so if you responded via "E-mail this user", I didn't get it. I've switched addresses to one that works.

If you never got the email, then you might want to comment at this discussion. If you still want the script, let me know. Otherwise, just ignore this. ;-)

By the way, did you ever see this question awhile back? If you haven't had a chance (or an interest) to look into it, no problem, but just wanted to double check in case you missed it.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I got the email, I just didn't get round to it for ages. Responded now. Re the "Contact" issue - I've not yet unpacked my anthologies so can't compare yet. BLongley 12:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Sent. Let me know if you have questions or problems. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Author credit for Enchantment

The change I tried to make at the title (not publication) level was to add Boris Vallejo as author, not just as cover artist b/c the book is by both of them... the cover at 237181 shows stories by Doris Vallejo, illustrations/art by Boris Vallejo, but MHutchins has placed my edit on hold till I get input from you since you've verified one of the 4 versions of the title. Could you answer? Thanks Ofearna 06:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Answered on that page. BLongley 11:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Illustrated Man

Hi, added price (£0.35) to this verified pub. Cheers, P-Brane 02:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Development - March 2012

Well, it's hard to believe, but my mega-uber-project is finally over. No more all nighters (hopefully!)

I am trying to catch up on my sleep and get my taxes out of the way and then I plan to attack the development backlog... Ahasuerus 05:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Taxes done, first change applied. Starting slow to get the rust out of the system... Ahasuerus 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nursery Rhyme Noir by David Kopaska-Merkel

David Kopaska-Merk wrote me that his book _Nursery Rhyme Noir_ is not the same as _Hasp Deadbolt, Private Eye_. They are listed as variant titles on his Summary Bibliography page: [4]

Here is the e-mail he sent me:

    You do have all my books listed. However, there's a mistake. _Nursery
    Rhyme Noir_ is not the same as _Hasp Deadbolt, Private Eye_. Instead,
    NRN incorporates all the stories in HDPI and _The Deadbolt Casebook_,
    plus a few more.

Not sure how to fix this.

Biswas 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No trouble - I just made NRN a variant of title 0, which removed the link. Note that "variant" doesn't mean "exactly the same", it's also used for slight differences in contents, as well as retitlings, serialisations and translations. But if they're sufficiently different we can leave them unlinked and just note that relationship. BLongley 16:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Expedition Venus by Hugh Walters

Can you check your copy of this publication to see whether "Faber Fanfares" is a publication series or imprint and not the publisher's name. There's a couple of pubs in the database that give this as a pub series and "Faber and Faber" as the publisher. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 17:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Publisher for Dr. Who books

In the process of reviewing publisher names, I am converting the publishers listed for many of your "Dr. Who" books from "W. H. Allen/Target" to "Target / W. H. Allen". This is in keeping with the current ISFDB standards on "Imprint / Publisher", which (I think) were established after you had done these verifications. The specific books are:

Chavey 07:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think they were already entered that way when I verified them, if I'd entered them from scratch they would all be just "Target" as I don't care whether Target was a W. H. Allen, Wyndham or Virgin imprint. BLongley 11:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that Chris J entered them, because he certainly had a lot of verifications of these. But all of the verifications were done back in 2007, and I suspect that the "Imprint / Publisher" standards weren't set then. With your (implicit) permission, I also just changed some "Virgin/Target" pubs of yours (and Chris's) to "Target / Virgin". Chavey 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
And a bunch of "Wyndham/Target" books. Chavey 13:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Broken Sword

Hi, added cover artist to this verified pub. Signature "Woodroffe 1973" is clearly visible in the bootom left quarter, next to runic inscription. Cheers, P-Brane 11:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

Frederik Pohl's New Scientist "Mars at the British Ass."

There are three verified publications of The Day the Martians Came. In two of them, the subject short story is given as New Scientist "Mars at the British Ass.' (no colon, double quote on one side & single quote on the other) and in the other as New Scientist: "Mars at the British Ass." (colon, both double quotes). I am curious as to whether this is a true variant or a stylistic difference in how it was entered. As each has been verified by multiple users, I will point all the active users to this discussion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

On my copy it's even a third one : New Scientist: 'Mars at the British Ass.' (colon + single quotes on both sides) (so data given is wrong on my verified pub). Note in fact that all double quotes are simple ones. Hauck 13:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The one I verified is incorrect. It should be New Scientist: "Mars at the British Ass." (with a colon and double quotation marks). It should be changed. And we don't make variants based on single or double quote marks, even though there may be some in the db. That's a typesetter's choice, not the author's. The British publishers seem to prefer the singles, while the Americans overwhelmingly use doubles. Mhhutchins 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
My copy is the same as Michael's, with a colon and double quotation marks. It's correct in the database. --Willem H. 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Variant Titles of Variant Titles

Look at the latest results of the script. There are many from Urania. Just wanted to point this out in case it was done automatically. Mhhutchins 16:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Guilty. Not done automatically, but as a naive user would do: e.g. "La baldracca di Argus" obviously matches "The Wanton of Argus" better than it does "The Space-Time Juggler". I don't think anybody is pushing for literal translations of variant titles to be allowed, so I'll look into how this can be improved - there is some automatic re-linking of variants during the make variant process, but obviously not enough. Or maybe it should just be a warning to the moderator. Leave them with me so I can download the latest backup tomorrow and have a play with the problem titles. BLongley 16:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the translations of variant titles are literal or not, the major problem with a variant of a variant is that it doesn't show up under the parent title record. For example: This Italian publication is not visible on the parent title record. Mhhutchins 16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the question would be whether to allow them and show variants of variants, or continue to disallow them but improve the make variant process. I think the latter is preferable. I've submitted some similar improvements where awards for a variant are not appearing on the canonical title, nor awards to the parent appearing on the variant title: in that case I think we can allow the awards to go to the variant, as there are awards like "best translation" that we will eventually want to capture. BLongley 13:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. All variants should point to one parent. Correcting the display only encourages the creation of variants of variants. (I wish someone could turn off the display of publications of translated titles unless the user chooses to click on the link and see them. Having them all displayed really clutters a page and makes it harder to find titles that have been merged incorrectly. But that's another problem.) And I'd have to take your word about awards, as I have no current interest in them. Mhhutchins 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly possible to apply a user's language preferences to each title display, rather than just on the main page: and also to allow people to choose to over-ride that on a case-by case basis. I'm not sure how high a priority it is, but I am sure that the need can only increase as we get more and more languages covered. Only today I was looking at some titles and thinking they were over-cluttered with serialisations, let alone translations: and serialised translations make things even worse. I'm reluctant to dump more software improvements on Ahasuerus before he has the chance to catch up on the outstanding ones, but where a small change has a big benefit, I think it would be OK to submit them even if some changes that have been waiting for months get put back down a bit. I suspect the outstanding Awards improvements are low priority for instance, only Darrah or I are likely to use them. BLongley 18:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(Unindent) I've fixed the problems I caused now, I have examples of the problem downloaded to work with. BLongley 19:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Achilleos or Craddock

Hello. Regarding our jointly verified pub here, Tomlinson gives Achilleos as artist but the same cover (with "A" in a triangle) is credited to Craddock here. A quick search seems to indicate that this signature is indeed Craddock's, see for example here. What do you think ? Hauck 16:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I can live with the change - I don't even recall who Tomlinson is/was. And I don't recall Chris using a triangle, only a circle. BLongley 19:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. BTW Tomlinson is the main Harrison bibliographer. Hauck 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Delany's Tales of Nevèrÿon

I uploaded a cover image and added notes to this record, and changed the credit of the appendix to "S. L. Kermit" (a Delany pseudonym). The records for later editions of this had already credited Kermit for this appendix as well so I merged this one's title record with the other one. Mhhutchins 13:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Slaves of the Mastery" and "The Wind Singer", by William Nicholson

We have 6 different publishers listed using some variation of Egmont in their name. One of those publishers is just "Egmont". It seems to me that there would be value, from a disambiguation standpoint, to have that publisher be listed more explicitly. That publisher consists of two books (the ones listed above), here and here, both of which are verified by you. Looking at those books on Amazon, they are listed with a "publisher" of "Mammoth", which would imply that the proper listing might be "Mammoth / Egmont Books Ltd", one of the other six, or possibly just "Egmont Books Ltd", another of the six. In any case, I was hoping you could look at those books and contemplate whether either of these suggestions was appropriate. Chavey 05:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no "Mammoth" on either of them, and spine and title page just say "Egmont". I wouldn't be too unhappy if they changed to "Egmont Books Ltd" though. BLongley 12:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I did that. I wonder where Amazon got "Mammoth" from? Well, another example where we can't really trust Amazon; not that we really needed more examples of that. Chavey 14:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Amazon almost certainly got it from the first printing, if the ISBN doesn't change they won't change an imprint/publisher. My "Egmont" books do mention a "Mammoth / Egmont Children's Books Ltd" first printing for one and "Egmont Books Ltd" for the other - but I've learnt not to trust Imprint information from later printings too much. BLongley 12:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Geo. Woodman

FYI, Geo. Woodman has been turned into a pseudonym of George Woodman, which affected your verified The Time Machine and The Man Who Could Work Miracles. Ahasuerus 05:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Destination Void (Revised)

Seem to have [1] , [2] records for the 18th printing, both verified by you! Seems I've done that at times, too. ;-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 20:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Caves of Fury"

This submission would turn Andy Sawyer's review of Stephen Thraves's "Caves of Fury" into a VT of the novel. Was it a mis-click? Ahasuerus 16:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should indeed be a Link Review instead. BLongley

The World of Null-A

Hello, can you have a look at your copy of this pub as I also have a first Sphere printing but with a different cover here. Hauck 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of the Silent Planet

Hi, Bill! Have added cover artist to two verified pubs: this and this. Signature [Geo. Woodman] is clearly visible. Cheers, P-Brane 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Voyage to Venus

Added cover artist to this verified pub. Signature [Carl Wilton] is clearly visible. Cheers, P-Brane 03:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Artist credit for NEL ed. of The Man Who Sold the Moon

The art for this edition was also used for Galassia #220 which is credited to Bruce Pennington according to the Italian database. Mhhutchins 21:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Phillips -> Phillipps

Hi, Bill! Corrected artist's last name enterend from signature for two verified pubs: this and this. Cheers, P-Brane 05:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ninth Galaxy Reader

Hi, Bill. Added cover artist (from visible signature) to this verified pub. Cheers, P-Brane 05:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

Corgi Belgariad covers

Seems each of the five were done by Geoff Taylor. He finally was given credit in the 2001 re-issues and a new editor has uploaded images for 27th-30th printings and noted the credit for Taylor as well. I did not update any of the records. Since you have all five books thought you might do the deed for the printings you have? Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I found further proof on the artist's website. --Willem H. 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Galaxies Like Grains of Sand

Hi, the cover shown here is not a Di Fate cover and not the right cover for the 1985 edition. I've uploaded the 1985 cover here. Horzel 09:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Guardians of Time

Hi, Bill. Added cover artist from the signature to this verified pub. Cheers, P-Brane 02:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC).

The Monster from Earth's End

Tuck has a price for [this] and both Tuck and OCLC give a catalogue number [though not quite the same one]. Added this to the notes only until you could check your copy. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 16:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Free Book!

I would love to review your beginners guide (ISFDB for dummies?). If it's available as e-book, please mail me a copy. --Willem H. 13:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still in a Draft on Microsoft Word 2000, will that do? BLongley 13:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
That would be perfect. I use Word 2002. --Willem H. 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, sent. Don't be afraid to be harsh in commenting, I'm trying to recall what info I could have usefully had when I started 5 years ago so I may be pitching the level too high or low. Try and put yourself back into "beginner" mindset. Thanks for reviewing! BLongley 14:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Received and did a quick reading. It's easy to read/understand for an experienced user (a.k.a. me). I'll send a copy to a friend who only uses the database to search for information, and has not logged in yet, and see what he has to say. I noticed the booklet only explains the home page, I would suggest adding the "Other Bibliographies For This Author" on the author summary bibliography page, and the "Other Sites" on the publication listing page. And maybe something like "what are the extra's when I do log in" (things like user preferences, editing possibilities etc.) All in all a nice piece of work on first sight. Thanks! --Willem H. 15:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm hoping for some fairly (or totally) inexperienced user's feedback too or it could be useless. And thanks for the other suggestions - I'd already identified "Other Bibliographies For This Author" as a little used feature, I think Swfritter had been here several years before noticing the Chronological option! As for "what are the extras if/when I do log in" - well, I'm thinking of using that as a lead-in to book 2. (Although I'm more into book 3, "my tips for moderators" at the moment - it's easiest to write this stuff as you're doing it, and I'm not submitting much new stuff at present, just moderating it.) But I will try and get this to publishable status first. BTW, I think you're now first candidate for "translation rights". ;-) BLongley 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The alphabetical option was a big help for me when I was linking my database to the ISFDB. Some titles from authors who do a lot of series (Anthony, Moorcock, Vance) are hard to find otherwise. Mmm, translation rights, only for the Dutch edition I hope, my Frisian, Klingon and Esperanto are not that good. --Willem H. 17:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm also interested. Hauck 17:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Me three! Although I use Open Document, it should be no problem to read it. Stonecreek 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Where should I send it? BLongley 23:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Add me to the list of commentators/reviewers. My email is on my talk page. Thanks Kevin 03:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a MAC and have no idea what form that would require. Adobe?? Is there lots of pictures? I like diagrams, less glazing over of the brain that way. Like Willem, I like/use the alphabetical option the most but with that all the Variants disappear. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll try RTF first, if not I'll look into a PDF converter. Yes, there are pictures, and I intend to add lots more before releasing it on the rest of the world. It's the general lack of pictures in our current help that helped persuade me to try this. BLongley 12:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
RTF appears too big: "Message size exceeds fixed maximum message size: 15728640 bytes". I'll try and create a PDF version (probably of version 0.2, when I've absorbed the first feedback). BLongley 12:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools