User talk:Bluesman/Archive/2008

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Bluesman/Archive/2008, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!Kraang 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

guess I should have addressed this first instead of last! rookies.....! me, not you. took me the better part of an hour just to figure out how to respond to the comments/questions/smack him before it's too late/helpful hints. Thank you all for your patience. It is appreciated. Like one of your moderators, I am anal about data, but am not much with computers... my first experience with them was when they still used punch cards! I have a very large SF collection, and can contribute lots of information, and with the help listed below can do so without quite as many "re-writes" from now on. I must comment that while you may find your "help" pages crystal clear, I do not, but then I find most instruction manuals to come across like Japanese. I'll get better.This is an awesome site, and I turn as many collectors/vendors on to it as I can.--Bluesman 16:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
We know that our help pages are not as good as they should be. Please let us know where they were/are particualrly unhelpful, and what the problem was, and soemone will (probably) try to improve things. There is a lot of info to convey.
By the way, what led you to the wiki, and what made it hard to find until now? How could we make it easier to find? -DES Talk 17:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
just clicked onto "rejected edits" one day after finding one that had been posted and others not; I think the easiest way to bring anyone's attention to the wiki ( what is a "wiki"... a miniature wookie?) would be to have a note that flashes at log-in saying "you have new messages, please go to..." and just put the URL for the individual's talk page.--Bluesman 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Yes, that has been on the "to do" list for over a year. It is apparently not as simple as you might think. (See ISFDB Feature List and Feature:90094 Talk alert on ISFDB.)
A wiki is software that allows communal editing of text pages online in a quick and collaberative way. The anme, i understand, comes from a Hawian word meaning quick. Probably the largest wiki in existance is Wikipedia -- we use the same sfoteare (MediaWiki) but are much smaller. The ISFDB consists of two parts: the database proper (which is written on an open-source basis by Al Von Ruff, our founder) and the wiki. The database is used for storing the actual records of SF publications, titles, authors, series, etc. The Wiki is used for storing help pages, author bios, bibliographic note pages, discussion pages (such as this one), and other free-form text pages. If a page's URL starts with "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/" then it is part of the wiki. There are various links from database display pages to the wiki (such as links for author bios and bibliographic notes), and from wiki pages to the database. See Help:Contents/Purpose for more information about the ISFDB wiki and how it is used. -DES Talk 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Pioneer

I've approved your edit, but even when I adjusted the "-x" to -X" at the end of the ISBN it still shows up as having a bad checksum. (Which doesn't necessarily mean it's the LAST digit that's bad.} Those were early days for (I)SBNs though, so maybe there is another reference number on the title that could be used usefully instead? You don't HAVE to enter an ISBN, any recognisable serial number will do - we usually put a "#" in front of such to make sure we don't trigger the big red warning though. Thanks for editing! (Particularly obscure titles that I must now go and buy...) BLongley 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am at a loss on this one; the link goes to Space Pioneer but there is no evidence of an ISBN and being a '66 pub wouldn't have one. I can't remember doing an edit on this and don't even have the book????--Bluesman 16:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Ron Goulart edits

I understand the intentions, but when we have a real, honest-to-goodness ISBN in the field it makes those links on the left-hand-side work. So other references have to stay in notes, as DAW serial numbers and Collector Book numbers don't get their own fields. (As they obviously won't apply to any publisher but DAW). I see you want to adjust a couple of publications I don't own: I can't speak for those obviously, but it's currently considered good practice to ask the Verifier before adjusting verified pubs. I don't think you've actually discovered the Wiki Side yet, so I'll reject one of those with directions to here - hope to see you talking to us soon! BLongley 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A Whiff of Madness

Your proposed edit would create a duplicate with no apparent difference. Since the catalog number you cite is present in this verified pub record, no extra info is gained from your record. it is possible that there was a printing without the ISBN, and a later printing that added it but did not change the price or cover, and did not add a printing number, but that seems unlikely. In any case, when you have a question about a verified pub you can leave a msg on the talk page of the verifier -- in this case two different editors have both verified, and you can ask either. i am going to reject this with a note to look at this page. -DES Talk 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

my copy is a first printing, with the spine info as indicated in the notes; not sure how one "extrapolates" an ISBN from that data??? if using a spine # such as this one, does it go in the ISBN/CATALOG line as is, or with the # sign in front?--Bluesman 15:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It is known that DAW had certain ISBN ranges, and that "Order #s Ux1001 to Ux1999 map directly to/from ISBNs 0-87997-001-x to 0-87997-999-x (with the final x being the ISBN checksum)". See Publisher:DAW for lots more detail on this and other matters. If a book does not have an ISBN, enter whatever catalog number or spine number it does have (if any) with a # in front, please. If there is both an ISBN and a catalog or other number, enter the ISBN in the field, and the other number in the notes. If there are two catalog numbers and no ISBN (DAW sometimes had both an "order number, typically starting with U and another letter, and a "DAW Book Collectors number") choose one number to enter into the field with a # in front, put the other into the notes, and indicate which came from where in the notes, please.
Given all that, does your copy differ from this record? If so, how? -DES Talk 17:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
no difference--Bluesman 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, both amazon.com and ISBNdb.com show this book, with the same cover, as having the ISBN listed on the existign record, for what that is worth. -DES Talk 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

White Jade Fox and ISBNs

Please do not put more than a single code into the ISBN/Catalog number field. If a valid ISBN is available, please use that, and put any other codes into the notes field. If an ISBN is not available, please use whatever code seems to be the most important, preceded by the character # (to let the software know that the code is not an ISBN). If there are multiple codes, please put the others into the notes. I modified your submission, please check the result and modify it if it is not correct. Thank you. -DES Talk 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord Tyger

The proved ISBN is an invalid number. Some of these early pre-ISBN # don't always convert into a proper ISBN. For this publication it would be best to change it over to the original Signet cat# Q----. Thanks.Kraang 03:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Page counts

I approved your submission of Superluminal but I then made a change to the page count. Page counts should not be separated out for continuous sequences. Specifically, page counts for appendices, afterwords, and the like, should note be separated out unless the page numbers start over. Pages with roman numbers should be separated out, as "vii + 475". In some omnibuses, particularly Ace Doubles, the novels each have their own set of page numbers, so that there may be two different page 30s, for example. In this case the page count should be shown as "188 + 234". If in such a case there are also roman numbered pages, we might have "xii + 188 + 234", but that is rare.

To indicate where appendices, afterwords, bonus stories, or other contents fall when bound with a novel, edit the publication after it has been approved, and click "Add title" Then enter afterwords, appendices and the like by their titles, with a type of "essay" and the proper author (or unknown). "Bonus" stories (a single story bound with a novel, sometimes a sequel or prequel, sometimes not) can be entered in the same way, but with a type of "shortfiction". In such cases, after the additions have been approved, check if the essay or story had other publications, and merge the title records if there are other publications of the same text. -DES Talk 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy/The Janus Equation

I've put your submission on hold as it'll take a bit of juggling to get this one right. The issues are

  • The author is Joan D. Vinge/James Spruill - when there is more than one author you should use the [add author] button.
  • The ISBN is Binary Star #4/0-440-10821-7 - 0-440-10821-7 looks ok but what's with Binary Star #4?
  • You added this as a NOVEL to the Legacy title - Technically this one is probably an "anthology" that would get a new title. We'd handle this much like an Ace double though it appears with this one both stories are right-side-up rather than flipping it over. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is fixed and here is what it looks like. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
but now it lists the authors as editors... never seen that for any of the Ace doubles???--Bluesman 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not an ACE double. :-/ I've restarted the discussion here. Feel free to join in the discussions, it's not a "Mods-only" discussion. We had consensus on ACE Doubles at one point but not necessarily DELL ones. Note that "spaces around the slash or not" is one of the trivial things we can disagree about for ages. :-/BLongley 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Now it appears to be this pub entered in a different manner. There's several "Binary Star" books, and this one may be another mis-entry. BLongley 08:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Harp, Pipe, and Symphony

You have submitted two separate pubs which have the artist listed as "Sir Edward Burne-Jones: 'The Beguiling Of Merlin'". This field should contain nothing but the artist's name. If the data in quote marks is the title of the piece of artwork the more appropriate location for it is the notes field of the pub. If that sounds OK I will then approve it and make the appropriate changes.--swfritter 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, the data is the title of the piece, and in future I will place that in notes--Bluesman 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Made the change so you can now make any further changes. Thanks!--swfritter 16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Also this one.--swfritter 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Plumage From Pegasus

Once again there is something more than the artist's name - in this case "(designer)" - the only appropriate place for this information is the note's field. I will approve and make the change if that sounds correct.--swfritter 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Made the changes I suggested.--swfritter 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Destiny's Orbit

The author's name only, I assume Grinnell, as it appears on the book should be in this field. It will require another step to indicate that Grinnell is a pseudonym of Wollheim. Also, where did you get the information for the cover artist's name? Credit by editor or artist's signature? Is Ed Emshwiller credited as the artist or is it Emsh?--swfritter 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

information was taken from the inside front flap of the dj, which says "Jacket design by Ed Emshwiller" --Bluesman 15:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Since this was an automerge the pseudonym information was already taken care of. Your change with Wollheim's name in parenthesis changed the author attribution to what was in the field. I removed the part in parenthesis and it is now correct. Thanks.--swfritter 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Players by Paul McAuley

You tried to submit a single record for the hardcover (hc) and trade paper (tp) publications of this novel. POlese don't do that. Insted submit them as two separate publications. It may be easier to submit one, wait for it to ba approved, and then use "add a publication" or "Clone this publication". That will ensure that the publications are linked to the same title record. Otherwise someone will need to do a manual merge.

Also, your note indicated uncertianty if these were Specualtive fiction or not. If they are not, you can change the title to type "Nongenre" and the display will be modified appropriately.

I created two publications from your data, see the results here. I then rejected your original submission.

Thanks for your contributions. -DES Talk 22:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

duly noted! --Bluesman 16:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ISBN / Catalog # field

If the publication you're creating or updating does not have an ISBN, please place a pound sign (#) before the catalog number. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Entering pubs under the correct title if a variant exists

I rejected your submission adding a pub to this title record because it should have been added under the variant title record (by Leo Brett). Because this book was written by Fanthorpe but published as by "Brett" there exists two title records. We have to make sure that the pub is assigned to the correct title record, if at any time in the future (or if there already exists) a publication under Fanthorpe's name. I went ahead and created a new submission, placing the pub under the "Brett" record. BTW I also changed the catalog number from "SN74" to "#SN74" (see the message above.) Thanks. MHHutchins 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just did a load of these and fixed the record myself. It would appear this editor is getting the info from the web but up to now has not found the Wiki. I was working on Fanthorpe awhile back and will return in the future, any cleanup I'll do then.Kraang 02:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Kraang! I've rejected three more submissions with the same problem. Maybe some day in the near future Bluesman will find his way to the page. In the meantime... MHHutchins 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have found my way!!! Way overdue, as I can tell by all the "fan mail". Think I get the variant title aspect; thankfully there aren't 100 like Fanthorpe out there.--Bluesman 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
If he's getting it from the web, he's missing the Badger Covers gallery where you can easily find the price. Still, he found one Fanthorpe I'd missed. BLongley
cool gallery! and even a blind old pig finds an acorn once in a while.--Bluesman 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I just rejected your submission for Nightmare because although you recorded the author as Leo Brett, your edit would have attached it to the title record for the R. L. Fanthorpe varient instead of the Brett varient. When a work is published under a pesudonym, you cant simply find a listing for the work under the author's cannonical name and click "add a publication" -- doing that will mess up the records of how the book (or story) was actually publsihed. Insted you must either find the title record of the book under the pesudonym, and add the publication to that record, or create a compeltely new publiaction (using the "New novel" feature) under the pesudonym, and later connect it to the correct author's name (see Help:How to record a variant title). If handling the varient title seems too trickly at this point, jsut leave a note in the notes section of the new pub of what the real author's name is, and post a note at the Help desk and someone will be glad to help you out. -DES Talk 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC) In this case, i created the proper publication using the data you supplied. -DES Talk 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Help:How to enter works published under a pseudonym. -DES Talk 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcadia House catalog #

Your submission to update this pub gives the ISBN/Catalog # as "2". It's obviously not an ISBN, and it's hard to believe a hardcover publisher would have such a catalog number. If you have the book, how does this number appear within the book? If not, what is the source of your information? Thanks. MHHutchins 03:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As there's been no response, I will reject the submission. If you believe this is in error, please make a submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen these numbers mentioned in regards to Arcadia House's publications. One explanation was a month of issue which I added to notes when I submitted this placeholder[1]. Bluesman updated the pub with the other explanation. I've been excepting his updates in regard to the number with the idea that it adds data and if the number is figured out it can be put to proper use. So far no two pubs have the same number. If you look at the publishers page and the last two years for Arcadia you'll see what I mean.Kraang 23:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what the number means, it's not an ISBN. If anything, it should be placed in the notes with an explanation of where it's located and a guess as to its meaning. I found an abebooks.com dealer who says this pub is its 11th printing! Pretty popular book for a second-rate publishing house paying flat fees for novels by hack writers destined for libraries. Am I being uncharitable? F'em if they can't take a joke. Wait a sec, they're no longer around! (Giggling as he stumbles down the information highway) MHHutchins 04:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
first, my apologies to all the moderators for not checking how my rookie attempts at editing were being "accepted"; I have read ALL my messages and stand duly chastised and will try to get better at this. As to the Arcadia House issue: on the copyright page directly below the "COPYRIGHT 1968, BY ARCADIA HOUSE", in the center of the page is the lone number 2, no other marks before, after, under. I have 12 of these, all with that single number in the same place (though some have a two-digit number).Two of the editions I have: EXILED IN SPACE, by PEL TORRO and CRIMSON PLANET by JOHN E. MULLER both have the number 9, but were published in different years ('68 & '66). I agree that thinking they are printing #'s is most unlikely; also the month of publication seems a stretch. A catalog # is all that's left?--Bluesman 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
A catalog number should give a unique title, so I don't think it's that. (We have two Arcadia House #6 as well.) What are the two-digit numbers? I see we have a #11, if the other is no higher than 12 then month-number looks more likely. But I think the numbers should move to notes if they're not a unique identifier even within publisher. BLongley 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
nothing higher than 12, but then I only have twelve 'samples', not statistically large; any Arcadia House yearly listings as to publications don't seem to list more than half a dozen/year, so how do you tell?--Bluesman 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of us have been daft enough to buy these, so your 'samples' are probably all we have to work with! ;-) For now, I've just started this publisher page Publisher:Arcadia House to record the questions on. I believe you had a "9r" on "Crimson Planet"? That would be worth noting too - just because we say the field is for ISBN or for Catalog ID doesn't mean we don't want letters recorded too. BLongley 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
daft, isn't that a peculiarly british affliction???? :-) Bought the 12 as a set for $9, all in near-fine condition. CRIMSON PLANET just has a 9, no additional letter. Would posting all 12 with these scurrilous #s on the new page help?--Bluesman 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Title page vs. cover

When adding Last Orders you included the question "COVER: Brian Aldiss, Last Orders TITLE PAGE: Brian W. Aldiss, Last Orders & Other Stories Which do you pick when adding a publication???"

We go by what's on the title page but when they don't match I also add a note explaining what's where as often the note help explain why you'll see the same book listed under two different titles and/or authors.

One question, is the title of your copy Last Orders & Other Stories or Last Orders and Other Stories. I assumed "&" and fixed up the publication. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

wrong assumption and that's my fault; title is "Last Orders and.."; I am pretty much a two-finger typist and nearly always substitute "&" for "and"... I will be more "literal" in the future--Bluesman 15:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your submission for "The Saliva Tree"

We already have this book on record, see Born With the Dead / The Saliva Tree. Note that we recorded this as an anthology, rather than an omnibus, because neither item was of novel length. That is somethign of a judgement call, however.

Note also that for a "double" our standard is to put both works in the title, separated by a slash.

Note particularly that only the ISBN should go in the ISBN field, something like "TOR DOUBLE #3" should go in the notes field.

Note also that if entering an omnibus, the separatate titles of the items included should be listed in the "content" section, below the metadata, so that proper links to othe publications of those works can be created. The same rule applies to an anthology or collection.

I am rejecting this submission because it appears to be a duplicate of an entry already on file, with no significant new information. Thank you for your contributions. -DES Talk 01:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note also that what we REALLY do with doubles is a bit vague, so I've restarted the discussion here. Apologies for the inconsistent help so far, we ARE working to improve it. Feel free to join in the discussions, it's not a "Mods-only" discussion. BLongley 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, note also that all the above advice is currently correct by some help: Anthology versus Omnibus based on length of contents is arguable (and no doubt will be, we had Consensus on ACE Doubles at one point but not necessarily TOR ones): and "separated by a slash" might really mean separated by "space, slash, space". BLongley 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting publications

I saw your note about thousands of duplicates. It's not been a priority to track down and to determine which publications are duplicates. You may want to start/join one of the Bibliographic Projects in Progress. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oceanspace

I've approved the addition of Oceanspace but changed the ISBN field you had entered from "06574 (& same ISBN as publisher's edition)" to #06574 and transferred the rest of the comment to the note field. Could you please update the publication and fill in the ISBN and where it's located in the publication? Thanks. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

have adjusted as suggested and re-submitted. --Bluesman 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Darwin's Radio

Alvonruff had verified Darwin's Radio and you have submitted a change for

  • Catalog # from #02066 to #03066
  • Note:
    SFBC #02066. No price and ISBN.
    SFBC #03066. ISBN same as publisher's edition.

I suspect the catalog # change is correct but am puzzled by that Al could not find an ISBN and you say that it's the same as the publisher's edition. Where is the ISBN located? Marc Kupper (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Al dug up his copy and I approved this update. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Catalog #s

I approved but then edited your last two submissions that had catalog #s of 7881 and 1678 to instead use #7881 and #1678. We use the leading # to flag that this is not an ISBN per Template:PublicationFields:ISBN. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the same change on your submission of Tucker's The Time Masters. -DES Talk 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

John Barnes' The Century Next Door

You submitted an update to this pub, changing the month of publication from April to March. Locus gives the month as April. Where did your information come from? MHHutchins 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

from the copyright page, which lists the publishing history for the three novels included in the SFBC omnibus and then "First SFBC Science Fiction Printing: March 2000".I realize that sometimes the date an edition is released to the public may not be the same as the printing date, from reading some of the comments on my talk page, and will not edit in that manner again. Brings up a question: several very old PBs will list a publishing and a printing date, can I assume only the publishing date should be used? That kind of presents a problem with later printings where an ISBN or cover price has changed but the only data is a printing date?--Bluesman 16:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
If both are present, use the date of publication. This is not always the same as the release date, but usually is. If a printing date is present, use that. If there is any possible question, include a note indicating what source you used and what it said. If there is only a copyright date, a publication should probably be dated "0000-00-00" (which means "unknown") unless there is some clear indication that this is a first edition, or unless there is soem other source, like Locus, that indicates the publication or releaase date. See Help:Screen:EditPub#Year for more details. -DES Talk 16:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Across the Sea of Suns

What is your source for a date of 1983-04-00 for a Simon & Schuster pub of Across the Sea of Suns? All of our previous data, including Locus, OCLC Fiction Finder, and award nominations (for 1985) show the initial publication in 1984. I have this on hold. -DES Talk 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

on the copyright page of the PB the printing history is shown, and it says "Simon & Schuster edition published April 1983" then "Bantam edition / August 1987".--Bluesman 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Approved; Title record date altered to match; note added to pub record. The results are here, please check that they are correct. Thanks. -DES Talk 16:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This pub doesn't exist. The printing history published in the Bantam pb must be incorrect. I have a verified copy of Timescape's first edition which has a 1984 copyright with a number line indicating a first printing. Simon & Schuster distributed Timescape's hardcover editions so that may have caused part of the confusion. But the April 1983 publication is most definitely wrong. Look at the list of reviews and it's clear it was first published in 1984. I'll leave the pub in the database until you get a chance to look at it. Then I'll delete. Thanks and congratulations on finding the wiki. Was there any specific thing that led you to these pages? This happens so often that I wonder if there's a better way to notify new editors of this adjunct to the database. Again, thanks for your contributions. MHHutchins 02:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"many hands make muddy waters"; the Simon Schuster date may have been a contractual date? If you have the verified first then by all means that info should be considered correct; for me "book-in-hand" is foremost. The finding of the talk page was accidental, really; finding the little teeny 'log-in' icon at the top of the page took a while (on a laptop it would be almost invisible), perhaps it should be in the 'toolbox'? Since one has to log in to edit, that might be the best place for a 'new message' note and link to this page.--Bluesman 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it sounds. We have direct control over the core ISFDB software, which was written (and is supported) by the database administrator, Al von Ruff, but the Talk pages and everything else in this Wiki is standard "off the shelf" software. Although the Wiki software is customizable -- for example, we have configured it to use the ISFDB logo and installed some extensions -- it's not easy to link it to the main ISFDB database. There are many things we would like to do to integrate the two, including displaying a "You have new messages on your Talk page!" message on the ISFDB side whenever an editor has new messages on the Wiki side, but it's easier said than done... Ahasuerus 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Saturn Game / Iceborn

I approved the update for The Saturn Game / Iceborn but then changed the cover-artist you had added from "Mark Maxwell (for ICEBORN half only)" to "Mark Maxwell" and then added a publication note. When you did seems like a logical thing in itself but it would create a new author named "Mark Maxwell (for ICEBORN half only)" rather than updating Mark Maxwell's bibliography.

Could you please update the publication record to explain what's up with the The Saturn Game half? I'm assuming the artist is not credited. Also, please add the same note to the cover's title record. Thank you. Marc Kupper (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Purloined Planet / The Evil That Men Do

I have approved this submission, but made several changes to it. The result is here. I want to call several items to your attention.

  • When you enter a catalog number that is not an ISBN, please put a # in front of it. This indicates to the software that this is not an ISBN, so that the ISBN parser is not called.
  • When you use a slash to separate two titles in the name of an omnibus, or to separate a publisher and imprint name, treat the two sides in the same way. Either have a space on each side of the slash ("Name1 / Name2") or on neither ("Name1/Name2"). Do not, as you did here, have a space after but not before ("Name1/ Name2").
  • When there is more than one author, do not enter both names on the same line separated by a slash. Instead click the "Add author" button, and use one line for each credited author.
  • For an omnibus, all included titles should have an entry in the content section. When creating a new omnibus, this will require a two step procedure, once to create the publication, and after it is approved, to add content to it.

I hope this is helpful to you. -DES Talk 20:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthur C Clarke's July 20, 2019

I approved this, but then made some changes.

  • When there is more than one artist (or author) do not enter them as "Mike and Carol Werner". Insted use the "Add artist" (or "Add author") button to display an additonal line, and enter each artist separately.
  • Do not enter pages as "276 + index" but rather as "281", counting the index pages manually if they are unnumbered. See Help:Screen:EditPub for more on this.

The results of my changes are here. Please check and make any needed corections, and verify the work if all is correct. Thank you. -DES Talk 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

'verify the work'? I thought the moderators did that?--Bluesman 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
No. When an editor, any editor, finds that a publication record correctly and fully matches a book in hand (or another verification source) s/he may record that fact by using the "Verify this pub" link in the "Editing tools" section of the navigation bar on the left of the page. This indicates that the publication record has been checked against the actual publication (called primary verification), or against a specified secondary source (called secondary verification) by a specified editor, on a specified date & time. See Help:How to verify data for more detail.
What moderators do is to approve edits (changes to the database). In doing this they first look for things that are obviously incorrect or in the wrong format. Often they compare submissions against records already in the database, or other sources. When they find problems, they usually leave notes for the submitting editor, such as the notes now found on this page. They may reject edits, but generally we prefer to avoid rejection when possible. They may approve and then re-edit. A moderator approving an edit tries to make sure that it is not known to be wrong, but cannot verify that it is accurate (unless the mod happens to have a copy of the same pub, and checks it). -DES Talk 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Shatterday

In Shatterday you have 1966 as the catalog ID. Is that correct, if so it needs a # in front. Dana Carson 08:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The City on the Edge of Forever

  • In submitting this you gave the cover artist as "cover photo is a "still" from the TV set". Please only put an actual artist's name into this field. If no name is known, please leave the field blank and put such comments as this into the notes field.
  • You gave the binding code as "te". The binding for trade paperbackm, which is what this was, according to ISBNdb.com, is "tp".
  • You made the comment "This belongs under the STAR TREK section, just not sure how to put it there...". Once the publication was approved, i edited the title record, and put the series name in the series field. (note that the series name must match exactly the name already being used, unless you want to start a new series). It is now in Star Trek: The Original Series.
  • You also submitted a second, duplicate, edit. I rejected that edit.

I hope these notes are helpful, if you ever find the ISFDB wiki, Mr Bluesman. -DES Talk 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

all noted! second edit was mistaken double-click.... no way to undo that from my end. "te" vs "tp", will enter using the "tp" from now on; it's confusing as some British use the "tp" for mass-market editions, and I spend a lot of time on AbeBooks UK; brings up a question: what does "ph" stand for? Came across that for the first time just yesterday when I was cataloging Howard V. Hendrix??
If you make an edit in error, with an unwanted click -- It happens to all of us -- you can post on the Moderator noticeboard and let a moderator know what has happend, and it will be taken care of.
thanks, and for the info below, too!--Bluesman 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
"ph" is the rarely used "Pamphlet" format. I had to look it up myself. See Help:Screen:EditPub#PubFormat for our standard binding codes. -DES Talk 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Expendable and SFBC editions

Prior to the year 2000, the SFBC did not, as far as is known, use ISBNs on their publications. Thus I am going to reject your edit adding an ISBN to the SFBC pub of Expendable. But I will add the cover artist from your submitted data. Thanks.-DES Talk 17:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The SFBC used to "white out" the ISBN/Bar Code but seem to have stopped doing that. I find the newer ones just leave it and add their number in the vicinity; isn't it just their own publications that have a separate ISBN?--Bluesman 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The info we had was that they didn't include ISBNs until 2000. If you have a physical SFBC pub with an ISBN and a publication date of 1997, this is news worth knowing. Of course, the SFBC usually doesn't include publication dates either, only copyright dates. Is it possible that your copy is a later printing? Does it have a "gutter code" -- a letter and two digits printed vertically near the fold on one of the last few pages of the book? See Gutter code for more details, and see Publisher:Science Fiction Book Club for more of what we know (or think we know) about the SFBC. Please let us know exactly what is in (and not in) your copy. -DES Talk 17:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
there is no 'gutter code' in my copy, but I haven't seen one in any SFBC editions past about '95, when they started to give different printings a new number, also when they dropped the 'Book Club Edition" from the front inside flap; the old editions kept the same # and put different 'gutter codes'; there is no publication date in this edition, just the copyright dates for the two separate editions, indicating it is later than the first US editions; not sure why I would even have put a publication date...? I am referring to the Hamilton book (see below), not the Gardner. The Gardner SFBC copy has an ISBN on the copyright page. I purchased this book directly from the SFBC in '99. And I just noticed that the credited artist on the copyright page is Gregory Bridges yet the dust jacket credits Luis Royo......????--Bluesman 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If the current pub records are incorrect feel free to correct them. If they are correct but unverified, and you ahve the boooks in question and have checked the record (or corrected it), feel free to mark them as verified. If there is a conflict (such as one artist listed on the copyright page, but a different one on the dj) do please mention the conflict in the publication notes field. -DES Talk 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, for books that DO have both an ISBN and a catalog number, please enter ONLY the ISBN in the ISBN field, entering the catalog number in the notes field. If there is no ISBN, please enter the catalog number in the the ISBN field, with a # before it to indicate that it is not an ISBN. Thank you. -DES Talk 17:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In related news, I have approved the addition of the 2007 SFBC reprint of Peter F. Hamilton's The Reality Dysfunction: Emergence & Expansion and then moved the SFBC code from the ISBN field to the Notes field. I also added spaces before and after the slash in "Guild America/SFBC" as per Help:How to enter a SFBC publication, which states, in part:
  • In most cases, adding " / SFBC" to the original publisher's name is sufficient. [Note the spaces surrounding the slash.]
Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Uh, that publication is listed as being for 1997, not 2007. Check the link above. This is another case where an ISBN is listed for a publication earlier 9by a few years) than our notes suggest the SFBC used ISBNs. -DES Talk 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see! Let me pull out my copy... Yup, I have the same SFBC edition and it has the same ISBN/Catalog ID as the one submitted by Bluesman, but I don't see a date anywhere. Checking Locus, I find "The Reality Dysfunction: Emergence & Expansion (SFBC #19385, Jan ’98, $14.98, 778pp, hc, cover by Jim Burns) [*Night’s Dawn] Reprint (Macmillan UK 1996 as The Reality Dysfunction) SF novel. This is the first US single-volume edition. This special Guild America edition has ISBN 1-56865-501-0; it lacks a price and has the SFBC number on the back jacket", which I suppose suggests that an ISBN on an SFBC edition was still noteworthy in 1998. Perhaps it was added because it was a joint project with Guild America? Ahasuerus 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
How about 1993? GuildAmerica (note the camelback capitalization) was the imprint used by the SFBC (and other Doubleday book clubs) for their original editions from 1989 until 1999. It subsumed the Nelson Doubleday imprint when the Doubleday book clubs were purchased by Bertelsmann. The earliest known case of an original ISBN for a book club edition is this verified 1993 pub from GuildAmerica. MHHutchins 08:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Very well, then the statement in Publisher:Science Fiction Book Club that "Until relatively recent[ly] (circa 2000), these editions never printed the ISBN of the original edition, and never carried an edition statement" should perhaps be modified? -DES Talk 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. It was this discussion that led me to the research about just when they started using ISBNs, and even more so, WHY. I'll update that page with the results. MHHutchins 17:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
And the mystery is no more! Thanks, folks, great team work :) I have added Locus' price and publication month to the record, so the Publication should be OK now. One thing that is still outstanding is whether we want to create a variant Title record for "The Reality Dysfunction: Emergence & Expansion". The words after the colon clearly constitute a subtitle on the title page, so it seems to be a borderline case. Ahasuerus 20:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Publisher names

In your recent submisison for Twilight Zone you list the publisher as "John Spencer, London". If you do a publisher search on the ISFDB you will find John Spencer & Co. (see also the wiki page: Publisher:John Spencer & Co.).

Note that publisher names with city prefixes, and postfixes are discouraged, as they tend to create multiple publisher records for the same firms, and can confuse searches. It is usually better to list the city in notes on the publisher record or the publisher wiki page, as has already been done for Spencer.

I am going to approve this, but change the publisher to "John Spencer & Co." -DES Talk 23:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dark Conflict by "A. J. Merak"

First of all, congratulations on finding the Wiki! :-)

I have approved your addition of Dark Conflict by "A. J. Merak" to the parent Dark Conflict title record by John S. Glasby, but then I moved it from Glasby to Merak. I have also added a "#" to the ISBN/Catalog number field as per Help -- see comments above.

One of the fundamental rules of data entry is that all Novel/Collection Publication (i.e. edition) records should have the same author as their associated Novel/Collection Title records, so in this case the Merak Publication record should link to the Merak Title record. Then -- and only then -- can we link the pseudonymous Title record to its parent Title record, in this case the Merak record to the Glasby record. It's all taken care of now, so we should be all set. And don't worry about the number of moderator-corrected submissions; that's why we are here and we will be happy to help with any issues. The ISFDB database layout is fairly complex, in part because we try to mimic all real world permutations, which can be quite complicated, and in part because we have only one part time programmer, so we don't have the manpower to polish the application as much as we would like to, hence the steep learning curve.

One exit question assuming you have the book: does the page count, which I have added based on internet sources, match your copy? Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to understand the pseudonymous 'tangle' and will make a better effort in future in these cases; I do not have a copy of this book, the information I submitted was from Internet sources as well (ABEBOOKS.UK) and no page count was to be found. What other sources do you have for filling in missing data? I am currently cataloguing my collection and am including whatever works by the authors that I don't have as I go. Makes it easier to fill in a hole on a 'hunt' if I know the 1st edition data.--Bluesman 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of good resources on the Internet and we list many of them on the Sources of Bibliographic Information page. (I also tend to capture the contents of useful Web sites from time to time and burn them on CDs in case the site goes down.) In this case I think I used OCLC to find the record and then followed the links to the underlying library data. Ahasuerus 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is IMO a good idea to note where info in a pub record came from if it was from a secondary source (the publication notes field is the normal place for this) although it is not required, and no one does it in every case. -DES Talk 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, that's a good point! I didn't indicate the source of the data since I thought that you had a copy, but since you don't, I will check Reginald-1 (see Sources of Bibliographic Information for details) and add the source to the Notes field. Ahasuerus 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Done! Ahasuerus 23:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Station in Space

Your recent edit for Station in Space added the artist name: "Walter Murch (painting)/ jerry Powell (frieze)" If there are two artists involved, please use the "add artist" button and insert each on a separate line. Please do not insert anything except the actual artist name (as credited) in this field. if you know the artist's real name, but s/he was credited under a pesud, please add a note. If there is something else to explain about what role each artist did, please explain this in publication notes. I am not sure what is meant by "frieze" in this instance. If Jerry Powell was responsible for the cover design or lettering or some such, please list him only in a note, not as an artist. If he created some aspect of the cover art, list him as an artist, and explain in notes to the publication, or to the cover art record (which you can get after the edit is approved).

the information comes from the copyright page; the cover has a lower section, a painting showing various 'forms' of humanity from caveman to spaceman and an upper section showing the earth in a vise; superimposed on this is a graphic of a spaceship and a circular grid/graph around the nose.... this is obviously what is referred to as the 'frieze', though the dictionary definition doesn't really match this usage.The styles of the two sections of the cover are quite different yet Powell is credited only with the 'frieze'. Hope this makes sense? --Bluesman 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This submission is on hold, pending your response. -DES Talk 00:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Approved and re-edited. The revised publication record is here, please check and verify if correct. The cover records are here for Murch and here fro Powell. I copied your descriptions above, please check that I got the separation correct. -DES Talk 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Past Magic by Ian R. MacLeod and Jack Dann

I approved this, but made several changes.

  • Since you list Dann as the author of only the introduction, i removed him as a co-author. In general we do not list someone as a co-author of a collection when that person just wrote an introduction, preface, afterword, or other essay -- we simply list him as the author of the essay, which we list as published in the collection (the same can be done with anthologies, and indeed, novels).
  • Please list only ONE price in the price field. Since the publisher is British, i left the price in pounds. Record all other prices (and i have seen books with 5 or more prices listed in different currencies) in the notes field.
  • Rather than create a new binding type of "hc/slip-cased" I moved the mention of the slop case to the notes. This could be discussed on Rules and standards discussions if you think that the separate code is warranted.
PS Publishing, like so many of the small-run companies, do three editions (usually) for all their titles: two hard covers and a trade paper, with one of the hardcovers being slip-cased. Often it has extra features like signed by both writer and artist or writer and author of the introduction...and the prices are all different. I see them listed separately all the time for Kerosina editions, NESFA. and others. I agree that listing many prices for an edition is not worth the time and really adds nothing to the listing, but that's for a single edition sold in many countries (many older UK paperbacks have pricing for all Commonwealth countries (NZ, AUST, CANADA, etc.). The publishers give these multiple editions separate ISBNs, so shouldn't they get a separate listing? I mean for the hardcover PS style editions...--Bluesman 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. The result of my changes is here. Please check that it matches your book. -DES Talk 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are multiple prices printed on or in the book, please do list any beyond the first price in the notes field. This does have value: a) a different edition or printing may be identified by having a different price list or no price list; b) someone who buys the same publication in a different country may otherwise be fooled into thinking that a/he has a different pub. As to which price to put in the price field, it is a judgment call. The country of the publisher is often a candidate, as is the first price in the list, or the one on the front cover if all others are on the back or flap.
Publications which are different in having such extra features as you describe should be entered separately if the information is available. Sometimes they have different ISBNs, sometimes not. Absolutely any edition with a separate ISBN should get a separate record. Signatures should be mentioned only if they appear to be a feature of the edition: a "signed, numbered edition" or a "signed limited edition" and it appears that all copies of the edition or printing were signed. An autograph by author, artist, or whoever done after publication does not get mentioned in the record, any more than a damaged page does, as it is a feature of a particular copy, not of an edition or printing. -DES Talk 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
(Similar comments to DES, I think, just saved here due to edit conflict.) BLongley 20:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Multiple versions with different prices, and especially different ISBNs, should be recorded as separate publications, Yes. After all, very few of us will be in a position to buy ALL the editions to physically verify they all exist. And it's fine to enter the one you own and PRIMARY verify it (as in, you own that edition) and also create secondary publications from the same source IF we don't have them already - just don't verify something you don't have. I notice it's common for some publishers to list the ISBNs and sometimes even prices for alternate versions published at the same time. I'm not sure what the submission DES is commenting on actually contained, but I suspect from the comment about multiple prices in the price field that you tried to put all the information in one submission? I'm afraid we need one per publication, the software won't split them for you, and neither can a Mod do so on the basis of such data. BLongley 20:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
is the PRIMARY verification done only after an edit has been accepted? and how do I do that verification? I have thousands of SF books, multiple editions of many, and have added data on lots of postings without knowing I could verify.--Bluesman 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


The submisison in question had "L50/$100" in the price field. I moved "$100" to the pub notes. -DES Talk 20:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. OK, as PS Publishing is apparently UK based (though we have no Wiki page for it yet to explain any idiosyncracies) I concur that this was probably UK priced initially and listed another price. BLongley 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
actually PS prices are available only on their website; I've purchased a number of editions, none of which have any price on the book/jacket, and they list the prices in pounds and US dollars--Bluesman 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way DES, if you can easily generate "£" rather than "L" I'd appreciate it. Al has fixed "Publication Listing" but not "Bibliography" displays yet. BLongley 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit awkward, i need to use the character map tool, or the alt-key numeric entry method, or copy&paste from somewhere, but I CAN do it, and will in future if I remember. In this case the L was already present, but I did not convert it. It would be nice if it were converted on save. -DES Talk 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
running a PC or a MAC? the OS X is so simple (when I saw this figured I should learn how too!!) hold the "option" key and hit the #/3 key and you get the £ symbol. Not sure if pcs are quite that easy.--Bluesman 01:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
When the Euro was introduced, Microsoft produced a patch so that Alt-Gr 4 produced the € symbol, but I don't know if they provide such for £ on US keyboards. (On UK keyboards Shift 3 is £ and Shift 4 is $, there's no need for complicated other-key combinations. # gets its own key, with ~ as the Shift option.) BLongley 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the "Gr" in "Alt-Gr 4" is, I don't know of any simple keyboard combo on a standard US/Windows keyboard setup that produces either a euro symbol or a pound-sterling symbol. I do run windows XP, with MS-IE 7. (Does GR perhaps mean graphic, and is MAC-specific?) On standard US keyboards Shift-3 is #, which is also a "pound-symbol" but not in a helpful way. -DES Talk 20:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
GR probably means graphic, it's a pretty standard if little-used PC key here, just to the right of the space-bar, I can't recall if it's on a Mac keyboard. (Haven't used a Mac since the days that "Sad Mac" or "bomb" icons were as prevalent as the Windows "Blue Screen of Death".) I've never known why # is called a pound-symbol in the US, it's never been used as such for the currency or weight here as far as I know. I'd call it "hash" usually, but read it as "number" on US comics. Apparently it's "sharp" to musicians. But I have never found an English/British/UK usage that uses # for "pound". It's only from configuring printers in the 1980s that I learnt that you could change DIP switches to make the symbol work right. BLongley 20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In the US the # symbol was once the standard symbol for pounds (weight) and is still used as such on things like hardware (nails), but has mostly been replaced by "lbs.". It is also used as a symbol for "number", and for a musical sharp, and for various other things. I understand that the formal name of the symbol itself (as opposed to any of its uses) is "Octothorp", a word i guess is used only by printers and perhaps font-designers, and probably not all of those. Try that the next time you want to stump someone :). On current standard US keyboards the key just to the right of the space-bar is a 2nd copy of the "Alt" key, i guess so that a two-handed typist can Apply Alt easily to keys on either side of the keyboard. There is no Gr key on any keyboard I can recall using. Must be a UK-only thing, sounds as if it might be useful. -DES Talk 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As to formats - we've got by with "hc", "tp" and "pb" (mostly) for ages now, and it's only the audio formats that have really added confusion. We'd like to standardise these a bit so a hardcover in a slip-case is still "hc" but if the slip-case is the distinguishing feature then that's fine in notes. (I know, I'd prefer to be able to enter "hb" for hardbacks and the software can deal with regularization, in the meantime all we can do is cut down on new variations - but as DES says, all these can be challenged on Rules and standards discussions). BLongley 20:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
As to prices - I'm afraid it IS going to be worth the time. :-( I'm entering a LOT of the "older UK paperbacks with pricing for all Commonwealth countries". (It's not actually that bad - I've not yet seen more than 8 Commonwealth countries' prices on a single publication.) And people from the Commonwealth countries are looking at my entries, deciding I hadn't entered enough data to be sure their copy wasn't the same, and are creating duplicates. That's the case even with US/Canadian dual-priced books. So while such need multiple prices, most can remain in notes: but if you are adding prices for DIFFERENT books, then we need different publications. BLongley 20:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
so should these multiple prices be recorded? Being Canadian, virtually all my newer pbs have dual pricing (the hcs for that matter as well), I've never bothered with the $CDN prices as most books available here are still published/printed in the US. In rare instances the covers might be different.--Bluesman 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do record any and all prices found on a book. See A Game of Universe for a work I verified just today which records dual pricing in a note. Put the first or main price (whichever you think that is) for the book in the price field, and list any and all others in the notes field. Thank you. -DES Talk 07:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
incredible amount of work!!! but I will have a couple of months coming up recuperating so will fine-comb my collection and add what I have. And you just HAD to use a book I've been looking for for about two years as an example..... sigh.... :-) --Bluesman 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you really? I just finished it and wasn't all that fond of it. it was loaned to me by a friend (who used to work at Ace, years ago) but I think it is somewhat in the overflow of her collection. If you wish i will ask if she would be receptive to mailing it to you. I note that several copies are available online, but prices seem to start at $17.50 US. -DES Talk 18:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
liked his later books: SIGNAL TO NOISE; SIGNAL SHATTERED, and just wanted to read his first; always like to catch authors' work from the beginning; sometimes good, sometimes not; prices are high as it is his first and didn't sell much, hence a little scarce. Guess it depends on where it would be sent from as I'm in Canada. Have a line on a pb in a city near me, and if it's not that good then as a read-only that might be a better approach??? Thanks for the offer.--Bluesman 01:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not particualrly badly writt4en, and i did read it all the way through in a few days. it's just that the style, and the concept mix didn't work for me somehow. The style is a bit like Zelazney's later Dilvish stories, or his Today We Choose Faces, but a little flatter. (Mind you i liked those a lot.) Perhaps it was mostly the mix of spachips with quantum-driven FTL drives, psycic powes, high-tech, and the hunt for the Holy Grail that didn't work for me. I also found a few too many plot holes for my taste. But this is very much a matter of taste, it might work for you quite well, for all i know. As for location, i live in NJ (USA). Not ethe copy I verified was also a pb. -DES Talk 19:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The lowest price at the moment does seem to be $17+s&h, but perhaps you will have better luck if you set up a want list on Abebooks. It's free and they will send you an automatic e-mail notification if a cheaper copy shows up. Ahasuerus 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers

I have approved the addition of page numbers to Phoenix Ship / Earthrim, but then I changed "106 & 147" to "106+147". As Help:Screen:NewPub mentions:

  • Books in dos-à-dos format, such as Ace doubles, have two sets of page numbers, one for each half of the book. This can be entered as "256+320" for example.

The plus sign is then used by our software to recognize the composite page number and display publication information correctly. At times, our software can be smarter than it looks :)

With respect to your note "page counts given in order of title; artists as well and taken from copyright pages" re: Jack Gaughan+Panos Koutrouboussis. Unfortunately, the order of co-author names (or, in this case, co-artist names) is not preserved in the ISFDB when data is filed, so I had to change the Note to be more explicit. (Other times our software is not as smart as it looks...)

I have also changed the publication date of the book and the two constituent novels from 1969-00-00 to 1969-12-00. Ahasuerus 03:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Infinity by Robert Spencer Carr and Richard Powers

I have approved the addition of the 1951 Fantasy Press edition of this book, but for future reference in this cases it would have been a little easier to use the "Clone" option on the already existing paperback Publication: that way all stories would have been automatically carried over. Not a big deal, though, since we also have the recently added (and still bright and shiny) Import/Export functionality, so all I had to do after approval was to Import the contents of the paperback edition -- see Help:Screen:ImportContent -- into the hardcover edition and we were all set. I then pulled out my (sadly dust jacket-free) copy of the first edition, assigned page numbers and verified the publication. I had to consult Tuck for the price, but other than that the publication record looks good now.

early paperbacks often had fewer or different stories from the hardcover editions, and without book in hand.... I only went looking for the edition because it was mentioned on the copyright page of the pb.--Bluesman 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That's very true. I typically use Tuck's Encyclopedia to check for contents changes between hardcover and paperback editions from that era if I don't have both editions, but if you don't have Tuck handy, there is no easy way of telling. Ahasuerus 03:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
no Tuck's; do you know the ISBN so I can start looking for one?--Bluesman 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Good question! I have added the ISBNs to our list of General bibliographies. Ahasuerus 23:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks! now any idea of how to find the apparently real CURREY update on CD-ROM????--Bluesman 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I would expect it's available from Currey's online store unless there is something wrong with his checkout settings? Ahasuerus 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The next challenge had to do with the fact that Carr began publishing speculative fiction back in the 1920s at the tender age of 15 and apparently used the name "Robert S. Carr" for a while. We had stories attributed both to "Robert Spencer Carr" and to "Robert S. Carr", so it was a bit of a mess. I had to pick one of the forms of his name as the canonical name and went with "S." since it had marginally more records on file, but it was a close call. I then created Variant Title associations for all stories and for Beyond Infinity and finally set up "Robert Spencer Carr" as a pseudonym for "Robert S. Carr". One step at a time :)

Finally, I see that you would like to change the cover art attribution for "Three Novels" from Richard Powers to "Lazorg". That's fine, but I am not sure whether you realize that Powers often signed his work "Laz/Org", "Powers Laz/org" or "Richard Powers Laz/Org"; we have all three forms set up as Powers pseudonyms. Could you please double check if there is a slash between "Laz" and "Org"? Once you do, I will approve the submission and we will make the "Laz/org" Cover Art record into a variant title for Powers. Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

definitely no slash; unaware that Powers used other 'signatures'.--Bluesman 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have approved the submission and added "Lazorg" to Powers' growing collection of pseudonyms :) Ahasuerus 03:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd quite like to add Laz/Powers to our growing Artist Signature Library, if either of you ever feel in the mood for some scanning... BLongley 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I hope to get a scanner working by the next weekend. We'll see how it goes... Ahasuerus 23:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Verification

In an earlier section you asked "Is the PRIMARY verification done only after an edit has been accepted? and how do I do that verification? I have thousands of SF books, multiple editions of many, and have added data on lots of postings without knowing I could verify.--Bluesman 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)"

It is best if you wait to verify until the entry has been made and accepted, and you can see that the record displayed matches your copy in every significant detail. If you verify while edits are pending, and those edits are rejected or modified on acceptance, the verified record may not match your publication correctly.
You verify from the publication record display. Once you have confirmed that the record is correct and complete, you may proceed to verify the publication. At the left, click "verify this pub". The verification screen comes up, with several rows corresponding to the various supported verification sources. Each row has three states: Not verified, Verified and N/A. To mark a publication as PRIMARY verified (that is, verified against the actual publication) click on "verified" in the first row, and click submit. Also useful is the last row, called "Primary (Transient)" This is for verifying against the actual pub, but the pub is one you don't expect to have future access to. It may be a borrowed book, a library book, or a book you intend to give away or sell. This alerts people not to ask you questions about the pub that would require you to check something against the pub. The other rows are for various secondary sources. See Help:How to verify data for more on verification.
thanks! further question: since I buy a lot of used books, often the dust jackets have been price-clipped; old paperbacks have had the price blacked out (mental midgets!!) or with SFBCs there never is a price; so even with book in hand I can't necessarily verify EVERY aspect, and if it's just a minor edit where a void has been filled (page count, artist, etc.) should a verification even be done if the price can't be confirmed? Especially in the case of SFBCs...(is there a discussion page about these editions? I looked at the page on gutter codes, went and checked a few and found one WAY out of the loop: copy of DUNE with a gutter code of Y49).--Bluesman 15:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The basic answer is that the record should be as complete as possible when you verify, but a book that has no price, such as an SFBC edition, or such as many older (pre WWII) books, means that you can't verify a price. Similarly, a pre-1970s book will normally have no ISBN, and may have no catalog number (some publishers didn't assign numbers) so you can't verify that field. If all the info that can be gotten from a publication has been correctly entered, you may verify, and please do. Price-clipped/redacted books are a judgment call: some editors choose not to verify those, in hopes that someone else will find an intact copy, others verify away. My practice would be to verify, but with a note that the verification copy had the price removed/obscured, and an invitation to anyone with a copy with intact price to add it and replace my verification. If you have a price clipped copy of a recent or popular book, which it is very likely that another editor will verify, you could choose to wait, but you don't have to. You may verify even if you make no change to the record yourself, or contrariwise you may verify if you have entered the record from nothing, and you may verify if you have entered any amount of data between these extremes. If you can say "The current record matches my physical copy in all respects that I can check, and all info available from my copy has been entered" then you may verify, and please do so. We want more verified records. See http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/topvers.cgi to see the list of verifiers by pub count. Watch your number grow! -DES Talk 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
very good guidelines! but don't hesitate to hit below the belt if I get carried away!!! is it expected that if you have something to add, not change, to a verified copy that you still check with the first 'verifier'? Today I had an anthology that had a printing month on the copyright page yet the record which was verified only stated the year, so I put the month in the notes so it at least will get to a moderator.--Bluesman 01:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In such a case i wouldn't ask and wait for an OK, but aI would probably drop a note to the verifier after the fact. -DES Talk 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You can use "My recent edits" to find books you have entered and verify them, or you can simply go through your books, find or create the proper record, and once it matches your copy, verify it. Currently we have about 15% of all recorded pubs verified, a year ago it was less than 12% in spite of the many pubs added during that time. -DES Talk 08:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Bluesman, you asked about verifying book club editions. Go to this page which will provide info on entering a SFBC edition. Please feel free to add gutter codes in the pub record as well as the listing starting on this page. There's been no consensus reached about what to do with different printings (based on the gutter code). Until that happens, just place the gutter code info in the pub's notes field. You can verify these pubs regardless of whether you're able to complete all of the fields. The price and dates will be added eventually (I'm only up through 1982 on entering titles.) Hope this helps. MHHutchins 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting so much information my head hurts!!onward and upward! wading my way through each year and adding what I can, but have not figured out how to add an entire book! There is NO listing for DUNE: MESSIAH.... and have information that places it's first printing in '77--Bluesman 22:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a listing for Dune Messiah, but you can surely add or verify editions/printings if you have ones not yet on record, or not yet verified.
My oops... meant there is no listing for DUNE : MESSIAH in the SFBC record, wasn't referring to the publishing record, and haven't found a way to add this title to that record.--Bluesman 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see, you meant adding a new book to Publisher:SFBC 2000-2004 or a similar page. Each group of lines on those pages controls one row in the table. Edit Publisher:SFBC 1980-1984 and look at the wiki code for already filled in lines, then simply experiment with filling in lines yourself, or copy the whole table to the Sandbox and experiment there, where nothing significant to anyone can be messed up. You'll get it. -DES Talk 20:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
You add a new book by starting from the main page or an author's bibliography display with one the the "new" links, such as "New Magazine", "New Anthology", "New Collection", "New Omnibus", or "New Nonfiction". See Help:Getting Started for more on this. -DES Talk 16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Novelets of Science Fiction

I have your update to Novelets of Science Fiction hold to run past the verifier though suspect some form of your edit will get added to the publication record. See User talk:Ahasuerus#Novelets of Science Fiction (again). Marc Kupper (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahasuerus confirms he needs new glasses. I approved your update. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ring Around the Sun

I've approved your update to Ring Around the Sun but wanted to note that the copyright date is not a reliable source for the printing date other than the odds are the book was not printed before that year. Thus with the SFBC books neither the year nor month are known. However, the copyright does provide a good clue and you can look the book up on Science Fiction Book Club and you'll see that Ring Around the Sun is listed as October 1953. Unfortunately, the source of those dates is not stated but at least the date listed on that page agrees with the one in the publication record for your book.

A second clue is for SFBC books published between 1958 and 1988 have a Gutter code though note that's a printing date and that the publication was usually released in the following month. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Enemy Stars - SFBC

I have approved your changes to the 1959 SFBC edition of Poul Anderson's The Enemy Stars and then clarified the Notes field. Could you please take a look when you have a chance and confirm that it looks right? Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder: the gutter code indicates the printing date, not the date of publication, which is the month it was the club selection. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
started to see that pattern last night when going through the years; checked the ENEMY STARS and seems fine to me, though I think the extrapolation from the gutter code isn't necessary now.--Bluesman 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Twilight World

I have approved the addition of the gutter code and the LCCN information to Poul Anderson's Twilight World. To answer your question about the seeming discrepancy between the two, as Michael pointed out above, gutter codes indicate the date when the book was printed, which can be a couple of month prior to its official publication date. Thus, it's quite likely that this edition was printed in December 1960 and was released in February 1961 as we currently indicate.

Also, keep in mind that the Library of Congress assigns its LCCNs when it receives the paperwork from the publisher, which can happen either before or after actual publication. Moreover, in certain cases the LCCN may not be assigned until a couple of years later. Also, sometimes they get the paperwork, assign an LCCN and then the publisher folds and the book never gets printed. They even have a special "Canceled ISBN" field in their records for these situations, although their librarians are not very good at populating it. The world of genre bibliography is full of wonders, isn't it? :) Ahasuerus 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

and you guys keep sane? sort of?? just a little??? and you do this for fun...... my kind of people!!!--Bluesman 22:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course we're sane! We just have to PROVE it a bit more often than most... ;-) I apparently need a passport for my day-job, that doesn't actually involve ANY international travel: I presume MI5 will check it for stamps from "Mars Immigration" or such-like. After all, Al-Qaeda might be from Venus, Al-Muhajiroon from Mars... BLongley 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Get an UFP passport, good anywhere in the Galaxy, though I think, technically, MI5 might be considered other-dimensional....?--Bluesman 00:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
As you can plainly see, rumors of our insanity are greatly exaggerated... Ahasuerus 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jacket numbers on SFBC editions

You should record the jacket numbers in the publication records for SFBC editions. We record them in the ISBN/catalog field, making sure to add the pound sign. All but two of those that you added to the SFBC publisher's pages already had the jacket number recorded on the pub record itself. I transferred those two as the catalog numbers on their respective pub record. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

seems like fragmenting data instead of collating, but if that's the format, I'm fine with keeping it separate and will not add that to this record; in the reverse of that is there any point in putting gutter codes in the notes of a publication record?--Bluesman 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I created the Wiki listing so that all the SFBC selections would be in a chronological listing. Because the book club's editions are credited to so many different publishers, it would be impossible to obtain a similar list from the database itself. The Wiki listing is intended to supplement the ISFDB database, not to duplicate it. The links from the titles lead you to the pub records which contain complete bibliographic data for each selection. Because of this I didn't feel it necessary to create a field in the Wiki tables for the jacket numbers.
The table field for gutter codes was a different matter. It not only attempted to list the code of the first known printing, but also leads to a better understanding of how the numbers were assigned. You couldn't see this or even be aware of their meaning if they were only listed in each selection's pub record (which at the moment doesn't contain all the gutter code information.) Of course, everything is open to change. If you feel strongly enough that the table needs a jacket number field, it's up for debate. You can start a discussion on the community portal talk page. MHHutchins 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Sheckley vs. Finn O'Donnevan

I have approved the addition of page numbers and the publication month to Wondermakers 2. However, I had to reverse your change of "The Gun Without A Bang" attribution from Robert Sheckley back to Finn O'Donnevan since it would have had undesirable side effects -- please see Help:How to change a story in a collection on how to implement this change safely and don't hesitate to ask for clarification. This is probably the most counter-intuitive and painful ISFDB "feature", which we hope to change as soon as our programmer finds some free time to work on it. Thanks for all the submissions! Ahasuerus 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

will take your word for it, don't want to cause any meltdowns or system crashes! --Bluesman 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I may not have been clear. It is possible to accomplish what you wanted to do, it just requires an awkward multi-step workaround. I could make the required changes myself, but I am sure that you will run into this problem again (and again and again), so you may to review the linked Help article sooner rather than later and try to submit the changes on your end. Don't worry, a server meltdown is unlikely -- moderators are standing by and will activate the safety valve if anything goes wrong! :) Ahasuerus 04:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, I must be getting suitably paranoid now! I saw 
 136 • The Monster and the Maiden • (1964) • shortstory by Roger Zelazny
 140 • Computers Don't Argue • (1965) • shortstory by Gordon R. Dickson
and thought, "hold on - The Monster and the Maiden is by Dickson, have the authors been transposed? But I see both authors have used the same title and it's just a coincidence that they appeared next to each other here. It goes to show how wary you get after a year or so of moderating though.... BLongley 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

John Brunner's No Future in It

I've accepted your submission updating this pub, but moved the Library of Congress Card Catalog Number to the notes field. The ISBN/Catalog# field should only contain the ISBN (if printed in the publication) or catalog # (if the pub is a paperback without ISBN, or the jacket # of a SFBC edition). Thanks. MHHutchins 01:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A Mile Beyond the Moon

Do you have the book club or trade edition? The book club version will say "Book Club" at the bottom of the jacket flap and the trade has a price. You are updating the record for the book club edition but you are changing the note from

Gutter code "49" indicates a December 1958 printing.

to

Gutter code "49" indicates a December 1958 printing. Gutter code "2" (page 239) indicates....? Since this is a DOUBLEDAY edition, maybe the "49" is for the trade edition, or the other way around? [page #'s of stories from book-in-hand]
I definitely have a Book Club edition, the dearth of data on the copyright page is a dead giveaway (and BOOK CLUB EDITION on the jacket!) but if the "2" means January '58, then it pre-dates the trade edition, which seems very odd for this book...?? I have gone through the gutter code pages very carefully and this one just doesn't make sense. I put this in the note because I don't quite know what it means and knew a moderator would see it and help out. Did NOT want to change the publishing date with only this to go on.--Bluesman 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See Gutter code for a decoder ring. A "2" would be January 1958. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What you did seems reasonable. Sometimes the book club edition does come first. I had the wrong link before - I approved the update and it's at 258438. I've dropped a note on Mhhutchins's page as he's been pretty active with the SFBC editions to see if he has thoughts about this. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I see what happened.
  • MLBNDTHMNF1959 is the trade edition dated Feb-1958. This one should have gutter code 2 meaning it was printed in Jan-1958 and released for sale in Feb-1958.
  • MLBYNDTHMNE61958 is the book club edition. It should have gutter code 49 meaning it was printed in Dec-1958 and it was a Feb-1969 BOMC offering.
In this case the publisher either had some retail stock left and shipped it as part of BMOC or had retail signatures bound for the BCE shipment. The old trade copyright pages were pretty skimpy. Someone would need to dig up a trade Doubleday from that time period and to compare it with the SFBC edition to see how they changed the copyright page.
I suspect the note on MLBNDTHMNF1959 about the "2" should be moved to MLBYNDTHMNE61958 and that it will mention that SFBC editions have been verified gutter code 2 which is the trade edition. The date on MLBYNDTHMNE61958 should be 1959-02-00? Marc Kupper (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I was updating something else and realized I had this all wrong. Strikeout applied as I don't know who has read the previous message.
  • MLBNDTHMNF1959 is the SFBC edition dated Feb-1959. I'm going to guess that 2 is January 1959 and that that Doubleday had not thought about introducing the "A" codes. There are multiple sellers of the trade edition on AbeBooks. A couple mention the $2.95 DJ price but none of them mention the gutter code other than someone with a #49 BCE. We could either e-mail the trade edition sellers to see what the gutter code is or wait for one to show up. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Strange case indeed. In 1958, the first year that Doubleday used a gutter code (for all of its printings, whether trade or book club), they didn't use a letter code, only the week of printing. I'm going to agree with Marc that perhaps after a few weeks into 1959, someone realized it would be a good idea to add the letter "A" so that the 1959 printings wouldn't be confused with the 1958 printings. In this case, perhaps the gutter code "2" indicates a printing in the second week of January 1959 before the change occurred. The trade edition of this title was published in 1958 (so says Tuck) with a book club printing in December (thus gutter code "49") which was released as the February selection of the SFBC. All of this is speculation. I'll email some of the abebooks.com dealers (listing either the trade and book club printings) to see if anyone can clarify the matter. It might turn out that Bluesman's copy is a second SFBC printing. MHHutchins 06:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
kind of like that explanation, but have difficulty imagining this book requiring a second printing within a few weeks of it's SFBC debut? Soon I hope to be able to scan then I could do the copyright page and either solve or deepen the mystery.... gotta love the SFBC; nearly 60 years and it ain't figured out yet!!! I have many and would love to get in on the documenting/solving/tearing hair out/fun of it all!!!--Bluesman 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I emailed 5 different abebooks dealers with the book club edition of this title. Four had the gutter code "49" and one had "2". Also I contacted 5 dealers who carried the trade edition. Only 2 responded, both with a gutter code "32". Bluesman, you question that there would be a reprint so soon, five weeks after the first. Remember Kornbluth had died earlier in 1958, and this collection was his first publication after his death. It's very possible that if Doubleday hadn't planned on the demand by its club members, and the first printing may have sold out pretty soon after the club's announcement (or an inordinate number of members forgot to return their response cards and got the book by default!) I'll record these speculations in the pub's note field. MHHutchins 03:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It turns out I have a copy of The Best from Fantasy and Science Fiction, Eighth Serieswhich is the March 1959 SFBC selection. It's gutter code is 4 which seems to confirm that Doubleday reset back to 1 in 1959 and that they later added the "A" with A13 being the earliest we know of. Marc Kupper (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dark of the Woods / Soft Come the Dragons

Regarding your questions in Dark of the Woods / Soft Come the Dragons

[will this translate across to the omnibus entry, or does that need to be edited separately?

No on the translation of page numbers to the omnibus entry. With most of the Contents fields if you change an item for a title it'll affect all publications that reference that title. That's not the case for the page numbers.

Also, does SOFT... need it's own entry?]

I think it's a good idea because when you look at Dean R. Koontz you will see Soft Come the Dragons listed in the collections. Some web sites list a dos-a-dos as two separate titles meaning there will be people looking up Soft Come the Dragons. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Dreamers

Hi,

1. I've found an image on Amazon - is this your cover?

identical--Bluesman 02:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add the image.

2. Would you please check whether the publication month is May or July. (Date field has 1953-05-00, notes say July, 1953)

publication date is July; first printing is May, as per copyright page.--Bluesman 02:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
How odd! Might be worth adding to the Note to point out it's not an ISFDB editor's mistake.
I have seen several pbs that do this, all from the early fifties to early sixties; the publication record is as I found it, other than adding the catalog #.--Bluesman 20:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Just to let you know that ... When you edit a verified publication, we have a convention that you drop a note on the verifier's wiki page - kraang in this case - that you are doing so. Just click the name on the verification line & add to the end of the person's Discussion page in the usual way. In this case, I've added a note to Kraang's page for you. ... clarkmci/--j_clark 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that and asked about it in an earlier discussion on my talk page and was told if I was CHANGING something to bring it up with the original verifier first (as I did earlier this evening on another record) but if I was ADDING some missing information then to go ahead and edit.--Bluesman 02:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, a note after you submit an edit that adds information lets the original verifier check their copy if they want to, so they have an opportunity to "verify" the new info. I'll approve your catalogue # addition, then add the image & leave you to think about the wording of the Note. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 03:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
duly noted! will submit bared wrists for slapping should KRAANG wish to...--Bluesman 20:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Not necessary. Coming up to speed on ISFDB editting is an interesting process, isn't it! (& the wiki!) We appreciate your contributions. --j_clark 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW: When adding Notes, if you want a new line, type <br> before the text for the new line. (This is HTML for a line break.) There's a way to do bullet points too, if there's several items to note. --j_clark 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
this is getting to be more like WORK every day...LOL!!! thanks for the tips, now if I could just find my memory!--Bluesman 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Review in Giant Lizards from Another Star

In Giant Lizards from Another Star you entered a review of The Encyclopaedia Of Fantasy (which was a good thing). However you entered the authors (editors) as "John Clute (ED.)" and "John Grant (ED.)". This creates a new listing for each of these authors with the "(ED.)" included as part of their names. This is not good. Please do not enter anything but the actual name, no "(ed)", no "(co-author)", etc, into any author/editor name fields. See Help:Screen:EditPub#Author and Help:Screen:EditPub#Author_2 for more details. -DES Talk 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

duly noted; just couldn't find any other way to list them as editors instead of authors.--Bluesman 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
For the review, just list them as authors, the distiction will be made in the publication record, where there can be notes if nothing else. -DES Talk 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Signing notes

When you include a note with an "I" or "My copy" or similar personal indication, as you did in Newton's Wake, please sign it with your user ID or some other indicator. otherwise, once the moderator approves the edit, there is no useful record of who "I" is. This doesn't apply to notes addressed to the moderator and which the mod is expected to delete from the approved pub. -DES Talk 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"notes addressed to the moderator"... what form should these take and where do they go? So far I have been putting them in square brackets; if I put "attn:Mod" at the front of such notes would they then be deleted afterwards (as such notes are superfluous AFTER an edit)?--Bluesman 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think any mod would realize that a note starting "attn:Mod" should be deleted after the edit is approved, and that is reasonably easy for the mod to do. I suppose "Temp for Mod:" might be even clearer, but any variant on this theme should do. -DES Talk 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
does that get typed in, or is there a way to 'sign' like in a discussion?--Bluesman 04:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no such feature yet, just type in. I usually use "DES" (my initals) as it is short but distinctive. -DES Talk 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Some wiki stuff

I notice that you often put the title of a work in ALL CAPS when leaving a wiki note. You can instead, if you wish, put it in italics by surrounding it with paired quote marks, like this:

''Italics''

You can also use three to produce boldface text.

It is often a good idea to link to the work you are referring to. You can use {{P}} to link to a publication record, and {{T}} to link to a title record.

Examples:

I hope this is helpful. -DES Talk 00:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

do you just need to type in the number to link or the whole http.... address? this I will definitely use once I figure out how.--Bluesman 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You just type in the record number (or for a publication, the tag), and optionally, the display text. See full details at Template:P and Template:T. Edit this page and look at the examples above. This saves copying the whole url (the http: address), plus it color-codes the link for visibility. -DES Talk 05:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
tried using the "help" page last night but not knowing about templates I tried to find this through "links" which got me nowhere; perhaps a category "Creating Links" that leads to the templates?? either that or this old brain needs a little re-wiring.--Bluesman 14:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I'll see what I can do. -DES Talk 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Pliocene Companion

Is this really a novel, or should it be classed as NONFICTION? -DES Talk 06:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

my oops, I didn't even look at how the other two pubs were categorized; definitely not a novel. Last thing last night...(seems all three missed that detail).--Bluesman 14:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
follow-up: by changing this to a non-fiction, will that move the title out of this series? As a reference solely to the series it seems a good idea to keep it in that loop.--Bluesman 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That is a point, and I belive that it would move it out of the series. I will double check with a test case. -DES Talk 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy Angels by McAuley

You submitted a change of the author from "Paul J. McAuley" to "Paul McAuley". I assume this is based on the book in hand? I note that Paul McAuley is already on file and is listed as a pesud of Paul J. McAuley. This change seems fine to me.

Yes, book-in-hand. Is missing the "J." really a pseudonym?? He does seem to drop it for no particular reason.--Bluesman 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
We treat such variations in author's names as pseudonyms. The author may not have exactly intended them that way, (they surely do nothing to conceal his identity) but that is the feature that we have available to keep track of a) who the author actually is, and b) how the book was actually published. For some authors it is meaningful. For example Iain M. Banks apparently publishes his non-SF works as by Iain Banks. -DES Talk 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

However, you also changed the content record for the novel in the same way. This will also affect the 2008 Gollancz edition. Amazon UK lists this as by "Paul McAuley". OCLC also lists the stated author as "Paul McAuley" (noting that the actual author is Paul J). Amazon US lists the author as Paul J, although the cover plainly shows just "Paul". Vendors on ABE and Alibris are mixed, some listing the author as Paul J, some as Paul. Library of Congress Online Catalog and Melvyl - the Catalog of the University of California Libraries don't list this book at all, probably because it was published in the UK. I was tempted to hold this submission, but based on the OCLC listing and the visible cover on both amazon sites, i am going to approve it. But please be very careful in making this kind of change in future. Sometimes one edition of a work is published under one version of an author's name, and another edition under another version (for example Brian W. Aldiss often losses his W). In such cases we want to keep accurate records of which edition was published under which name, and changing the title record (which is what happens when you change the content record for an existing publication) changes the title for all pubs on file. We really should have a warning msg when this is done.

then what is the "safe" way to do this? without 25 steps...or will changing it in the author field alone suffice?--Bluesman 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there may be no safe way that does not involve multiple steps. It depends on the situation. If "John X. Author" publishes a collection under the name "John Author", then you can and should change the author field on the publication record to "John Author". If another edition was published under his name with the X, a variant title record must be created, and one may be needed anyway if John X is his canonical name (so that the collection shows up on the "John X" display page). If some of the works in the collection have been published elsewhere, or in other editions of the collection under the John X name, then it is not safe to just change their authors while editing the collection. If their credits in the "John Author" collection did not have an X, then a variant title record will need to be set up for each story, which is a separate edit for each story, and the correct record linked to the collection. Feel free to try this with a test example. If in a real case you find it confusing or tricky to handle, you can ask for assistance on the Help desk or the Moderator noticeboard. it is easier to do when one is a mod and can self-approve, and not need to wait for approvals of earlier steps. -DES Talk 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the basic process when a story has a different author name (or title) in a pub you are updating than it does in other publications.
  1. Choose "Edit This Pub" from the editing tools menu
  2. Click "Add Title" at the bottom of the contents listing, add a 2nd copy of the story with the author (or title or both) correctly spelled for this pub as new content to the pub, then "Submit Data" (if there is more than one story affected, you can do copies of all of them at the same time)
  3. After approval, go back to the pub record and choose "Remove Title From This Pub" in the menu
  4. You'll see a list of all of the pub's contents. Check the box of each piece of incorrectly credited or titled content and "Submit Data"
  5. After approval of your 2nd edit, edit the title record of each of your newly created works. Chose "Make this work a variant title or Pseudonymous work" and fill in the record number of the previously existing title record for the same work as the

"parent" title. Click Submit data. This must be done for each work involved, to record the link between the two names for the same work.

I'm sorry this is complex, but that is how it works, at least for now, because the possibilities of works being republished, re-titled, published under different pesuds or forms of the author's name, etc, are quite complex. -DES Talk 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
and all that to correct an oversight by the first submitter; and it got past a moderator! glad I'm not in his/her shoes!!! lol --Bluesman 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You also changed the ISBN from "0575079347" "9780575079342", and left a note: "ISBN taken from copyright page, think maybe this one was entered before actual release, as the ISBN for the tp is wrong, also". The first ISBN is an older 10-digit form, the second is the newer 13 digit form. They are equivalent. You get the new form by prepending "978" to the old number, and re-computing the final checksum digit. Some books now list both an ISBN-10 and an ISBN-13. Many new books now list only the 13-digit form. Books more than a few years old will only have the 10-digit form. The ISFDB supports both forms, and if either is entered (and valid), it will display both. Thus a change from an ISBN-10 to an equivalent ISBN-13 (which is what you did here) will not change the display, although it will change what is stored and what is seen at edit time. Such a change is fine when editing a pub record for other reasons, but is not a major priority, and the old number can't really be called "wrong". Some secondary sources convert ISBN-13s into ISBN-10s, so data entered from such a source will normally use the 10-digit form.

one of those senior moments that I caught on the very next book.[what the heck is a "checksum", anyway?? ]--Bluesman 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
All the digits (except the last) of the ISBN are combined according to a mathematical fomula (which may be as simple as just adding them up, or may be more complex, I don't know the specific formula). The result is a number from 0 to 10. This is used as the last digit of the ISBN (10 is represented as "X"). This meansd that if you jsut create a string of numbers of the right length to be an ISBN, ther is only 1 chance in 11 tha tit will be valid. More importantly, it means that if a typo or copying error is made in an ISBN, the chances are very good (10 out of 11) that the result will be invalid. Most software that deals with ISBNs re-computes the checksum digit, and if it does not match the input digit the software rejects the ISBN as invalid. The ISFDB software does this check. If it fails, the ISBN is displayed with a red "Invalid" alongside it. The checksum comes out differently in most cases for the ISBN-10 and the corresponding ISBN-13. -DES Talk 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am approving your edit, but re-editing to remove the note about the 'wrong' ISBN. -DES Talk 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

think I put that note in [...] brackets which means I think it will be removed anyway as superfluous if/when the edit gets approved/modified/rejected.--Bluesman 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


The result is here. Please check it. -DES Talk 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

looks fine to me! --Bluesman 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. -DES Talk 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

More on ISBN-13s

As you will see if you look at the result of your edit on Players, a note in the notes field stating the ISBN-13 displays as redundant info (look at the IOSBN area, then down at the notes). This does no harm, but no particular good either. The ISFDB software automatically dsiplays both the ISBN-10 and the ISBN-13 if either is entered in the ISBN field (and is valid). -DES Talk 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that the software did that automatically. Now I are...!--Bluesman 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Current practices and software mean that WHICH version (10 digit, 13 digit, or both) of the ISBN was ACTUALLY on the pub is not obvious. It's one of the rare instances where nobody has really complained about such inaccuracy. BLongley 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Survivors (Dinosaur Planet ll)

Please make The Survivors (Dinosaur Planet ll) use the title from the title page. That is used if it is different from the cover. Dana Carson 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

done and re-submitted.--Bluesman 15:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Power Play

If the cover for Power Play doesn't match whats on that edition at all please delete the image link. If the picture matches but pricing is off so its a different printing please leave it if there is no more correct one and note that. Dana Carson 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

still new at this, so hesitate to delete anything but text.--Bluesman 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Know the feeling. Still feel that way at times. I still sometimes put a line in the notes about what I removed in case there was good reason why something that seems wrong was there. Dana Carson 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
does anything really get deleted until it's run past a moderator??--Bluesman 15:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No, or not until it is approved. But most people who are moderators approve their own-edits, and most such deletions by non-mods are approved, so an editor (mod or not) who thinks soemthign should be removed but is not quite sure sometimes chooses to record the change in the notes. We don't currently have a history feature for the database such as the wiki has, which would allow undoing any particualr edit, or findign out after the fact what changes an edit made, but I undersand one is under development, which might make such situations easier. -DES Talk 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Skies of Pern

For The Skies of Pern don't overwrite the book club edition. Use Clone This Pub and update the clone. Dana Carson 09:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

gotta stop doing this so late, as I thought I was updating the publisher's edition... even dropped a note to the verifier, who's now wondering "how did this dude get on here????" Will create a new pub for this book; odd that the SFBC edition is there but not the publisher's.....--Bluesman 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy Angels

I have one of your McAuley submissions on hold since I am not sure what you would like to change. The current Note reads: "Cover design by Sidonie Beresford-Browne. Cover Photographs by Getty Images; Arcangel Images. ISBN taken from copyright page." which you would like to replace with "[my mistake on the ISBNs... please dele that. BLUESMAN]" Would you like me to delete the last sentence in the current Note? Just checking to be on the safe side :) Ahasuerus 03:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized that this submission was put on hold by DES and not by me! I am sure he will be stopping by shortly and asking questions :) Ahasuerus 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
That was more or less the same question i was going to ask. Are the first two notes (" "Cover design by Sidonie Beresford-Browne. Cover Photographs by Getty Images; Arcangel Images" still valid? Also I have noticesd that in a number of cases, a portion of your notes are in [square brackets], while other portions are not. What is the distinction you are making here? -DES Talk 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
late night editing; the last part about the mistake is definitely to be deleted, the first parts about the images stay. I am still not sure how to let the moderator know something, sort of a sidebar/clarification on an edit and have that deleted afterwards; that's why I put things in square brackets.--Bluesman 15:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
As long as I know that. But perhaps celarer and better is to prefix such commetns addressed to the moderator with "Mod:" or if you feel wordier "Note for moderator:" Then there is no question about the matter.
I'll approve and re-edit to get the desired effect. Thanks for your contributions. -DES Talk 16:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. -DES Talk 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

David McDaniel's Number Two

Good catch! I have reshuffled McDaniel's biblio -- take a look at the results when you get a chance. At some point we also need to reconcile the series with the recently published stuffed as listed by Wikipedia and other sites. Ahasuerus 03:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting notes

To get a bullet list you use html markup for a unnumbered list. That's <ul> and <li> for unnumbered list and list item. To add to the list insert between the last </li> and the </ul> your note with a <li>note</li>. The <li> starts a item and the </li> closes it. Dana Carson 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there somewhere on the site where all these little things are listed? Or another site that 'teaches' html formatting? --Bluesman 15:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, lots of them, e.g. this HTML Beginner Tutorial. We mostly use just "li", "br" and the occasional HTML link, though. Keep in mind that linking to other ISFDB records, e.g. "this is a fix up of Story A (link) and Story B (link)", will only work as long as these stories have the same database ID, which can change when Title records are merged or otherwise reshuffled. Ahasuerus 16:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, will check that out. May not be many used, but I don't know ANY yet. Oh, 'br' I do know. A beginning.--Bluesman 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Outbound

For Outbound essay is correct for any nonfiction piece so that was the right choice. The EDITOR type is for magazines only and should be done automatically for those. Having to use it by hand is rare. The Edit pub hides it so I need to figure out how to show it and change it to ESSAY as well. Dana Carson 06:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the Bibliography doesn't show up under contents; is it unnecessary to list it? Also, the first submitter of this pub listed only the essay by Michael Bishop, so I deleted it as a sole entry and listed it in the contents but it's back as a separate listing again.--Bluesman 15:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Listing the bibliography was fine. EDITOR records are for magazines and are invisible once you enter them so it was hiding. I went to that Title record and made it a ESSAY and now it's visible.
How did you delete the Bishop essay? Just blanking it out won't work, you need to use the Remove Titles From This Pub link on the left and check which one(s) to remove. Both of those are not obvious. Dana Carson 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Yes, I just blanked it, forgetting it wasn't my text. --Bluesman 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Merril's Survival Ship and Other Stories

I have checked my copy of Merril's Survival Ship and couldn't find a publication date either. Apparently, 1974 comes from Contento's Index, so I have sent Bill an e-mail to see if he can recall the source of the information. Also, there are a number of discrepancies in my copy vis a vis what Contento has. Could you please check yours to see if our copies are identical before I send the corrections to Bill?

Some discrepancies: my copy does have Roman numeral pages: FEP i; copyright page iii; title page v; acknowledgments ("for Merril MacDonald and Ann Pohl and Kevin and Gregg and the Question Mark - for the Future) vii; the spelling of the photographer's first name is BERDJ . Otherwise identical.--Bluesman 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see! I was looking for a big fat "Acknowledgments" page and it's just a dedication page! And I also misspelled the photographer's name, so it looks like we have the same version after all. Bill Contento has gotten back to me and explained that 1974 comes from Lloyd Currey's "Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors", which is usually reliable, so I have updated the Notes field. I will let him know about the "Epilogue" essay, which is not listed in the table of contents. We are getting there, one blunder at a time :) Ahasuerus 00:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Re: the "tp" vs. "pb" issue, this record was apparently imported from Amazon.com and our importing software (known as Dissembler) usually has no way of telling whether a book labeled "paperback" by Amazon is a tp or a pb. As far as the page count goes, Amazon.com receives Publication level information from publishers before the final version of the book is actually printed, so they usually give an estimated page count, which is rarely the same as the actual page count. In other words, all of your edits were fine :) Ahasuerus 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kind of figured that was the case. Do I get a gold star???? And are the notes I'm leaving the right way to say what the thoughts behind the edit were? --Bluesman 17:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we are all out of gold stars at the moment, what with the credit crunch, but we'll add you to the list! And yes, the notes look fine, much easier to tell what's going on :) Ahasuerus 00:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merritt's Burn Witch, Burn!

Re: Merritt's Burn Witch, Burn!, based on the Catalog ID your copy was published in 1946, at least according to Tuck. I have adjusted our record, but I wonder why Tuck lists these Avon Catalog IDs as "MM43", "MM5", etc, while you used "43". Does "MM" appear separately, perchance? Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The "MM" designation should actually be "MMM" for Murder Mystery Monthly, but my copy is NOT that edition. I don't know if the number being the same is coincidence or if when Avon re-printed all the MMM editions. mostly in '50,'51,'52, they just used the same #. I think not as the few other Merritt titles do not have the same MMM# and Avon #.--Bluesman 17:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Burn Witch, Burn!: See my recent entry with publication date history. Perhaps I should have put this data with the title record?--swfritter 14:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good info! Sure, it would probably be handy at the Title level as well. Ahasuerus 16:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to other users

You simply make a wiki-link. The most common form is to link to a user's user page. For example, to link to your user page, one types:

[[User:Bluesman]]

which gives:

User:Bluesman

You can also link to a user's talk page. To link to my talk page, type:

[[User talk:DESiegel60]]

which gives:

User talk:DESiegel60

You can also "pipe" such a link to display it with diferent text. For example, if you type:

[[User talk:DESiegel60|DES]]

you get

DES

You can also link to a specific section on a page. For example:

[[User talk:DESiegel60#Approval of Bluesman's submission|This section]]

gives

This section.

See Help:Editing for more on wiki editing. -DES Talk 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks DES; really appreciate all the help. Went and read "this section"... guess I ticked off a few people waaaaaaay back then?? lol! Thought the page count thing very funny at the time, but humor seldom translates on the written page. I are all better now!!--Bluesman 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Legacy of Heorot / Lucifer's Hammer

Hi,

Re Legacy: I'd clone it to make another record for the Canadian edition/printing with C$ Price; putting the details in the Notes field. ...clarkmci/--j_clark 22:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

will do.--Bluesman 23:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Lucifer: I'd guess it is 3rd Ballantine. Some wording on copyright pages is very ambiguous! I think Fawcett was taken over by Ballantine and probably retained the Fawcett name as an imprint (though that doesn't help in deciding re the printing. Sometimes a new "edition" is just because of a publisher name change.). BTW: Is this the cover here? ...clarkmci/--j_clark 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

not quite, as in the bottom left corner my copy has the Fawcett Crest logo.--Bluesman 23:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I point to a similar cover in the Notes field (using HTML) and describe the differences. In this case, you could just say words like "similar to the cover shown on Amazon US for this ISBN, but it has the Fawcett Crest logo on the bottom left corner on the copy used for this data. (October 2008)" (because a user can click Amazon US on the left & see it. I usually date such comments 'cos sometimes Amazon changes the images if there's a new printing.

User:clarkmci / --j_clark 01:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Magic Goes Away

Re: "[MOD: the page count in this one is a little confusing. The last numbered page is 210, but on each page where there is an illustration at the top there is no page #, and the story does continue on what would have been pages 211 & 212. Then there is a bibliography/biography page, unnumbered and with no illustration followed by five more unnumbered pages of illustrations."

Check the Help. In summary, we generally manually add to the count if the story ends on an unnumbered page. In this case, I'd probably keep counting as the illustrations are part of the story. I generally include any Glossaries and Author's Notes (that explain something about the story) to the count, but not usually an author bio if it's right at the end. (You can add to the Notes field re how you arrived at the count, if it's like this case.) Again, check the Help.

good guidelines; so did you amend the page count to 218 or should I?--Bluesman 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Maroto is credited with all the internal artwork, Vellejo just with the cover."

Adding Interior art is step 2 for a new publication (depending how you do "New"), after a MOD has approved the 1st step. Only the cover artist should be put in the "Artist" field. To add the internal artist, edit the publication after it's approved. You'll see a "Content" section at the bottom. Select INTERIORART from the drop-down. NOTE: The "Content" section is actually a list of title records for the contents and some care is required if you later want to edit via the "Content" section.*

so did you reject the edit or just remove Maroto?--Bluesman 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(If you do a clone of a pub. rather than "Add a New Pub to this Title", you get the "Content" section on the first pass. Also, there's a trick if you notice your "New Novel" has illustrations before you start entering it - select New Collection instead of New Novel, change the drop-down in the Pub Type to "Novel" & add the interior art info to the Content section.)

like that trick! thanks.--Bluesman 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The comment about editing content mainly applies to short stories in anthologies and collections, especially if you think you want to change the author's name or the title of a story or the length. Don't! until you check back here, because we have a variant title/variant author system & a way to collect multiple printings of a story. These aspects (variant titles, etc) of ISFDB took me a long time to figure out/get straight in my head when I was starting off. ... clarkmci 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
now that is an understatement...already felt the "wrath of MOD" over editing contents...Gotta learn somehow!--Bluesman 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It's on Hold at the moment. I'll do some of it & leave you to tidy the notes & add the interiorart. clarkmci / --j_clark 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Later: I've done the interior art for your copy of Playgrounds of the Mind for you - have a look. If it's a generic "interior art" then we use the title of the book, as I've done. If you want to be specific, you might put Maps (Playgrounds of the Mind), if this book had maps you wanted to particularly mention. --j_clark 02:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow Mars

It's very annoying when a publisher names a collection, anthology or omnibus the same as the title one of the items inside. In this case, the contents of the collection includes the novel. (I was caught as you were for a while ! - even wrote to the "Help Desk" - until I dragged out my copy which turned out to be the standalone novel. Page count was the trigger to doing that; I didn't think to look at the contents of the existing collection records until then.)

BTW: I've approved your addition to the Collection title & removed the note. (I've also changed the publisher to Tor[space]/[space]SFBC 'cos we are trying regularize how publishers are entered, and, as far as I know, we have agreed to standardise on a space on either side of a slash. (There is some discussion of this on the Rules & Stds page, but there's more on another page I can't find at the moment.)

Cloning one of the existing collections would have saved you having to enter the contents now - though there is a new import/export facility now to make it easier. ...clarkmci 23:49 (& later), 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Three Books Of Known Space

Collection vs Omnibus - Straight off, I would have said "Omnibus", but I've read the latest help for "New ..." & it's not as clear-cut as I remembered. Nevertheless, in this case I'd go for "Omnibus" if most of the contents are in the same series (presumably Known Space) & are reprints. ... clarkmci 00:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

did you change it to "omnibus" then? I don't really want to enter all that again just to change the one designation (Can't clone this from anywhere).--Bluesman 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I accepted it as a collection then edited the publication & the title record to change it to an omnibus. I edited your MOD note, rather than deleted, because it explains where the "Three Books ..." title comes from.
NOW ... if you haven't been through this before ... The next steps are:
1. add the "Three Books ..." title to the Known Space series & "describe" the omnibus (click on the Help when you do Edit Title Data & look for the special use for Storylen field, but maybe something like /2N+1C+1sf (? I haven't done a complicated one like this before)).
2. Because this is a publication containing reprints, you will notice that just about every item in the contents you entered is now on Niven's Summary Page twice.
Click "Duplicate Candidates" on the left. Click "Similar Title Mode" in this case, to get them all (just about - occasionally it doesn't get all), plus there might be others are not from your book. Very carefully, where the titles are exactly the same, and the types are exactly the same, check the 2 rows and click the Merge button straight under. (e.g. don't stuff up Worlds of Ptavvs (clicking each title will give some idea of what gotchas there are)). If 2 titles are similar & you are sure it's the same story, then don't merge - this would be a variant title candidate.
Once you've clicked Merge, it will give you a screen that will have a few pink "conflicts". If so, abandon temporarily and investigate the other publication you are merging with. If you had put a date eg 1999-00-00 and the other record has 1999-01-00, if the other record is a magazine published Jan. 1999, then go with the month. (Generally would go with a month over an unknown month.) Story length, generally go with what the magazine has / what's already there, unless you have counted the words*. Series conflict: here it's easy I assume; go with "Known Space". Once you've decided on which ones you think are best, re-do the Merge Selected button, click the appropriate radio buttons, then click Complete Merge. Repeat for all the contents that have duplicates.
    • or, you've put ss, nt or nv, and the other is blank or sf. clarkmci / --j_clark 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
have not tried anything this complicated, yet. Think I will save this for the future. Currently wading through my collection (only up to "N", as you can see) and on the second trip through will do tons of verifications and then tidy stuff up. The whole process seems to get broader exponentially with each step.--Bluesman 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If you do wait, make a note of where this is. But once you try it, it isn't as hard or complex as it sounds in description. And it does need to be done any time an editor enters a collection or anthology (or the contents for one) where some of the contents had other publications on file, wihch they often do. It soom becoems a very routine part of the work when entering any collections/anthologies. I urge you to give it a try. -DES Talk 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

((Frequencies))

You submitted a new publication of ((Frequencies)), which included a note "First Edition, thus." Now this is not in fact a first edition, as we have a publication on file from two years earlier. I sometimes see "First Edition, thus." in used book listings, meaning the first edition in a particular state, but I think it is not meaningful unless combined with an indication of what state is involved. Do you mean "First Hardcover Edition"? Or first edition by this publisher? or what? If (as I rather suspect) you mean "First Hardcover Edition", wouldn't it be better to say that? And what is the source for so saying, anyway? Surely this isn't stated on the copyright page, or is it?

sorry, DES; yes, it is a first hardcover edition. There were two previous editions in '99 & '01, both trade paperbacks, one a limited edition of 1000, both by Omega Point Productions. Odd that the copyright is 2003 in this edition, without mention of any previous editions.--Bluesman 21:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem, approved and reedited. The result is here, please check it. Thanks for yopur contributiuons -DES Talk 05:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the submission on hold, pending your response. -DES Talk 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dust

I have approved the SFBC edition of Dust and added the following note: "Publication date and price not stated and taken from the Locus Index" based on, well, the Locus Index. One thing that comes to mind, though, is that you entered the SFBC catalog ID as the primary ID even though the trade edition's ISBN is available in the book. Normally, we use the ISBN as the primary identifier when available, but SFBC is admittedly a special case and may be worth discussing separately. Do you want to raise this issue on the Rules and standards discussions page? Ahasuerus 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

'tis a sticky wicket! This one odder than most, as inputing this ISBN will get you a trade paper edition, not even a trade hardcover (unless AVON is in the practice of using one for both? If so they are in the definite minority). When it comes right down to it, the SFBC catalogue number is the only thing that distinguishes it from a trade edition. I just had an edit rejected, for good reason: I overwrote the SFBC pub because I was looking at the ISBN and not the publisher (It's amazing how focused one can get doing this to miss adjacent text) but would never have done that if that entry had used the SFBC catalogue ID. A poor example but the most immediate one. I think you are right about raising this on the R&R Standards page.--Bluesman 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Song Of Time

Quick question: you would like to replace "Trade hc(slip-cased) issued without dustjacket." with "Trade hc (slip-cased). Limited edition of 100 copies all signed by MacLeod." in Ian R. MacLeod's Song Of Time. Did you mean to delete the part of the note about the dust jacket? Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I ordered two of these from PS Publishing, but they only sent one, which was the regular trade HC and it had no dust jacket, so I (wrongly) assumed the slip-cased edition would be the same. They had slipped up in shipping and sent me a slip-cased one to make up for the delay and it did have a dust-jacket! Will never assume again!--Bluesman 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, small presses often get "creative" in order to help their customers part with their money ("Oh, look! Not just a special edition, a triple special edition! A truly unique item!"), so it pays to be even more careful with them :) Ahasuerus 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Last Theorem

To answer your question about "pre-release" notes, yes, please feel free to overwrite them if you have access to the actual book. "Pre-release data" comes from Amazon.com and is not particularly reliable. Similarly, feel free to overwrite the listed ISBN-10 with the ISBN-13 in the book: all books published in 2007 were supposed to have both ISBNs, but now ISBN-10s are being phased out, although I am not sure what the time frame is. We definitely want to record what's in the book and not what Amazon.com computers recorded for arcane reasons of their own :) Ahasuerus 02:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the software automatically put in both in the record? Will changing it to the ISBN-13 not still re-generate the ISBN-10?--Bluesman 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
We only store one ISBN in a pub record, which may be either 10 or 13 digits. At display time, if the ISBN is valid, it is formatted with dashes, and the other ISBN (13 or 10, as the case may be) is generated and displayed. Only one of the two is stored. Changing from a 10 to a 13 changes what is stored, but the change can only be seen (at present) when the record is edited. Strictly speaking, if the book has an ISBN-13, but we have an ISBN-10 on file, changing it makes the record that much more accurate. But at the moment, there will be zero difference in the display except at edit time. There may be a difference in the search results, I'm not sure. Whether making this change is worth doing is up to you. I sometimes make such a change if I am editing the record anyway. I have never bothered to edit a record just to make such a change. Making such a change will surely do no harm. -DES Talk 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
In general, if a record has a note saying that it is based on "pre-release" data, feel free to correct anything in the record to match a copy in hand, or even a more reliable secondary source such as an OCLC Fiction Finder or Library of Congress Online Catalog record. If you correct to match a physical pub, please remove the pre-release note. if you correct some info from a secondary source, please add a note indicating what info was corrected (or confirmed) and what source was used. Page counts are often inaccurate in pre-release data, generally seeming to be the multiple of 16 nearest what the publisher thought the final page count would be. Amazon often sticks series indicators into the title name, often but not always in (parens). Publication dates may also be slightly inaccurate (a bogus day of the month is often added), and author names are often misspelled or slightly varied (initial added or lost, for example) from the form actually published. Other differences also occur. -DES Talk 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys! The water may not be crystal clear, but it's certainly getting less murky!!--Bluesman 18:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that at the moment ISBN-10s and ISBN-13s are the same except that ISBN-13s have 3 more digits up front (always "978" at the moment) and a different "check digit" at the end. However, in the foreseeable future book publishers will run out of 9 digit permutations and will start using "979" as the 3 digit prefix. When that happens, you will no longer be able to automatically convert the two formats back and forth, so it will become more important to enter the ISBN as it appears in the book. Ahasuerus 15:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly so. Presumably our software will then be set so it converts an ISBN-13 to a 10 only when the first three digits are 978. -DES Talk 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wonder Effect

Re: The Wonder Effect, the first printing of the Ballantine edition (1962) was verified by Scott Latham, who made Richard Powers the cover artist. I have a copy here and although the cover is not signed or otherwise attributed, it does look like Powers' work, which Scott, who used to work in publishing, would be even better positioned to recognize. It's possible that the record for the 1969 printing was cloned from the 1962 record and inherited the cover art data. I have uploaded the 1962 cover (and cleaned up the 1962 record a bit) so that you would be able to take a look and see whether it's the same as yours. If not, then we may have to remove Powers as the artist. It's a never-ending story, isn't it? :) Ahasuerus 02:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Artwork for the '69 edition is totally different.--Bluesman 15:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
What I run across a publication record that already credits an artist and my copy of the publication does not seem to credit the artist then I add a note along the lines of:
  • The cover artist is not credited nor is a signature visible. Prior to verification this ISFDB publication record credited Name of Artist. The source of this information is unknown but is assumed to be accurate.
As this record is already verified you can leave a note with Scott Latham and also to add a note to the publication along the lines of:
  • Oct-2008. I have a copy of this publication and am unable to locate the cover artist credit nor is a signature visible. This ISFDB publication record has been verified with Richard Powers credited as the cover artist. The source of this information is unknown but is assumed to be accurate. ~Bluesman.
Mark it as transient-verified and for now we've done the best we can with the data available. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
That would work for a Verified publication, but the 1969 printing of The Wonder Effect is not verified and I suspect that the Richard Powers attribution was simply copied from the verified 1962 printing by someone who didn't realize that the 1969 cover was different. Here is what I have added to the record:
  • Stated second printing. The cover art is not credited and there is no identifiable signature on the cover. The ISFDB originally credited Richard Powers as the cover artist, but the artwork is unlike his style. It is currently suspected that the Powers attribution was copied from the 1962 printing, which had a different cover.
As I said, it never ends, does it? :) Ahasuerus 16:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anderson's Orbit Unlimited

I have reviewed the changes to the 4th printing of the Pyramid edition of Poul Anderson's Orbit Unlimited] and agree that it seems to be closer to a fix-up novel than to a collection, so I posted your observations on the Community Portal with a few comments of my own.

I'll check that out.--Bluesman 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as the issue of cover art attribution goes, we have a few editors with an extensive art background, so it's entirely possible that one of them (Don Erikson?) identified the artist at some point and forgot to add a note explaining that the attribution was made based on the artist's style and not on any kind of explicit evidence. In cases like that, we usually add a note similar to the one that I have just added: "Cover art not credited and there is no identifiable signature on the cover; the source of the current attribution (Paul Lehr) is unknown." This is generally the safe way to proceed when dealing with an apparently extensively researched record that has apparently unattributable information, e.g. Scott Latham has been known to enter the exact publication date based on his notes from the time when he worked in the publishing industry :) Ahasuerus 03:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That explains a lot. Early on his talk page he mentioned something about doing 1000 verifications in a short time frame and noting every source would definitely have slowed that down. I have been paying a lot of attention to cover artists lately just to get to know styles and trying to decipher some of the "signatures" so I can recognize them on future edits. Would save a lot of notes.--Bluesman 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Search the Sky

Re: your note in the Search the Sky submission, the answers are below:

"[MOD: added catalog # as same as pb. Currey only lists the one # for both bindings."

Hardcover publications generally didn't have catalog IDs in the 1950s, so it's likely that Currey mean "61" to refer to the paperback edition only, which is the way it's listed in Tuck.
Just re-checked Currey and he does only put the # on the PB; my oops. I have seen a number of Ballantine entries listing the same # for both bindings, but don't have a single HC from that era to compare. I'll go back and remove that edit, or did you reject it?--Bluesman 15:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I approved the submission and then adjusted it, so I think we should be OK. Ahasuerus 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"On the back cover of the pb is a note: "A hardbound edition of this book, priced at $2.00, is available at your local bookstore." Is this enough to edit the $2.50 price now in the pub record? Does Tuck or Reginald3 normally give prices?"

Good catch! Although biblio data found in subsequent editions is not always 100% accurate (but then again, what is?), it is generally reliable and acceptable as a legitimate source of bibliographic information (notably of publication month data) as long as we specify the source of the data. Tuck does list prices when known and in this case concurs that the hardcover was $2.00. Reginald doesn't list prices in either one of this tomes. Ahasuerus 03:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly a "subsequent edition" edition as Ballantine released both bindings simultaneously in the early 50s. Should I go ahead and change the price, then, or did you do that?--Bluesman 15:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I changed the price to $2.00. Ahasuerus 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Venus, Inc.

I approved your update to Venus, Inc.. While the gutter code often precedes the publishing date by a month or more it's possible this was published in same month. I've updated Publisher:SFBC 1985-1989#1985 and assume that Mhhutchins will be filling in the details for 1985 fairly soon. I've also started thread; Rules and standards discussions#Replacing the verifier for a publication. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

King David's Spaceship

I approved your update to King David's Spaceship and edited your note so that it can be left in place. I don't have a problem with someone leaving a note on a publication record if they spot something that does not seem right as long as it's something that a random person could make sense of. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

An Exaltation of Larks

I have your update to An Exaltation of Larks on hold as I don't quite follow the note you added. You are

  • Changing the date from 1998-00-00 to 1998-03-00
  • Changing the page count from 256 to 251
  • Changing the note from (blank) to
    C$17.95 in Canada.

[MOD: page count and month of publication from copyright page. No artist credited but there is a signature on the bottom left that I don't recognize. Cover art is different from the HC edition.]

My thoughts are:

  • It's not necessary to write a note to the moderator in this case as you are simply stating the source of information. We assume people update publication record using a copy of the publication as the source. If you are using something else then that should be documented in the notes. That documentation is for all future readers and also for a future editor who has a copy of the publication. The intent here is people know what information comes from the publication itself and what's from secondary sources.
  • I'm confused about "page count and month of publication from copyright page". The page count is on the copyright page? I assume you don't have a copy of this pub and are using the Amazon Look Inside as a source? Marc Kupper (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I do have the book; kind of a 'compressed' thought process there, I think. Done a lot of books this past week. Still relatively new at this, and haven't quite reached a comfort zone level with the notes. Have tried to put the 'fringe' details in notes to the moderator, and with feedback such as yours (which I really appreciate) I will be able to leave better notes. Thanks!--Bluesman 15:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem - I've approved your update but did not make any further edits to An Exaltation of Larks so that you can make further edits to it. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Swiftly and The Soddit

I have your updates for Swiftly and The Soddit on hold. Unfortunately - I just realized it's getting late and both of these will take a while to process meaning I'll finish this tomorrow.

  • should "anonymous" go in the artist field? See Template:PublicationFields:Artist.
  • "There is no mention of a month of publication in the book." I usually add a note "The month of publication is not stated. However, prior to verification this ISFDB publication record was dated 2004-06-00. The source of this information is unknown but is assumed to be accurate. Amazon.com reports "September 29, 2004" for this ISBN."
I left the date as it was, just added the note to show it didn't come from the book.--Bluesman 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "There is, apparently, a limited edition for $45 with an ISBN of 1-892389-72-X but other than that there is no other data". If you can cite a source then add a new publication record for this and cite the source in the publication notes. I've added records at times that were really minimal. For example, a later printing may report the first printing date or that it's been reprinted by arrangement with another publisher. I'll add a pub record with no price, no ISBN, no artist, etc. to serve as a placeholder for the first printing. I'll usually also look at AbeBooks and Amazon and mine both of them for information, again citing the source. For example "A single AbeBooks dealer listing reports the page count as 386."
Source was the flap of the jacket for the regular trade edition. I'll put this one in. Thought about it after the fact and realized a 'sparse' beginning is better than nothing.--Bluesman 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You have more questions but I'll look again tomorrow. Marc Kupper (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Swiftly

I've approved the update but then edited it. One of the things you did was you you took the Contents section record that had Swiftly, NOVEL and changed it to SHORTFICTION. After approving your update I edited the record to add a new title for 'Swiftly, SHORTFICTION and changed the old record to type COLLECTION as you are also changing the title type. You had the note

[MOD: should "anonymous" go in the artist field? There is no mention of a month of publication in the book. There is, apparently, a limited edition for $45 with an ISBN of 1-892389-72-X but other than that there is no other data.]

I think I've answered these above? Marc Kupper (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Soddit

I've approved this update which was you added the note

Interior illustrations by Douglas Carrel.
Map by Dave Senior.
[MOD: my copy does not have a jacket, no cover artist credited on the copyright page. Will query the verifier. This "novel" is a parody of The Hobbit, written as by A.R.R.R. Roberts. He has written six that I know of. Does it belong here? Should there be a separate category for the six?]
  • We would add the Interior illustrations by adding a new title record with
    • Title: The Soddit (map)
    • Entry Type: INTERIORART
    • Author: Douglas Carrel
    • If the map is on a specific page then you can note that in the page # field.
    • You can leave the date blank and it'll use the publication's date.
  • We would add a map by adding a new title record with
    • Title: The Soddit (map)
    • Entry Type: INTERIORART
    • Author: Dave Senior
    • If the map is on a specific page then you can note that in the page # field.
    • You can leave the date blank and it'll use the publication's date.
  • A parody of The Hobbit seems fine. You could use the tag feature that's on the title page and tab them as "Parody" if you like.
  • Note that the verifier has not been active on ISFDB since 6 June 2007. I believe this predates the ISFDB update that allowed us to register our e-mail address on the wiki meaning I don't think he's aware that people are leaving notes on his talk page. Marc Kupper (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Preferred Risk

I have approved your changes to the 1955 edition of Preferred Risk. As far as I can tell, the original "tp" information was a data entry error by the verifier, so all that subsequent research was done to confirm that the book was a hardcover and not a trade paperback. I have removed comments about online bookstores, but left the note about OCLC/LOC-LCCN/Melvyl records. (LCCNs are usually recorded in Notes rather than in the ISBN/Catalog ID field, so I moved it there) I have also copied the sentence "Winner of the Galaxy-Simon & Schuster contest for 1955's best work of science-fiction" to the Title level. Thanks! Ahasuerus 16:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! Knew the LCCN belonged in the notes (been told that before) but still am hesitant about multi-changes to a verified pub. That 'Winner of....." is also present on the cover of the first Dell pb.--Bluesman 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Child Garden

I recently approved your edit to the pub of The Child Garden. In that edit, you included in the notes: "Winner of the Arthur C. Clarke Award: Best Science Fiction Novel of the Year". Award info applies to the book, note merely a particualr publication, and so is better stated on the title record. And indeed in the "Awards" section the tiel record already states "1990 - The Child Garden Arthur C. Clarke Award, Arthur C. Clarke Award (Win)".

However, some publications annouce an award (or award nomination) on the cover, and this can be worth noting, as it can help to distinguish different editions or printings. It may be that you noted this because of a cover mention. If so, it is helpful to include in the note an explicit statement to that effect, such as: "Across top of cover: 'Winner of the Arthur C. Clarke Award: Best Science Fiction Novel of the Year' " (or wherever the statemnt is actually located). -DES Talk 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This was definitely stated on the cover. As I was already on the 'edit' page I did not see the awards section. I'll add that to the pub record note.--Bluesman 22:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -DES Talk 00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Identity Theft and Other Stories

You propose to change 254353 by changing the publisher, the page count, and the price. Are you sure that was no edition by "Robert J. Sawyer Books"? If ther is any chance that these are two different editions/versions of the book, the pub should be cloned rather than edited.

I posted on the moderator notice board on this one, item #55. The information I changed was taken directly from the first edition.--Bluesman 13:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you have reason to conclude that this was inaccurate pre-relaease data. If the other veraion actually exists, it can always be entereed when and if it surfaces, but it probably doesn't exist. I'm about to approve this. Thanks. -DES Talk 15:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is on hold pending your response. -DES Talk 04:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Swiftly (again)

I have approved the addition of the limited edition of Swiftly, but now I am looking at the included short fiction pieces and I am wondering if their lengths are right. For example, the title story, "Swiftly", and "Jupiter Magnified", are 30-34 pages long yet labeled "novella". Is that right? Also, a bunch of (what are apparently) short stories are not labeled at all. Do we want to make them "short stories" explicitly? Thanks! Ahasuerus 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am still unclear as to what lengths constitute what designation. 30+ pages seem more than a short story; and what is the difference between a novella and a novelet?--Bluesman 04:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see! This one is fairly easy - as per Help:Screen:NewPub:
  • Length - The length of the item in words. Note that if you are cloning a publication, this field is not editable for existing content records. The length field should be left blank except for SHORTFICTION, and in a couple of other cases where it makes sense: NONGENRE and NONFICTION, for example. The options are:
  • sf - Shortfiction - This is the default story length for shortfiction and means the length is not defined.
  • ss - Shortstory - A work whose length is less than or equal to 7,500 words. (Roughly, 20 or fewer pages in a book.)
  • nt - Novelette - A work whose length is greater than 7,500 words and less than or equal to 17,500 words. (Roughly 20 to 50 pages in a book.)
  • nv - Novella - A work whose length is greater than 17,500 words and less than or equal to 40,000 words. (Roughly 50 to 100 pages in a book.)
See? Almost painless! :) Ahasuerus 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! This note shall join the growing array of post-its decorating my computer! I'll go back to "swiftly" and make the changes.--Bluesman 14:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Will doing this for one pub automatically update the other edition?--Bluesman 14:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes! That's the thing about Contents level data in Collections, Anthologies, etc -- Publication records do not store detailed information about each Title that they contain. Instead each Publication has a list of Title records, i.e. the numbers that you see at the end of the URL field of your browser. When a Publication is displayed, the software uses these numbers to retrieve each individual Title's data. If you then change that data in the Contents area of the "Edit Publication" form, the changes will be applied to the actual Title record. So if you change the title of Sheckley's story "The Humors" to "The Humours", it will change the underlying Title record and we will no longer have "The Humors" on file, which is probably not what we want. The same thing happens when you change the Title's pseudonym, length, etc. which is OK for length values, but generally not OK for pseudonyms and titles. The right way to handle these situations is to use the Remove Title option to get rid of the wrong Title in the Publication, then add the correct Title and then merge the newly entered Title with the one already on file (assuming it exists). A little tedious, but it's the only way at the moment. Hopefully, the interface will be improved sooner rather than later, but until then... Ahasuerus 15:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
After taking a closer look at "The Humo(u)rs" situation, I discovered that this version of the title appeared in just one publication, so it was safe to change it. I'll double check my copy tonight and send an e-mail to Bill Contento, whose Index also lists it as "The Humors". Ahasuerus 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
just those silly Americans messing with the Queen's English again....! I find it quite hilarious when the 'spell-check' feature on my computer flags "colour, humour, but not amour."--Bluesman 01:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have merged the newly entered Sheffield stories with their pre-existing counterparts and adjusted the "length" field. Keep in mind that the page count is not a perfect gauge since different publishers use different fonts, margins, page layouts, etc. It helps to check other sources, e.g. whether the story has been nominated for one or more of the major awards, which tend to use the same thresholds. It's not a perfect indicator either because the award committees sometimes make exceptions, but it's generally a safer bet than using the page count in marginal cases. Ahasuerus 02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have Verified my copy of Store of Infinity, which turned out to be a second printing with a different cover. Still "The Humours". Contento notified. Ahasuerus 03:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Added cover credit

I added cover credit to your verified EIGHT AGAINST UTOPIA by Douglas R. Mason. On my copy you can barely make Jack Gaughan's JG logo in lower right of illo.Don Erikson 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Notions: Unlimited

I see that you have added a page number to the 1960 edition of Robert Sheckley's Notions: Unlimited. Assuming you have a copy handy, could you please double check whether "Gray Flannel Armor" and "A Wind Is Rising" really appeared as by "Finn O'Donnevan" in this edition? Typically, pseudonymous stories drop the pretense when they are reprinted in single author collections, but I suppose anything is possible. Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No sign of the elusive O'Donnevan! Didn't want to touch, as the last time (see #42, this page: Sheckley vs Finn O'Donnevan) I was severely chastised by some moderator....hmmmmm, can't quite recall the name...... LOL!! Once bitten...!--Bluesman 04:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
There's still quite a few 'trap' editions out there where you happily clone somebody else's mistake. E.g. I only corrected the author of these titles in The Wonderful World of Robert Sheckley as I had to change to British title spelling as well. I'm afraid cloning from Scott Latham's early verifications makes me check especially hard now. BLongley 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've had the feeling a couple of times that speed and how many were behind some of his verifications. But then I've made silly little mistakes by working at these late at night, which, one would hope soon, will stop as this becomes more second nature.--Bluesman 14:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Publication corrected using the "Remove Titles" option. Ahasuerus 02:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Between the Strokes of Night

Did you mean to delete the sentence "Publication month from the copyright page of the second printing" when updating the 1985-07-00 Baen edition of Sheffield's Between the Strokes of Night or was it accidentally overwritten? Ahasuerus 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Verified it from the first printing which also states the month of publication.--Bluesman 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgia On My Mind, and Other Places

I approved your changes to Georgia On My Mind, and Other Places and changed "On" to "on" -- see Help for the current list of words that we do not capitalize -- but then it occurred to me that we also have another potential discrepancy. It looks like there is no comma on the cover, but could you please check if the comma is present on the title page? We always use the title page as our gold standard (hey, we needed to pick something!), but it's not always easy to tell what's on it... Ahasuerus 21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

definitely NO comma; I did stumble on the list of words when looking for how to enter a book in a series. I DO check the 'help' pages once in a while, just don't always find what I need... not the kind or bedtime reading I fancy...!--Bluesman 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ahasuerus - I left some approvals to the moderators affected, or to those with time to talk to the verifiers, or check that Bluesman was already talking to them... sometimes one approval can spin off into more time than I can afford, so I stuck with mostly no-brainers and then got caught on one like below. BLongley 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Bluesman, one other comment - I found you were adjusting your verified pubs quite often (which is fine, I'm doing that a LOT to my earlier verifications - every time I finish a pass of most of my books something else comes up and I want to add to/adjust them) but if you're assuming your edits will go through as you intend them you might be jumping the gun a little? There's no telling what our pesky moderators will do to your perfectly-logical submissions, you may want to check what we do to them before putting your name against them. So if you would rather that "on" was "On" then we could take that aside for discussion (I wouldn't support you, but I'd discuss it! ("From" versus "from" is a different matter)) but we need you to check us as well. BLongley 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
not exactly...I have been adding a lot of $C prices to previously unverified pubs and while I'm there doing a primary or transient verification, just to save a trip back later. Think maybe I'll wait for the approval from now on as there are still those 'twilight zone' ones (like the one below) though I don't usually verify when there is that much data involved. Sometimes it is just hard to stay really focused after a couple of hours and the pile doesn't seem to shrink and then you get one that is a collection with NO entries in the content..... and you guys do this for fun?? Think I'll go look for my strait-jacket, the really comfy extra padded one....--Bluesman 00:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How to Save the World

Your edit to How to Save the World needed a little adjustment. You entered "Kathe Koja & Barry N. Malzberg" and "Jerry Pournelle & Charles Sheffield" as single authors - please use the "Add Author" button and enter each author separately or we get them created as brand new joint authors with no independent titles. (I'm afraid I might have let some similar edits through, as all we get to see before we approve it is whether it's "Kathe Koja & Barry N. Malzberg" (wrong) or "Kathe Koja + Barry N. Malzberg" (correct) and we're not always that observant!) BLongley 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And I know better... just slipped on this one.--Bluesman 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What this does suggest though is that you haven't found the "Import Content" tool yet, as you could have got all the content data from the existing publication here rather than retyping it all, and then just added page numbers. BLongley 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

found the tool, will try it next time.--Bluesman 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

However, it might also suggest that you don't agree with the other publications content. Using the "Diff Publications" tool when you're at the title level now indicates that you disagree on "Defense Conversions" v "Defense Conversation", "My Soul, to Keep" v "My Soul to Keep", "Souls On Ice" v "Souls on Ice" (the latter is the standardised name though) and "The Product of the Extremes" v "The Product of Extremes". Also whether the Introduction and "About the Authors" should be included. BLongley 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

didn't look at any other pub, just typed what was in this edition; well not exactly.... there should be no comma in "My Soul to Keep", it is "Defense Conversion" (no "s") and "The Product of the Extremes" is correct. I wear specific glasses for computer work and can't read up close to save my butt. Have a magnifying glass handy for the really small stuff. Since I don't have the HC edition, can't speak to the entries in it, but will fix the ones in this right away.--Bluesman 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I've not drowned you in too many new things to try, but have a look and see if I'm making sense. Thanks for editing! BLongley 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

why does the software alphabetize entries in the contents? Makes adding page numbers a real pain.--Bluesman 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if a Pub has no page numbers to begin with, then alphabetizing them makes sense. When page numbers are present, it would be better to display Contents in that order, but our programmer, Al, once explained that it could lead to convoluted programming logic when some Titles have numbers and some don't. Ahasuerus 01:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Kalimantan

I approved the changes to Kalimantan, then added an INTERIORART Title for Jamel Akib and adjusted Notes accordingly. Ahasuerus 01:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

At Winter's End

You have added the SFBC edition of Winter's End, but I wonder how confident we are that it was published in 1988? SFBC reprints are typically not dated and the Locus Index doesn't list this edition, so there may not be an easy way of dating it. Ahasuerus 02:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

According to James Nicoll's listing on rec.art.sf.written, this was a September 1988 selection of the SFBC. Must have slipped by Contento. MHHutchins 05:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, added! :) Ahasuerus 12:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Heritage Universe

Answering the questions here:

MOD: am I correct that I can add this to the series AFTER the new pub is approved?
That's right, there is no way to specify Series information at the time of the original submission, so it will have to be done after the submission has been approved. In this case, I did it after approving the submission. Ahasuerus 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Searched the "help" and think this is what it indicated? Is it correct to leave the "editor" field blank in this case?]
Hm, I don't think Help, which says "If it is an omnibus leave the field blank", is correct in this case. You can't even create a submission without an Author/Editor and it wouldn't make much sense that way. "Charles Sheffield" was the right thing to enter and I have approved the submission. I will raise the Help issue on the Standards page.
A few other things:
  • You can enter Omnibus contents when creating a new omnibus. Just remember to change the Title Type in the drop down menus to Novel. In this case, I entered the Novels after approving the submission and merged them with the pre-existing novel Titles.
  • I have changed "GuildAmerica/SFBC" to "GuildAmerica / SFBC" as per the standard
  • I have added the price and the publication date from the Locus Index
Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! On changing the publisher by putting spaces on both sides of the slash: I had left them out deliberately as GuildAmerica 'owns' the SFBC, even though there is no 'imprint' as such.--Bluesman 16:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm, that's an interesting point, but I don't think we make an exception for GuildAmerica, at least not according to Help:How to enter a SFBC publication. Ask on the Standards page, perhaps? Ahasuerus 03:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One Man's Universe: The Continuing Chronicles of Arthur Morton McAndrew

Hopefully the final note for the night! One Man's Universe: The Continuing Chronicles of Arthur Morton McAndrew has been approved and massaged, but there is a catch when changing a Novel publication to a Collection one. In the Contents area, it's important to change the Novel Title to a Collection Title and add the stories/essays afterwards. If you overwrite the Novel Title with a story or an essay, there won't be a Collection Title for the book and it will no longer appear on the Summary Bibliography page. Don't worry, it's a very common error :) Ahasuerus 03:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks.--Bluesman 16:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Conditionally Human

Added the following note to your verified Conditionally Human: "Cover art not credited and there is no identifiable signature on the cover, but looks like Richard Powers. No publication date stated; taken from Tuck and Currey. Stated copyright date is 1962." Ahasuerus 02:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic Novels Magazine, July 1949

I see that you asked the following question about Fantastic Novels Magazine, July 1949 in your last submission:

MOD: how on earth can this be linked to an anthology edited by Silverberg???

I assume that you were referring to Silverberg's Between Worlds, which lists this issue of Fantastic Novels Magazine as an associated Serial. Rest assured that none of the involved Titles or Publications are actually linked in the database. However, at the time the software displays Title information, it checks if there is a matching Serial title on file and displays it as well. The matching logic is broken and doesn't check the author, hence the appearance of unrelated Serials (in this case Garret Smith's) just because the title is the same. It's an obvious bug and the only reason it hasn't been fixed yet is that Serials are about to be completely redesigned. As soon as Al returns from his extended hiatus, that is... Ahasuerus 03:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:

MOD: is there a reason this title doesn't show up under the Collections' heading?

This collection appears as item #3 in The Collected Stories of Robert Silverberg -- fiction series are listed before novels and collections. Also, if you are not adding/changing information in a publication, it's probably best to post questions directly on the Community Portal. That way many editors will see your questions as opposed to just one-two sleepy moderators :) Ahasuerus 03:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Born With the Dead / The Saliva Tree

I have approved the submission, but then changed the publisher from "Tor" back to "Tor Double". As far as I can tell, somebody has set up all Tor Doubles that way, so there may be a good reason for it. Let me ask on the Standards page... Ahasuerus 03:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Calibrated Alligator

I have used the "add/remove" method outlined above to change "Mugwump Four" to "Mugwump 4" in The Calibrated Alligator. Keep in mind that simply overwriting "Mugwump Four" with "Mugwump 4" would have made "Mugwump Four" to disappear. Ahasuerus 19:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Went to the 'above' and don't see what I was supposed to have done. Almost immediately found the story as "Mugwump Four" in The Cube Root of Uncertainty".--Bluesman 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, there were two "Swiftly" sections on this page; I thought I was linking the second one, but the link took you to the first one instead. The paragraph that I had in mind was something that I posted a couple of days ago to explain why changing titles and authors in the Contents section could cause problems. Here it is again:
That's the thing about Contents level data in Collections, Anthologies, etc -- Publication records do not store detailed information about each Title that they contain. Instead each Publication has a list of Title records, i.e. the numbers that you see at the end of the URL field of your browser. When a Publication is displayed, the software uses these numbers to retrieve each individual Title's data. If you then change that data in the Contents area of the "Edit Publication" form, the changes will be applied to the actual Title record. So if you change the title of Sheckley's story "The Humors" to "The Humours", it will change the underlying Title record and we will no longer have "The Humors" on file, which is probably not what we want. The same thing happens when you change the Title's pseudonym, length, etc. which is OK for length values, but generally not OK for pseudonyms and titles. The right way to handle these situations is to use the Remove Title option to get rid of the wrong Title in the Publication, then add the correct Title and then merge the newly entered Title with the one already on file (assuming it exists). A little tedious, but it's the only way at the moment. Hopefully, the interface will be improved sooner rather than later, but until then...
Hope it makes more sense! It's the biggest flaw in our system at this time, but hopefully we will address it in the next few months. Ahasuerus 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of it does. Just followed this method for another story in another Silverberg anthology, but when is the "merge" to be done? I assume after the edit is approved? And what if there are two variant titles? This one I find tough because there are consequences I can't see.--Bluesman 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the late response, I missed your last edit on the 27th :(
You are quite right, the newly entered Title needs to be merged with the pre-existing Title (if one exists) after the original edit has been approved. Like all multi-step edits -- and there are complicated magazine-related and other obscure edits that require half a dozen steps -- it's much easier to do when you can approve your own submissions. On the plus side, practice makes perfect, so for most editors it becomes second nature after a few thousand edits. If they stick around long enough and learn to navigate the rest of the pitfalls, we gang up on them and, um, gently convince them to become moderators :) Ahasuerus 03:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"A few thousand..."?? Glad I don't have any hair left! LOL! --Bluesman 18:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are just 61 short of 1,000, so "a few thousand" is not as unattainable as it may sound. Our top contributor is at 48,300 as of 10 seconds ago, but may be higher by the time I finish this port :) Ahasuerus 19:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Really! And how (why) does one keep track of such numbers... or do I need a magic ring for that?--Bluesman 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... it looks like you should be able to access the script that will tell you such, but the link to it will not appear for the unringed, merely the unhinged. I don't know how secret it's supposed to be really. Still, I think I can tell you you're at 947 edits now. BLongley 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was ever meant to be secret, especially considering the fact that we have all pre-2006 contributor stats publicly available. However, the options that let you view contributor stats are under the moderator menu, so you have to be a moderator to access them. Once Marc has his development system up and running, we can ask him to move these options to some other menu. Ahasuerus 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I found those stats long before I was a mod. If you click moderator when logged in as a non-mod, you get a warning that you can't do any moderating without being a moderator, but the links to the "Top contributors" page and related pages still work - or at least they did before I became a mod -- I haven't created a 2nd non-mod account just to check. -DES Talk 22:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they seem to appear and work even if you're not logged in at all, so I guess they're not secret. You can go check Top Verifiers and Taggers and (ooh!) even Top Moderators. BLongley 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it's not secret then we can reveal the script. I see swfritter should overtake our founder soon, and maybe I can catch that pesky kid above me sometime shortly... BLongley 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd only just passed two thousand when they black-jacked me, and it was similar for our current top contributor, so maybe a "couple of thousand" is more like it for the moderatorship - then you can make all sorts of different mistakes for the next few thousand. ;-) BLongley 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Goodie, done enough of the same old mistakes already... I can hardly wait!--Bluesman 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find some more mistakes to make with current access, I know I did! ;-) BLongley
I am completely amazed that you would have to gang up to convince someone to be a Moderator: the hours! the perks! the gratitude of the lowly editors! What more could one want? (though a monogrammed strait-jacket comes to mind...)--Bluesman 18:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget the pay! (BTW, at one point we briefly considered secret decoder rings for ISFDB moderators.) Ahasuerus 19:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can't tell you what the outcome of the consideration was, as they are secret. It's the fame I find most difficult to cope with, and the groupies... BLongley 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
"Groupies"??? Where do I sign up? Second thought, pictures first! Remember the librarians from my youth (when I still had hair) and maybe not such a bonus....--Bluesman 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm the son of a librarian, and I recall what his colleagues looked like. Although I'm not much of a picture myself. BLongley 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not, but there is at least one ex-librarian on this planet who was also a movie star at one point :) Ahasuerus 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I can believe it. After all, everyone knows that female librarians only have to remove their spectacles and let their hair down to look gorgeous. It's a noted phenomenon that any good librarian should be able to provide lots of references for. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work for us male ones. BLongley 22:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as variant titles go, you don't have to worry about that when entering Publication contents. Just enter the stories as they appear in the book, preserving the title and the author attribution and removing any Titles that were entered incorrectly, e.g. using a wrong pseudonym or a wrong title. Once these changes have been approved, we can merge the newly entered Title(s) if the same version already exists. Ahasuerus 04:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian prices on my verified pub

Thanks for adding the Canadian prices, I hadn't bothered with them in the past but will start adding them now. In the future if the only change is the addition of the CDN price there is no need to notify me. Thanks!Kraang 23:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! Four down and just Scott to go! Think even on his verified pubs I'll just leave notes for stuff other than the price additions... think 25-30 is probably enough, already!--Bluesman 03:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Invaders from Space

I have approved the addition of page numbers to Invaders from Space' and the change of Silverberg's "Nightwings" from a novelette to a novella, but the rest of the changes were reversed. As far as I can tell, Invaders from Space used relatively few characters per page, so their page counts are inflated compared to other appearances of these stories. Thus "Nobody Saw the Ship", "Pictures Don't Lie", "Resurrection" and "The Liberation of Earth" are short stories and not novelettes.

Also, I used the "add/remove" method outlined above to change the authorship of "Storm Warning" from "Millard Verne Gordon" to "Donald A. Wollheim". As Help:Screen:EditPub points out:

  • ISFDB has one big "gotcha" in that if you make changes to anything in the Contents section -- other than the page numbers -- you will be updating the original title record which can be referenced from multiple publications. Thus, ISFDB editors should keep in mind the following points:
    1. 1. The Page field for each title listed belongs with the publication record and can be edited without affecting other publications or author bibliographic displays.
    2. 2. The data for the remaining Content fields (Title, Date, Entry Type, Length, and Author) is stored in ISFDB title records. If you make any changes to these fields please be aware that these changes will be affecting all publications that reference these titles and you will also be affecting what’s displayed in the author bibliographic displays.
  • A general rule of thumb is if you need to make a change a title or author name, no matter how minor, then use the [Add Title] button and set up the new title record which matches your publication. You can then remove the old/incorrect title record using the “Remove Titles From This Pub” option which is available from the publication display.

As I wrote earlier, this is a big "gotcha" in our design, which we hope to have fixed soon, but for now, please be careful when changing Contents level data. When a change like that makes it past moderators, it can cause a problem that may take months to find. Ahasuerus 01:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Shores of Tomorrow

You appear to be changing the valid and accurate ISBN of "0840765266" to the unverifiable one of "0840765258" on 47169, with no note that explains this situation. I have held the submission pending your response. -DES Talk 03:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on the mod notice board about this one; but someone else let it through so I went in and corrected it... actually you are seeing the second edit! The 5266 is on the copyright page but it tracks to a totally different book also published by Thomas Nelson in '76... I put all this in the note.--Bluesman 05:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
ON ISBNdb.com "0840765266" tracks to: 
The shores of tomorrow
The shores of tomorrow: eight stories of science fiction
by Robert Silverberg
Publisher: Nashville : T. Nelson, c1976.
ISBN: 0840765266   DDC: 813.54   LCC: PS3569   Edition: $6.95
ABE, B&N used, Amazon US, and BookByte give "Plantes of Wonder for "0840765266" .
Alibris gives "Shores of tomorrow" for "0840765266".
"0840765258" does not appear to go anywhere at all.
I'll look at this further tomorrow, but in any case, if a "derived" ISBN (i.e. one not actually printed on the book) is to be used, there needs to be a note in the pub record explainign how it was derived. -DES Talk 05:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Just punched in 0-8407-6525-8 on Amazon & ABE and got Shores of Tomorrow on both, while 0-8407-6526-6 gets Planets of Wonder... somebody at the publisher level messed up and the trail is just not getting any clearer... the only thing that matters is what is on the copyright page and so far we have only the one source for one book. Anyone have a first edition of Planets of Wonder??--Bluesman 03:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfamiliar Territory

I approved your edit. It created a lot of dups. Please go to the author's page, and run the "Dup Candidates" tool. -DES Talk 05:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I went, I saw, I un-duped... --Bluesman 13:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -DES Talk 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Breed to Come

I see that you have updated Breed to Come based on your copy. Could you please double check if it really says $11.50 on the dust jacket? That sounds quite high for a 1972 book and I suspect that our data, which originally came from OCLC, reflects a later price. Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The jacket on my copy is price-clipped; $11.50 does seem high, but didn't want to delete it as the source was not listed.--Bluesman 18:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Factoring Humanity

This. [2] . I noticed your transient verification and the primary is somewhat reticent these days. So would you say this cover image is a match for yours as it is for mine. [3] . If not then we have problems. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Reticent"??, as in invisible? My cover is identical.--Bluesman 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I added it. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

American Beauty

I have approved the addition of the trade paperback edition of Steele's American Beauty and merged it with the pre-existing Title record for the collection. I then updated the hardcover pub record with information from the Locus Index, which should make it easier for you to import its contents into the tp pub record. Let me know if you need help with the import process, it's a major time saver! Ahasuerus 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Pre-existing"? I looked carefully and couldn't find the pub at all.... as for the "import" stuff, I have no clue what that is; I don't know what the contents are, never mind trying to add/subtract/merge... just wanted to add a pub I knew existed but couldn't find in the records. --Bluesman 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm, some kind of ethereal collision, I assume. Here is the hardcover pub, now updated by yours truly based on the Locus Index, and here is the tp one that you added earlier today. As you can see, the hardcover one has Contents level data and the tp doesn't, so to copy the Contents to the tp pub, you can use the Import option -- see Help:Screen:ImportContent. It's a recent addition to our toolbox that we are all very proud of :) Ahasuerus 04:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stapledon's Last and First Men & Star Maker

Please take a look at the response when you have a chance. Thanks! Ahasuerus 05:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Starshine by Sturgeon

It appears that you have submitted an edit to this pub which would change the date of Derm Fool from "1940-03-00" to "0000-00-00" (unknown). At any rate that is what the submission approval screen shows, sometimes invalid date formats are converted by the software into "unknown".

Also your edit adds the variant "Derm Fool" (with quotes) to the pub.

As a previous edit of yours (if I recall what I just approved correctly) removed the unquoted form from this pub, there should be no need to change its date in this edit. I'm not sure what effect approving this would have on Derm Fool, but since that story appeared in Unknown Fantasy Fiction, March 1940, its date is currently correct, and should not be changed.

This is now on hold, pending your response. I am inclined to reject this edit and ask you to resubmit an edit that just adds "Derm Fool", but I will wait until i here from you to take any action -- perhaps I have misunderstood. -DES Talk 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That is odd, as I copied the date to the "new" title. It appears in the book with the quote marks and that was all I was trying to change, not the date in any way.--Bluesman 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you made a typo that resulted in an invalid date format while the date was in focus, or perhaps there was software glitch soemwhere. Who knows. Anyway we'll goahed with the change you had in mind. -DES Talk 14:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I always blame the Gremlins!--Bluesman 15:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I see you got the quoted varient into the collection, and i have merged the newly created record for "Derm Fool" with the existing one. i am about to reject the older submisison, as it is now pointless. Thanks for not being upset over this. -DES Talk 14:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sex and Violence in Zero-G

I approved your edit to this pub. But i have a question about "Appendix #2: Space Station and Spacecraft Designs". You have listed it as INTERIORART. is it nothing but drawings? or is it a mix of drawings and text, or what? It is unusual for an appendix to be so purely visual as to count as INTERIORART, but I don't have this pub, and maybe that is how it is. -DES Talk 03:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"The following are pencil sketches from my notebooks for various spacecraft and space stations used in the "Near Space" novels and stories." Then four names followed by four pages of sketches. Really didn't know what else to call them...?--Bluesman 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enouugh. So be it. -DES Talk 14:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
And BTW, should "0.0G Sex: A User's Guide" be added to the series? Ahasuerus 03:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This little 3-pager is published in this volume for the first time and is written just as stated, a 'users' manual, for facilities (fornicatoriums) available on the spaceship Pax Astra Argosy Selene Queen. Don't know if this ship is part of any of the other stories. It's quite hilarious.--Bluesman 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ugly Little Boy / The [Widget], the [Wadget], and Boff

I have your edit to this anthology on hold. Your edit (in addition to adding data that i have no argument with) changes both of the stories involved from novelette (nt) to novella (nv). The Contento index lists "The Ugly Little Boy" as a novelette, but lists "Widget" as a novella. I know I have both stories in other collections in my possession, but I haven't yet tried a physical check. What was your basis/reason for changing the length designations? Both stories have been reprinted several times, and these changes will affect all pubs on file. Mind you, our current records don't agree with Contento in one case, so there may well be good reason to make a change. But I would like a little more in the way of support before making one, or determining just what change to make. -DES Talk 03:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugly Little Boy is 63 pages, well over the minimum for a novella, though if it's disputable by someone who did an actual word count, then don't change it. The Widget is 123 pages and is almost a novel at that length.--Bluesman 05:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a number of verified pubs containing "The Ugly Little Boy" with page counts on record, most are near 40-45 pages. I went to the library, found (and transient verified) a copy of The Best Science Fiction of Isaac Asimov and photocopied a dozen pages. I came back and did sample line and word counts, using Swfritter's spreadsheet, and the estimated word count resulting is 14,782. Near the borderline by our current standards, i will grant you. But I suspect that the publication you are working from has rather unusually short pages (in terms of word count per page). -DES Talk 01:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Lot of work for a little story! But a good one.. Cheers! Will try not to give you so much to do in the future.--Bluesman 02:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. My choice to do the work, i could have just approved it, or just relied on Contento. Partly i wanted to test the spreadsheet, realative to some of the current discussions about shortfiction. Great story, just re-read it. Aww! -DES Talk 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit approved, one title re-edited. -DES Talk 01:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rude Astronauts

I have approved and massaged the hardcover edition of Steele's Rude Astronauts, but I have a question about the publication date. The Locus Index lists the trade paperback edition as officially published in January 1993 even though they received a copy in December 1992. We generally go with the "official" publication date as stated in the book even when we know that the book was actually published a little earlier. Could you please check what the book says? Does it have a publication date or does it only have a copyright date? (The latter can be misleading since you can copyright a book months before actual publication.) Thanks! Ahasuerus 11:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"First published in Great Britain in 1992 by Legend Books." That's all you get from the Brits...--Bluesman 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will update the Title record! Ahasuerus 15:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"Legend" aren't the most informative of publishers. :-/ There are some far better British ones though. BLongley 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have also created stub entries for the Worchester Monthly issues which you identified in the Notes field -- take a look when you have a chance since it's a good example of how we enter non-genre magazines as per Help:Entering non-genre magazines. Ahasuerus 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Reed's Flavors of My Genius

I added the Kelly introduction to your verified copy of this title along with the roman-numeraled pages. Please check to see if it matches your copy. Thanks. MHHutchins 07:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC) And this copy as well. MHHutchins 07:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, matches exactly for the TP (don't have the hardcover, but PS Pub. doesn't usually change contents with different bindings). Must have been asleep when I entered the pub data.... Cheers! and thanks.--Bluesman 14:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Added date to verified

I added the date to your verified 1st printing of Neville's THE UNEARTH PEOPLE from both the 1st's & 2nd's copyright pages.Don Erikson 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Weapon Shops of Isher

You submitted a change to "Weapon Shops of Isher" that would change its title to "The Weapon Shops of Isher / Gateway to Elsewhere". However, ISBNdb.com. Amazon.com, ABE, Alibris, B&N.com, Biblio.com, and Powells.com all list ISBN 0671813544 as being "The weapon shops of Isher" alone, none mention Gateway to Elsewhere. So does OCLC/Worldcat. (The addition of the "The" in the title appears correct.) What is your source for including "Gateway to Elsewhere" in this pub?

The Edit is on hold, pending your response. -DES Talk 01:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add "Gateway to Elsewhen" to anything. All I did was add "The" to the title of the Pocket edition.--Bluesman 05:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This is worrying. It looks like this edit has incorporated some of the changes you mentioned here - are you using the browser 'back' button a lot or something? BLongley 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
After submitting an edit I usually do 'back' up to the author's page, but it hasn't created any problems before now...?? What could be happening in this case? If my edits are getting 'crossed' then I need to change something.--Bluesman 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a screen shot of the relevant part submission approval page, so Harry can see just what I saw. -DES Talk 17:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:WSoI edit.png

Wow, definitely wires crossed on this one, as I did two different edits on two different pubs and they seem to have been mixed/mingled. No wonder I'm getting "are you from Pluto, dude???".... LOL!! As I said above, on the single pub the only change to make is adding "the" to the title. The note is also for the single copy as the original submission didn't state where the artist's name came from. Hope I'm back in the correct solar system, again....--Bluesman 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you are, I'm not sure about our software. I now know what to put in the record, but I'm going to delay while I ask if anyone can figure out what is going on here. Note that your other edit on the other pub went though, and as far as i can tell was what you had intended, but it looks as if parts of that edit were repeated on this edit. -DES Talk 01:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Most strange. Will leave the software issues to those that can; I always blame gremlins and leave it at that. Can't find the little beggars and as soon as you off one two more show up to demonstrate their invincibility...! ;)--Bluesman 01:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm! We have been known to get occasional duplicate submissions when an editor hit "Submit" twice very quickly and I seem to recall that we had a couple of "mixed up" submissions at one point, but -- so far -- nothing major or recreatable. My guess is that you (i.e. Bluesman) use the software slightly differently vis a vis other editors, but it's hard to be sure unless we send ISFDB enforcers to look over your shoulder and monitor the submission process. Ahasuerus 04:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This wasn't a double-submit, for sure as at no time did I ever type in the whole title "the Weapon.../Gateway..." and only accessed that record for that little note change I sent you a note on about the clean covers. My browser does "auto-complete" but only with text I have typed in at some point (had thought that might be the cause) but that didn't happen here. There is probably a very logical, yet ephemeral reason for this... Doubt the enforcer (DES??? :) ) will be necessary.--Bluesman 17:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably, but I don't know what it is. I don't plan to play enforcer unless you have a repeatable sequence and someone wants to pay travel costs :) I haven't finished with this edit only because I am waiting to hear if leaving it available might help debugging in any way. (Once a submisison is either approved or rejected the contents of the submisison per se are lost.) -DES Talk 17:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
We'd keep the XML of the submission though. BLongley 19:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Artist field

Please note that artists credited with interior art are not listed in the "artist" field -- that is for cover artists only. I am approving but correcting your edit to Earth Factor X to remove Jack Gaughan from the artist field. -DES Talk 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand the note on my page. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, Harry, I didn't know "Artist" was exclusive to the cover. Lucky it was brought up now, as nearly every DAW and tons of Ace editions have a little front drawing of some kind, and I was going to start crediting the ones I could on the second time through my collection.--Bluesman 17:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to enter those as interior art if you like. Consider the typical magazine, which has one cover but may have dozewns of works of interior art. If all the interior artists were credited in one field, without distinction, the cover artist, generally considered more significant, would be lost in the crowd. -DES Talk 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Van Vogt's Children of Tomorrow

I approved your submission of this publication before realizing that it's identical to this pub which I entered myself from the Locus books received listing. It has the same catalog number, price and page count. We can delete either one, making it clear in the one we keep that the publication date and second printing info is not stated in the pub itself. Your call. Thanks MHHutchins 07:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My oops on this one, I'll delete the one I entered. Thanks! --Bluesman 17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Van Vogt & Hull's The Winged Man

I changed the interiorart record of your submission of this title to "The Winged Man" as by "uncredited". It's not necessary to add the parenthetical statement (interior art) to the TITLE as that is explicitly the TYPE. If a work is not credited use "uncredited" as the author instead of "unknown". Thanks. MHHutchins

Thanks for the clarification! That actually means less typing... I like that!--Bluesman 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Prices

Please don't list more than one price in the price field, as you did on From the Earth to the Moon. List all other prices in the notes field only, even if two or more appear on the cover. Since the book was printed in the US (you say), i retained the $0.45 in the price field.

Also it appears that, at least in my browser, "over" in angle braces (<over>) is treated as HTML and does not appear. I chned it to "(over)" which does appear. -DES Talk 18:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't sure about that one, knew someone would get back to me. As for the 'over' part I know Harry uses it but couldn't remember if it was the <> or ( ). Haven't had one like this before with US and English pricing on the front cover. That's why added the 'printed in...' clarification.--Bluesman 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Verne's Master of the World

I'm holding your submission adding a note to the title record of this omnibus. Perhaps you meant to add it to the Ace edition that it's referring to. Also does the second novel in the Ace edition actually use the original French title? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct, it should go on the Ace edition. Since it was the only pub in the record I thought it should have been a general note for the title... thinking too hard! As for the French, I just left a note on Dana's talk page about that. When I was there I saw your note about Brin's "River of Time" and chimed in as I have that same pub. Check them out and we can go from there? Do you want me to change that note for the Ace edition??--Bluesman 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back with you on this. I'll reject the submission and place the note on the Ace edition. Let me get back with you about the "River of Time". It's been a few days and right now I can't recall what that was all about. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix in the Ashes

I approved your edit to this pub, you can go ahead with your next step. Don't forget any needed title merges or VT links when you are done.

When there is more than one work of interior art for a given story in a collection or magazine, and you are indexing both, and the works don';t have separate titles or captions, then it is a good idea to make the titles unique, The most common way to do this is to append "[2]" to the title of the 2nd interior art work for a given story "[3]" to the third such work, and so on. i have done this for the works in the above pub.

I have a pb edition of this collection, but it didn't, as i recall, include any of the interior art. -DES Talk 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tangled Up in Blue

You submitted an edit for this pub, but it appears to make no change at all -- I don't know what you had in mind, but you had better recheck. I will approve the edit, as it surely does not harm, but please check the pub to be sure that any changes you intended to make went through. -DES Talk 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI here is a screenshot of this edit:

Image:TUiB edit.png

Thanks. -DES Talk 01:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's easy to explain, David. I must have accepted it just before you opened up the submission. If your moderator screen had not been reloaded it will continue to hold the same submissions, even if they'd already been accepted. That's why you don't see any difference between the submission and the recently changed record. I usually avoid this be reloading the screen after every acceptance. MHHutchins 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I see. I have seen the same thing when a submisison was made twiuce, by an uninteded second click, and when a submission was made prematurely. I wanted to be sure it wasn't either of the latter cases. But this convinces me further that features 90167 & 90168 on the ISFDB Feature List would be a good idea. -DES Talk 02:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Collected Stories of Vernor Vinge

I've placed your submission updating this edition on hold. You're wanting to change the publisher from Tor to Tor/Orb. I believe it should just be Orb. Both Tor and Orb are imprints of Tom Doherty Associates, but I don't believe both are used on the same pub. Can you recheck the publisher credit? Thanks. MHHutchins 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, it should be just "Orb".--Bluesman 05:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I approved your submission so that the notes would be included, and then changed the publisher to Orb. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Partnership - cover image?

This, [4] . Will this match your verification? [5] . Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the one!--Bluesman 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Added and temp verified along with start page. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Demons' World / I Want The Stars- cover image

This. [6] . I checked my copy against yours and noted the image has gone blewy. Will this work? [7] . I also think the Foreword by Thomas Purdom on page 2 by actual count would be a worth while addition. I will transient and Tuck verify. This is a NO hurry input. I read your Introduction and wish you the best. Any other messages I send are also of no hurry status. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I approved this, but it might be worth a note as to which title is which length - the titles sometimes get switched around so there's no assurance that the page-counts will be in the same order. BLongley 20:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Similar with The Beasts of Kohl / A Planet of Your Own. BLongley 20:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll do that. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, approved. BLongley 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That's the book! I had not noticed an intro, but then that was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the "Bs" before I started really looking at anything!. Feel free to add it as my evening will be hectic... have to be at Admitting at 10AM tomorrow... and first thing I have to do is pick reading material for the next six weeks. Packing is easy, that's hard! Decided to re-read Vonnegut as good laughs are hard to come by these days and I like the way he looks at things! Will be back for more fun about New Year. --Bluesman 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with the surgery! (If I had to pick six weeks of reading material, then I'd need surgery for the hernia - there are disadvantages in being a fast reader. I might even have to resort to e-books. ) BLongley 00:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You are supposed to take at easy. Personally, I wished I had packed anything at all the last time I went to the hospital for a stay. Spent two weeks lazing about in an apron with my rear hanging out. That was after two weeks out like a light. As soon as I was in a ward, yes an old fashion ward, I got up and started walking. I planned my escape, immediately, I was an interesting case and they wanted me to stay. I figured I was better off elsewhere. LOL I am looking forward to your return, as there are too many Indians around here. LOL. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A week or less in the hospital but I can't drive for six weeks so spending it at friends... if I run out I can always get a ride home for more! I am taking my laptop so no slacking while I'm gone!!!!--Bluesman 01:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Beasts of Kohl / A Planet of Your Own-cover image NO Hurry

This. [8] . Again I am following in your tracks, and again a cover image is blewy. Will this work for you. [9] . I will transient and Tuck verify. I hope you are imagining that I am trying to keep your feet to the fire. Sneaky though, getting an Ace double both with Jack Gaughan covers. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 00:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotta get a scanner! My copies are so much better than some of the covers the DB has. Right book! Have my own feet to the fire trying to get my Vonneguts done before boxing them. Only five to go!--Bluesman 01:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just seen them, and wish you'd left them! They're a nightmare with the "No Jr" versions being added under the "Jr" authors. Ah well, hopefully somebody wants some title-unmerging practice... BLongley 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if I am missing something here. If you wish me to delete the cover images or the note field I will do so. I do not really follow the entry just before this. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No, nothing wrong with the covers, it's the work involved with the Vonneguts that I didn't like. When someone adds a publication under the wrong version of the author, we have to unmerge that publication from the title, then remerge it with the correct one (if it exists) or adjust the unmerged pub to the correct author, and make that a variant of the initial title. Possibly fixing several other pubs that get highlighted as in error as well. So one submission leads to quite a bit more work. BLongley 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Got it, Had real DB problems yesterday and your name did not appear on the note for me. I had some awareness there was a Vonnegut and Jr. problems. Must be like the Michael and Michael D. Resnick one.Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Station in Outer Space-Cover & title page author (NO Hurry)

This. [10] . I found this cover image matches my copy. [11] . In my copy the image would be approximately 1/8 inch higher. LOL. My copy's title page reads James E. Gunn for author. I believe that the title page spelling is the ISFDB standard. Have a good day this very bright sunny morning. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The cover is correct, and I know I did this one before knowing of the title-page taking precedence. Feel free to change the pub/notes/etc. and you can take over the verification, if you like.--Bluesman 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Vonnegut's Wampeters...

I see you've been updating some Vonnegut titles and wondered if you entered this pub. The price, date and printing appear a bit wonky. A $4.95 paperback in 1976, even if it were a trade paperback, seems rather high. I verified the first (?) trade paperback which was published in April 1975 at $2.75. And if you entered it you can import the contents from my edition (if they're the same.) Thanks. MHHutchins 16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Think I cloned this one and didn't blank the date, as it is an 11th printing and should have a date of 0000-00-00. I see some other Vonnegut edits are creating more work. From what little research I have done in trying to get through them before surgery [all went well; healing very nicely] I think a lot of the pub records for any Vonnegut title after Breakfast of Champions that uses the 'Jr.' are wrong. He simply dropped it at some point (maybe after his father died which would technically make him no longer 'Jr.'....can you imagine if he had a son 'Kurt" and then became 'Sr.'?). I have 1st/1st of many of the books after 'Breakfast...' and in none of them does the Jr. appear. The thing is, when one looks up/searches Kurt Vonnegut you have to go to the "jr.' page to find any pubs, at least on ISFDB. Is there a better solution/way to do these??--Bluesman 18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Serendipity is an awesome thing: just started Vonnegut's 'Fates Worse Than Death' and on page 22 he writes "He [KURT SR.] died eventually , and in an act of Freudian cannibalism, I dropped the "Jr." from my name." No date is specified but that might help. Of course not all publishers, especially the overseas ones, may have noticed and kept the "Jr."....?--Bluesman 23:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You don't HAVE to go to the Jr page - even though the "Kurt Vonnegut" (no Jr) page says "Pseudonym. See: Kurt Vonnegut, Jr." by default when the variants are set up correctly, choosing "Titles" in the "Editing Tools" Menu brings up just the titles published under the No Jr version and you can find the pubs from there. It's not very intuitive though. BLongley 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a fact...I never would have found that... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluesman (talk • contribs) .
There are a couple of feature requests for improved "pseudonym bibliographies" and variant title attributions, but they are not very high on the list. And welcome back -- it's been my experience that surgeries can be nasty things, so surviving one with most your constituent components still intact is a cause for celebration! Ahasuerus 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy Blues

Please see User talk:Kraang#Galaxy Blues which is a publication you transient-verified. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wolfbane by Pohl and Kornbluth

Can you check to see how the authors are credited on the title page of your verified edition of this title? Some sources give the author as "C. M. Kornbluth" instead of "Cyril M. Kornbluth". Thanks. MHHutchins 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That will have to wait, as I am still not home after my operation. Have a meeting with the surgeon tomorrow so might be home as early as Wednesday. Will look at the pub when that happens! Cheers! --Bluesman 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I AM HOME!!!!! Yahoo!!!! Sorry, most unprofessional, but so it goes...;-). To the question at hand: cover/spine/title page ALL say C.M. Kornbluth. It's nice to be back... if I can only remember how to do this?!?! Might need re-training. :-) --Bluesman 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This would take several submissions, because we have to unmerge it from the current title record that credits "Cyril M. Kornbluth" and remerge it with the "C. M. Kornbluth" title record. Just say the word and I'll be glad to make the corrections. Personally, I've had a chest cold for the past week, and along with being overwhelmed at work, I think a hospital stay might actually be restful (just kidding!) MHHutchins 02:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that is currently beyond me. Merging/unmerging and variants just seem to escape me so far... that awful "just beyond arms' length" feeling. And NO hospital stay is restful ( of course it depends on the type of hospital !;-) ) as the nurses have these ridiculous orders to wake you up at 4AM to take your temp and BP. And they will wake you up to give a sleeping pill................. sheesh! --Bluesman 16:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! Don't take too long in the re-training, I might ask you to take over while I take a medical break myself. BLongley 23:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Seriously??? Thought about this all day and last night, and I feel woefully inadequate in the scope of my editing knowledge. There is so much here that I haven't done any or little of... the simplest edits I could handle but I still feel like a rookie. I'd like to help..... just not sure I'm qualified.--Bluesman 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! It's been relatively uneventful here for the last few weeks, so we need all the help we can get to rectify the situation :) And I hope Bill's hospital trip is as successful as yours -- I hear they can stick sharp and pointy things into your body there <shudder>. Ahasuerus 01:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
MANY sharp and pointy things! And with this type of surgery they leave two sets of wires attached to the heart in case they have to 'regulate' the beat, and these are simply pulled out when you get discharged - weirdest feeling I've ever had - no pain, just weird. And watching them come out just makes it weirder!! When they pull the chest tubes out, and you are awake for that joyous moment, it hurts like hell, though the nurses lie and say it will only sting a little. Got you nervous yet, Bill??? My name is Bill, too, and I've done my 'penance'! :) --Bluesman 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Gardens of Delight

Hi, can you have a second look at this pub[12] the ISBN# is showing a Bad Sumcheck. If it's actually recorded this way I'll adjust it and leave a note. Thanks!Kraang 02:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I pulled that ISBN off ABEBOOKS from at least 10 sellers in a search, as the first edition PB noted that there had been a Gollancz edition. I transposed two numbers as it should read 0-575-02819-X, but that shouldn't give a bad sum...???--Bluesman 04:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Best Stories of H. G. Wells

I rejected your submission to delete one of the pubs of this title. Both Tuck and Carl Bennett (in his Ballantine checklist) show both editions. And there's a review of the title in the January 1961 issue of IF. Does Currey state that the 1963 edition was the first and only edition? MHHutchins 05:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Currey only mentions the one edition. Now I have a Ballantine with the 1960 number and the 1963 price...?? Most confusing. --Bluesman 05:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Not just confusing, but absolutely freaky. Could your copy just be missing the updated printing info, or does it also have the catalog number of the 1960 edition? MHHutchins 19:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The copyright page is the sparsest I have ever seen. There is NO copyright data at all, never mind any printing/publishing info. All there is: "printed in the USA" and Ballantine's address. The catalog # of S414K is on the spine and cover with no indication of an overprint. Same with the cover price of $0.75. And even though all the stories have been printed before, no 'acknowledgements' page exists. Weird... I have no suggestions, only the observation that I have never seen Ballantine change a price without changing the catalog #. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest adding your pub AS IS, 0000-00-00 as the date, and then verify it so no one will alter or delete it without questioning you. MHHutchins 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I have approved the submission and imported the contents of the other S414K printing -- please check the results when you get a chance. Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Update to the SFBC listing and missing Herbert pubs

Thanks for adding the Herbert novel to the SFBC listings for 1983. I was missing the book club announcement flyer for Spring and used Locus as a secondary source. Just now, I went back to the Locus listing and realized I missed the entry for The White Plague. There's another Herbert title that has me completely baffled. I even have a copy of the SFBC edition of Dune Messiah but for the life of me I can't find the exact month it was a selection (featured or alternate) of the club. Based on the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup posting, it wasn't a selection when the novel was first published in 1969. My suspicion is that it was an alternate selection in November 1976 when Children of Dune was the featured selection, but I only have the front half of that flyer. (Back then I would tear off the page with the selection I'd purchased and place it inside the book.) But it's not listed in Locus either. My copy has a gutter code of "H17" which would have been printed in April 1977, but I think it may be a later printing. Do you happen to have a copy of the SFBC edition of Dune Messiah? Thanks. MHHutchins 19:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do have an SFBC of Messiah, but a much later printing with a GC of O28. However, once I started to understand the gutter code 'system' (and at the time I was very active on EBAY) every time a copy would come up I asked the seller what the code was. The earliest found was H10, also an H52. Even DUNE was not an SFBC edition for nearly eight years after publication, so it's no surprise that Messiah wouldn't become one until '77. FYI: the first edition (if the H10 is the first) had the catalog # on the inside back flap but all subsequent printings had it on the back cover. Hope this helps. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Silverberg's Recalled to Life

Locus #199 (February 1977) gives the month of publication for your verified copy as February 1977. MHHutchins 21:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add that with a note about the source. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Illuminati Papers

You have added "pb" as the binding type to the 1980 edition of The Illuminati Papers, but the price ($7.95) seemed high. I then checked OCLC and their record (6379141) agreed on the price, but the size (24 cm) was that of a tall trade paperback and the page count was "ix+150" rather than 190. Could you please double check? Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I went through about 60 entries to find what I did and then crossed the info from another book I was searching in my notebook. Definitely a TP and the lesser page count. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Living Gem

I accepted your update to this record, so if you have the book in hand, go ahead and change the catalog number. Feel free to add in the notes that Tuck mistakenly adds an "R" to the catalog number. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SFBC edition of McCaffrey's The Coelura

Can you verify the stated publisher of this edition? Did the SFBC reprint the Underwood/Miller edition or the Tor edition? And when you get a chance can you update the record in the format "[publisher] / SFBC"? Thanks. MHHutchins 04:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Did the update and added a couple of other things. It's amazing how much one notices now as opposed to then. Might actually get good at this some day! Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The House on the Borderland

I have approved your addition of the 1962 Ace edition of William Hope Hodgson's The House on the Borderland, but it would appear to be a duplicate of a pre-existing publication record. Could you please compare the two and see if there are any differences that need to be reconciled before we delete one of them? Thanks! Ahasuerus 21:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Identical. Couldn't figure how this existed when my search of Hodgson came up empty and then realized (from the 'auto-complete record on my computer) that I had typed in William with only one 'l'...some days I wonder about me............ ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Robbie"/"Robby"

I have approved the addition of Ilya Varshavsky's "Robby" to the Dell edition of Path Into the Unknown, but I see that the other three editions spell the title "Robbie". Could you please check your copy and see if it's a typo or a variant title? Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This Dell edition has no copyright(s) acknowledgements at all, but the story is titled "Robby" in both the table of contents and as the title at the beginning of the story. Even the individual pages of the story have "Robby" at the top of each odd-numbered page. --Bluesman 18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
VT set up, thanks! Ahasuerus 18:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
See I'm not the only one "working" on Christmas day! Get a life, eh?!?!?!? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Vita brevis, bibliography longa :) Ahasuerus 18:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ellipsis

Just a note that, as per Help:Screen:NewNovel, "An ellipsis should be entered as the sequence "space", "period", "space", "period", "space", "period"." Not exactly intuitive, but that's what them style manual thingies tell us to do . . . Ahasuerus 18:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha! though why on earth is three dots even called an ellipsis??? OOPS!  ? ? ? ;-) --Bluesman 18:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible Worlds of Science Fiction

I have approved the addition of page numbers to the Vanguard Press edition of Possible Worlds of Science Fiction, but I wonder about the fact that 4 of the stories have no page numbers associated with them. According to Contento, there were 3 (!) somewhat different editions of this anthology, so we may want to be extra careful with it. Ahasuerus 18:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it was a runaway submission! Never mind then :) Ahasuerus 18:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes the little beggars just get away from you before they are finished.... wasn't sure if that one had actually been entered. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Two Dozen Dragon Eggs

I approved your changes to Two Dozen Dragon Eggs the other day, but I forgot to mention that we also need to change the way the stories are credited from "Martin Pearson", "David Grinnell" and "Millard Verne Gordon" to "Donald A. Wollheim". As we discussed earlier, it's a somewhat time consuming process since you have to remove the pseudonymous Title records, then add new Titles (for "Donald A. Wollheim") and then merge them with any pre-existing ones, but, unfortunately, there is way around it at this time. Ahasuerus 18:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you say so! Have five more Conklins to look at and then I will attempt it. Still not sure about the merging part, but . . . .:-)--Bluesman 19:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good so far! Now that the wrong Title records have been removed and the correct Title records have been entered, all you have to do is go back to Wollheim's Summary page, click on "Dup Candidates" under "Editing Tools" on the left and merge the duplicates. In this case the only discrepancy between pre-existing records and newly entered ones should be the publication date and the earlier date is generally the one that you want to keep. Ahasuerus 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Short fiction length

In many cases, the source of our novella-novelette-short story designations is the Locus Index, e.g. here is what they list for Dozois' 14th annual collection. Their data is generated by Bill Contento based on his master database and tends to be quite accurate, although I have found a few errors over the years. I don't know how he calculates word counts, but his method is probably more accurate than the rough 20-50 rule that we use when we don't have access to a downloadable file. Ahasuerus 01:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I hope you rejected my changes, though I think some of them are WAY out of whack: found a novella in another Year's Best that was only 29 pages and novelettes as low as 15 pages. --Bluesman 16:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, some books (mostly non-fiction, though) have been known to pack up to 500+ words per page, so given the 7,500 word threshold, 15 pages is possible. I don't think the world will end if some borderline cases will be mislabeled, but this area has been known to be controversial. Ahasuerus 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
If the Locus Index (what is the main URL for that?) is considered the best source then I can check it in future, though it's impossible to tell where the designation originally came from (original submitter or a source like Locus). Paperbacks are much easier. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The main portion of the Locus Index (1984-1998) starts at http://www.locusmag.com/index/0start.htm . Indexes for 1999 through 2006 are available on-line at http://www.locusmag.com/index/yr1999/0start.htm , http://www.locusmag.com/index/yr2000/0start.htm , etc. They also sell a combined version on CD-ROM for $50.
P.S. The Locus Index itself appears to be OK, but the other day I was browsing the main Locus Magazine site and ran into a pop-up which looked like a virus. I will e-mail the site maintainer later tonight. Ahasuerus 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume IIA

I see that you verified the first printing of the Avon edition of The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume IIA earlier today, but there is no contents level data in the record. Did you mean to import it from another edition later? Ahasuerus 04:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know as I took the original record and cloned it and the contents record was there then??? Guess I'll get to try the 'import' tool for the first time. When I make a submission I just keep the book on my desk and then check it if it's approved. Since I only changed the title and added a note why (and the change does not show up on the title record?) I didn't check the contents at all. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The import was a smashing success and the stories are all there now -- congratulations on clearing yet another hurdle! :)
As far as title changes go, keep in mind that all Anthologies/Collections have two titles: one for each edition/printing and one for the Title record that each Publication contains. The latter is the record that appears on the author/editor's Summary page. You need to edit the Publication record to change the former and the associated Title record to change the latter, which requires two separate edits. Novels are easier in this respect: when you pull up a novel in the Edit Publication screen, you have the Publication title at the top and the Title title in the Contents section, so you can change both titles in one submission. For Collections, Anthologies, and Omnibuses, their Title titles are not displayed in the Contents section when editing Publications. The idea was to prevent confusion, but it hasn't worked terribly well . . . Ahasuerus 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Realized that after just a wee bit of thought! :-) The import was fairly easy. Can this be done with two separate sources? That would work really well with omnibus anthologies. Did two Dozois' today and it took quite a while though I did find the Locus site and did a split screen to help, instead of holding the book open in my lap...! Still, for a two-fingered typist it elicited a couple of groans when I found the second one had NO contents listed. Thanks for all the help!!! oops.... ! ! ! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have never used Import on publications with existing contents, but a little experimentation seems to suggest that it would overwrite all existing stories, which would be Bad (tm). Still, it's a very useful feature to have in your tool set. Ahasuerus 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've used import on pubs with existing contents and it adds rather than replaces. BLongley 15:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, very nice! Thanks, Bill! Ahasuerus 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The thing to be careful with is not to import something you've already got: e.g. if you want to create "The Best of Fred Bloggs" from the contents of "The Best of Fred Bloggs, Vol 1" and "The Best of Fred Bloggs, Vol 2" you can: but if it had the same introduction in both it would appear twice in the single volume. So check for duplicates and remove them from the result title before importing the second set of contents. BLongley 15:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Much thanks! That will help with any omnibus, but especially where one or both is an anthology. Anything that means less typing is a bonus. ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Shores of Tomorrow again

The Shores of Tomorrow is still on hold due to a confusing ISBN situation -- see above. OCLC lists both Silverberg's The Shores of Tomorrow: Eight Stories of Science Fiction and Carr's Planets of Wonder: A Treasury of Space Opera for 0840765266 and there is nothing under 0840765258. Could you please double check your copy and see where the ISBN is printed, whether it looks like a later "overprint", etc? Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The copyright page lists the ...266 ISBN but the jacket has the ...258 ISBN. Ran the second one through ABEBOOKS & AMAZON and came up with Shores of Tomorrow, which is why I changed it back to the ...258#, which is what was there originally. The submission on hold was the attempt to reverse an already approved edit. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, I guess there is no perfect solution in this case. I have approved the submission and added a note explaining that the book has 2 ISBNs. Thanks! Ahasuerus 00:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of This World, ed. Julius Fast

I have approved your changes to this anthology, but some of the dates differ from what Contento lists, specifically:

  • Collier's "Evening Primrose" and "Thus I Refute Beelzy" -- 1931 vs. 1940
  • Saki's "Laura" -- 1930 vs. 1914
  • London's "The Scarlet Plague" -- 1915 vs. 1912-06-00.

Did you get these dates from the copyright page? If so, keep in mind that copyright dates at best represent the date when copyright was secured, which is not always the date when the work first appeared, and at worst they represent the date when was copyright was last renewed. I am particularly interested in the two Collier stories since an earlier date is harder to explain. Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates are from the acknowledgments, some of which gave multiple dates so I just picked the earliest one. "Evening Primrose": from Presenting Moonshine, by John Collier ©1931, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941; "Thus I Refute Beelzy": from Presenting Moonshine, by John Collier ©1931, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941; "Laura": from The Short Stories of Saki (H. H. Munro) ©1930; "The Scarlet Plague": ©1915 by Jack London, ©1943 by Charmian K. London. The Saki title may give the copyright of the particular source which may not be the original publication . The London title would probably date from his first copyright, not necessarily the first publication which might have been copyrighted by the original publisher. Can't explain the Collier titles. ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
So it sounds like the two Collier stories may have first appeared in Presenting Moonshine. Hm, I wonder if they were added to the collection later on?.. Oh well, I'll poke around tomorrow. Thanks! Ahasuerus 05:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Series indicatiors

I have approved/rejected/massaged all but one of your submissions and one thing that stood out was that you were sometimes trying to enter the title's associated series in square brackets. An interesting idea, but I am afraid it wouldn't work since you can't enter series information in the Contents section -- the words in between the brackets would simply become a part of the title, which is not what we want. The way to handle it is to enter the titles "as is" and then, once the publication has been approved, either add series data via "Edit Title" or, if there is a pre-existing title on file, merge it with the new title. I agree that it would be nice to be able to add more title-specific information in the Contents section, but it's not very high on the list of priorities... Ahasuerus 05:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that info all the time in anthology records and just thought i would try it that way. Seems I learn more from mistakes than wading through help pages! ;-) I do read them, just don't get a lot out of them. And I do appreciate your help and patience. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 06:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Crossing Chou Meng Fu"

"Crossing Chou Meng Fu" or "Crossing Chau Meng Fu" in Explorers: SF Adventures to Far Horizons, please? Ahasuerus 19:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The second spelling with 'a'. Did I submit it with an 'o'? Checked the individual TP edition of "Explorers" and it has the 'o' spelling in the record, but the book definitely has the 'a' spelling. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries, typos happen - all fixed now :) Ahasuerus 00:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dozois' The Good Stuff SFBC edition

Was this edition published as by St. Martin's Press or the Science Fiction Book Club? I'm trying to clear up all of the pubs that have simply "SFBC" as the publisher. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

While the copyright page credits the individual anthologies to St. Martin's and says "published by arrangement with: St. Martin's Press", their logo/imprint is not present on the jacket or spine of the book, only the SFBC logo/imprint. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. MHHutchins 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Don Marquis' "ghosts"

I have approved your additions to Human?, but there is no easy way to show "don marquis" in all lower case without affecting the rest of his (regularly capitalized) records. There is a roundabout way of doing it, but it can cause other problems, so I just added a note to the publication record instead. Ahasuerus 00:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not being familiar with his work, I just wanted to show the entry as it appeared. Poets often sign oddly and keep it odd. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

McCaffrey's Crisis on Doona

Can you check to see if the price for this edition is $5.99? There's another record which states first printing and it's priced at $4.99 which agrees with Locus1. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The price is indeed $5.99; there is a full number line; this is does not appear to be a Canadian edition that has been overprinted,though the type for the price on the cover is just ever so slightly bolder (not the spine where it matches perfectly). Had a conversation with Kraang about this same thing and he says Ace never did Canadian editions, but would print a separate cover for distribution here, so that may be the case. Just looked at the cover again with a magnifying glass and the $5.99 is just a hair below the 'lines' of the ISBN. Think that's enough to change the record to C$5.99? Even the notes wouldn't change as this was printed in the US?? ~Bill , --Bluesman 15:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Science Fiction No. 6

I saw that you had removed the story attributed to "Elizabeth M. Borgese" from Star Science Fiction No. 6, so I checked my copy and added the title using "Elizabeth Mann Borgese". Mine is a later printing, though, so I didn't specify the page number, leaving it in your court :) Ahasuerus 23:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Whew!! And here I thought it was gremlins! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we have those too! :) Ahasuerus 01:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And just to make sure that poor hard working gremlins don't get blamed again, I should mention that I have been merging your newly entered Titles with pre-existing ones whenever feasible since it's much easier to do when you have just approved the "add" submission. Also, please keep in mind that the "Dup Candidates" option ignores Variant Titles, so sometimes you have to use the "Titles" option next to it. The worst case scenario is that the two titles that need to be merged are on two separate pages (each page is 100 titles long) and then you have to use "Advanced Search", which lets you merge title records. It may sound complicated, but it all becomes second nature after a few thousand edits! :) Ahasuerus 01:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
After a 'few thousand' edits, the only thing that will be second nature is my consumption of Guinness!!! ;-) Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy: Thirty Years of Innovative Science Fiction

I have approved the addition of the PEI/Wideview Books edition of this book, but there was no contents. Did you mean to clone one of the pre-existing Playboy publications instead? Keep in mind that you can override any fields (publisher, page count, ISBN, etc) when cloning, so that's usually the easiest way to create new anthology/collection records instead of using "Add", then waiting for approval and then importing. Ahasuerus 23:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I never thought of doing it that way... next time! (And I went ahead and verified it with no contents... some days............. contents will be in shortly). ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't seem to get the contents entered... keeps coming up with "A problem occurred in a Python script" followed by a bunch of code that I have no clue. Was just putting in page numbers, nothing else?? --Bluesman 02:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Trying using the Import Content tool. Enter "GALAXY1A1980" in the field, which will bring up the contents of that anthology, then just enter the page numbers and use the Drop Titles tool to delete any that may not be in your edition. MHHutchins 02:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
That's what I did, and even going back and removing the page numbers I added didn't help. --Bluesman 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what the sequence of events was, but the last import came across just fine, albeit page-less. Not a big deal, of course, it's easy to go back and add pages now that the stories are all there. Ahasuerus 03:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thought I would try it one step at a time. Will add the page numbers in the morning when I'm more awake. All those 'memoirs' double the contents. On that note, all the 'memoirs' are at the beginnings of the stories and sometimes run for a couple of pages. The table of contents does not list them separately, only "...and memoir" after the story title. The only ones that have a separate listing are the Budrys' ones. Should the actual page the story itself starts on be entered or should the 'memoirs' just be noted? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

6th Annual Edition: the Year's Best S-F-"A Rose by Other Name . . ."

Hi Bill, I've put this submission "6th Annual Edition: the Year's Best S-F"[13] on hold because the title("A Rose by Other Name . . ."[14]) change you are making will change all the titles in all the publications. To make a change of this nature you should use the add new title, submit the update then bring the publication up again and use the "Remove Title" function. Once that is done you can the make the new title a variant. I'll approve the submission and change the title back to it original state, you can the resubmit using the proper steps. Thanks.Kraang 01:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I know better. Get going on things and it looks SO simple to just delete..... Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing story length designations

I've placed your submission editing this pub on hold because you're changing the story length designations of five of the stories. I don't believe we should change the designations based solely on page count. For example, the Dryer story first appeared in F&SF and was only 16 pages long, but is 22 in this pub. Brin's The Crystal Spheres won a Hugo for Best Short Story. I'd only consider changing these if you did an actual word count and then we could record it in the title record's notes (especially in the case of the Brin story.) Strangely, Locus does call "The Weigher" a novella, but without the Oct 1984 issue of Analog at hand, I don't know what it was originally called. MHHutchins 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Went through this very thing a day or so ago with Ahasuerus and this time I checked LOCUS first and only changed what they had designated differently. Think I'll just quit adjusting lengths. Do the Hugos even have a novelette category? I can't wait to get through these anthologies....But then I just picked up about 75 old SF magazines... think I might just leave them in the box! ;-) Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly how you feel! It wasn't long after I started here that I totally gave up trying to figure out how these stories are designated, and came to the conclusion that in the long run it really doesn't matter that much. Yes, the Hugos have a novelette category. In fact, it's their word count for categories that we're supposed to be using. But I'm pretty sure there's been cases when a story's length has been fudged (either up or down) in order to give it a better chance at winning. It's the arbitrariness of it all that made me give up trying. I go by Locus1 and leave it alone. I'll go ahead and except the edit and make sure they match the Locus1 record. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hunter's Run"

By the way, in case you are wondering why the "Hunter's Run" submission has been on hold for 3 days, it's causing an internal software error and Al, our programmer, is not currently available to fix it. As far as I can tell, the problem is with the use of an ampersand in the page number field. Could you please resubmit your changes so that we could leave the original submission in the queue for Al to review when he comes back? Here is the changed data: 

Pages: 12+303
Note: Stated first edition; full number line.<br>$29.95 in Canada.<br>First 12 pages are un-numbered, added only to ’place’ the map.
Page number: 1

New contents: 

Title: Frontispiece (map)
Author: Andrew Ashton
Date: 2008-01-01
Page: 9 & 10 (needs to be changed to "9" since we only give the first page of multi-page illustrations)
Type: INTERIORART

Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured that out and re-submitted the relevant data a second time using only one page number for the map and adding a note that it was on two adjacent pages.--Bluesman 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now, thanks! Ahasuerus 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal Planet

I've held your update to Neanderthal Planet as your note says that the title page states "Brian Aldiss" but the pub is currently "Brian W. Aldiss". If that's the case, we want to move it under 38363 rather than 280861. And I see we need to do that for Mike Christie's edition anyway. Please confirm that it's really the No W version and I'll explain or demonstrate the process. BLongley 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no 'W' on the title page. Explain away, please!! Time I got a handle on these trickier ones (without messing up the entire database. ;-) --Bluesman 23:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking again, yours is under the right title (see which title you go to when you click on the title link from the pub itself), but with all the wrong contents. So for your publication, you can change the Publication Author's Name and add No-A versions of each content title (1 edit) and then "Remove titles from this publication" for the With-A contents (2nd edit). I might do it a different way - change the Pub Author (1st edit), Remove all contents (2nd edit), then Import the contents from the #54197 edition adding page-numbers (3rd edit) - that might be a little less copy-n-pasting even if it's one more edit. BLongley 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It's actually the SFBC edition that's under the wrong title, if it really does have the W. To move that, you can view the No-A title with all three pubs then use "Unmerge Title", selecting just the SFBC title to unmerge (1st edit). When approved, this creates a THIRD Neanderthal Planet title with just the SFBC publication under it, which can be merged with the With-A title, keeping the With-A Author (second edit). BLongley 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ensign Flandry

I have your update to Ensign Flandry on hold as you want to change the price from $2.25 to $1.95. Let's see, we have

What I decided to do was to clone the record first to create NSGNFLNDRB0000 at $2.25 and then approved your update. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Marc, some of the Ace books had different priced covers for Canada. See this resent discussion "Omega Point Trilogy" [15]. Since Ace did all their printings in the US it makes it hard to tell if the price was US or CDN until two identical printings turn up with two different prices :-)Kraang 04:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. If the pub I was changing had more information I probably wouldn't have touched it. Really just thought the price was a typo. If the country for the text was printed in Canada, it's a no-brainer, but Ace didn't do much in that direction (if at all) so it's really difficult to tell. Thing is, should the $2.25 pub be 'branded' C$2.25 since there is no way one printing would have two separate prices in the same country? ~Bill, --Bluesman 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I go by the principle that there are very few typos or other bits of wrong data in ISFDB other than the page count field when it's an Amazon import. Thus when I run across something that does not agree with a publication I have in hand I either clone a record and have that match my publication or I update the record but also leave notes about what it used to say. That way if someone comes along with a publication that does match the "wrong" data they don't end up reverting my update. With verified publications an edit-conflict is less of an issue but I do the notes anyway.
I would not use C$2.25 unless the publication has some indication that it's for sale in Canada but instead would leave a notes and verify the publication. At some point we'll have enough information that we'll have confidence in saying "this particular data item record must be wrong." Until then, we don't know why some of the data seems to be wrong. The Canadian vs. USA printings with different prices for the same printing usually don't get spotted unless someone's in the habit of looking for them. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Good explanation; very good guidelines, too. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Bluesman/Archive/2008"
Personal tools