User talk:Chavey/Archive/2011-3


Jump to: navigation, search



Hi. I notice you used "Pinnacle" on the Destroyer books, but it looks like we have been using Pinnacle Books. In fact, I think there used to be a "Pinnacle" that someone merged into the other(s). Any objection to my changing Pinnacle to Pinnacle Books? Thanks. --MartyD 10:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, or I can change them as well. I'll make sure I use "Pinnacle Books" from now on. Chavey 11:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed them. Quick and easy! Thanks. --MartyD 00:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Destroyer author credits

Hi. I thought I understood what you are trying to do with the Destroyer author credits (change all of the books to be credited to Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir), but then I came across your proposed removal of the variant relationship between "Assassins Play-Off" credited to the pseudonyms and to the canonical authors with its note to the moderator about wanting to go delete the parent with the "incorrect" author attribution. That is in place due to the pseudonym relationships, not because the title is published as by Warren B. Murphy and Richard Ben Sapir. In fact, you'll see on either canonical author's page that the title says "only appeared as ... [as by Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy]". There are a couple of other cases along those lines, displayed using "only as by Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy" (or vice versa). This is normal way we work with pseudonyms. So I want to make sure I understand what you are trying to do with those titles (not having seen that one submission, I might have accepted the ones you did and then gone and made them variants of the now-missing canonical-author parents). Thanks. --MartyD 11:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just unsure how to deal with that particular book. I've cancelled that particular submission, and I'll wait to see if things resolve themselves with the author "corrections" on the title records. Chavey 11:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I will go through them and approve each and make a variant. It might take me a little while. I see you submitted the updates to the publication credits, too, which is great. Then I can make sure each one is consistent as I go along. Thanks. --MartyD 20:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that you not make them variants. I'll be checking some more, but all of editions I've checked so far should be properly credited to "Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy". In other words, they aren't variants of the title, they are the same as the title recs (after I fix the title recs). I assume that I need to change both the title records and the pub records, and they will then be properly aligned. But making the currently entered pub records variants of the titles seems to be the wrong way to go. Chavey 23:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Pub records can't be made into variants, only the title records under which they are found. As long as you're making sure that the pub records are correct, we can always go back and correct the title records. I've accepted the submissions to change the title records ONLY when there are NO pubs under them, or when the pubs under them have the same credit as the title record. Mhhutchins 23:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I am currently unbreaking the variant relationship between the titles of the early books in the series. After that we can determine the canonical/pseudonym merits of the names to see whether we should make variants. But I agree that we shouldn't make any variants until the canonical names have been firmly established. I think that may have been the cause of the mess to begin with. Mhhutchins 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll stick to the pub records and the title records that have no pub records. Chavey 23:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a few before I saw this. I won't touch anything else. --MartyD 00:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Destroyer #37: Bottom Line

According to this OCLC record, this title is Murphy solo. Your submission wants to make it Sapir and Murphy. Are you sure? (Cover may credit both.) Mhhutchins 23:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. #36 is credited to both on the cover and title page; #38 is credited to Murphy only on both cover and title page; and #37 credited to both on the cover, but was written only by Warren Murphy. My apologies for editing too fast. I've cancelled that submission, but I'll add a note about the disagreement between the cover and title page. Chavey 23:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. And you're a brave soul to take on this monster. Mhhutchins 23:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was a big fan of the series back in my younger days. Back then I was into martial arts, and my teacher (8th degree black belt) was about as close to Chiun as it's possible to get in the real world. And acted sort of like him. So I still have a fondness for that series, even though it ended up going seriously xenophobic after awhile, and driving me away. Chavey 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Taking on a black-belt may or may not be braver than tackling such a bibliographical task. ;-) My Sensei was only 3rd Dan, but I rapidly learned that books don't fight back, and he and most of his students certainly could - my nose still shows that even now. I think I have some Destroyer books somewhere in the as-yet untouched boxes from the last move, but it's not a set I've felt the need to find again. Maybe if our Tenth-Dan Bibliographers would put us through our paces I'd feel a bit more competitive again. ;-) BLongley 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Making ISBNs from SBNs

If you have an SBN, such as 523-40894-3, you should turn it into an ISBN by adding the leading zero and note that this was derived from the SBN on the book. Thanks. --MartyD 00:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See next note. They usually were putting the ISBN on the spine, but faked me out on this one publication. Chavey 00:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

#18 Funny Money

None of the three records are complete ISBNs. Is that how it appears on your copy? If so, we need to add the # before it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops! That's how it appears on the spine, but I should have realized it didn't start the same as their other books. On the copyright page there's a "0-" before that: 0-523-40894-3. Chavey 00:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you can keep both Michael and me happy by converting the SBN to ISBN-10, and adding a note that you've derived the ISBN. (Am I right, Michael?) Unlike Title and Author, we can't go back to "it's on the title page, it must be true" and ISBNs / Catalogue Numbers / DAW Collector Numbers / LCCN Numbers / OCLC Numbers are always going to be a little controversial at times. If in doubt: record everything. Actually, record everything anyway - I'm pretty sure Michael would object to many of my submissions if he was the moderator and I wasn't, but we've learned to get along somehow. BLongley 02:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't derive the ISBN, it was listed on the copyright page. Books #26-44 all list the SBN on the spine and the ISBN on the copyright page. Should I note that for each of those books? Chavey 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Nope, that's not necessary. Only note when you derive an ISBN from an SBN. I personally don't mind having the derived ISBN. Looking at some of the early years of Pinnacle Books, it's easy to see why. Check out 1973. There are five different methods of entering the catalog number! Mhhutchins 03:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, having just entered a bunch of Pinnacle numbers from that time, I'm familiar with the variety. Many of them have the added variety of, say SBN "523-00992-5" on the spine, with "P523-00992-5" on the cover. Plus, that one would have been listed in their catalog as "P992", and those numbers were used early on in the advertisements for books at the back of the book. Chavey 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Last Temple

Have your submission to 'correct' a bad ISBN on hold. Does the book have the correct ISBN anywhere else? [back cover/spine]. If not the number as printed should remain in the field, though to avoid the red error message put # before it and put the correct ISBN in the notes. I know how hard it is to resist trying to 'correct' mistakes, but if that's what's there, then the field gets the 'wrong' data. No different really than when an author's name is misspelled [though I hope we never do Variants on ISBNs!!  ;-) ] Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The book does not have a correct ISBN anywhere. However, it does have a correct SBN, and hence I can easily insert a "derived" ISBN, which many other editors have done. Does that affect your recommendation? (See the immediately preceding discussion on my talk page.) Chavey 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Weird how adding a '0' can give a different checksum. I agree with the above discussion re adding the zero if that doesn't alter the number in any other way. I know from many previous discussions that recording the number as listed is preferable to changing it [with the above practice the exception]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Same for Ship of Death. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
And the same issue arises for the next 3 books in the series. At least they were consistent :-) Chavey 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've submitted updates with all 4 numbers in the notes: Their catalog # (on the cover), the SBN # (spine), the incorrect ISBN (copyright page), and the correct ISBN. I've listed only the catalog number in the "ISBN or Catalog #" field. Chavey 22:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Approved. But didn't you mean 'SBN' on the spine... and not 'SSN'? The correction of the notes is left to you if you meant something other than 'SSN'. Thanks Kevin 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely right! Apparently, I've been working with social security numbers too much lately. I'll fix those up. Chavey 01:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Balance of Power

In this record, is the piece titled "Forward" instead of "Foreword"? Mhhutchins 04:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it really is. I even put that in the "Note to Moderator" :-) I think he was referring to "Moving forward in the series, even without Richard Sapir", or something like that. Chavey 05:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the note. This word is so often misspelled that it always jumps out to me now. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Warren Murphy" essay

Hi. I have on hold your submission that would make the essay Warren Murphy a variant of the essay Forward (Balance of Power). I see that both of these appear in The Destroyer #44, though, on different pages. Are they really the same piece, printed twice? Thanks. --MartyD 10:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

They are in the same book, one on the inside cover, and one in a regular "Foreword" location. The one inside the cover has a photo of Warren Murphy not in the "Forward"; the "Forward" has one paragraph (out of 6) not in "Warren Murphy". I'll document those differences, but it really seems that one should be viewed as a variant of the other. There's not a major justification for deciding which is the "primary" and which is the "variant", but that 1 paragraph longer was why I listed "Forward" as the primary. Chavey 14:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I approved it. Notes in the titles and in the pub would be helpful, I think. Thanks. --MartyD 10:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Done! Chavey 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hostile Takeover

There's [this] record? Of course LOC doesn't state a printing.... but who would send them a second?¿?  ;-) --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's good evidence. Destroyer #80 was at a $3.95 price, and #82 was at a $4.50 price, and the 2nd printing of #81 was at $4.50, but the LCCN record is good enough for me to accept adding that price. Then if a verifier some day knows otherwise, they can always change it. Chavey 01:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


Shouldn't some of the contents of [this] be essays? --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right; one of them was ("The 10 Best Destroyer Novels"), and I've submitted the change. There are several others that look like they should be essays, but really aren't. I'll look again at "Inside the Destroyer: The Good Guys" and "Inside the Destroyer: The Bad Guys", but these are, essentially, the origin stories of these various characters, all written as "in-universe essays", hence are fictional, and hence should almost certainly be listed as fiction. Chavey 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The one on "Ten Best..." was why I asked. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A Dream of Things That Were

Added an image to [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My book has a brighter blue in the middle, but it's certainly the same book. (I've got to get around to scanning in some of these books.) Chavey 03:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Daisy Meadows

I was surprised to see you tackle even a little bit of that "author" - I gave up after wasting just ONE evening on it! :-/ Are you waiting for the award or language improvements to go in? As I'm sure I could give you another project in the meantime... BLongley 03:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I figured I had to put my time in on the chain gang to qualify to be a moderator :-). Plus I'd volunteered to do "C-F" of the Data Consistency Project:Pseudonyms_With_Titles, not knowing what I'd gotten into by including "Daisy Meadows" in there! Chavey 03:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I've had my eye on you for months - see User_talk:Ahasuerus#Blackjack_time_again.3F. But yes, some time on the chain gang always helps, especially if you spread that time over all the types of edits you can do. By the way, what's happened with all the student labour you thought you might be able to bring? As at the moment I really could do with more "foreign-language" help. BLongley 16:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cara the Camp Fairy

As much as it pains me to have to deal with these books, there's a few things to keep in mind. Re this record: "Library binding" usually means hardcover, although the Amazon listing ambiguously lists it as "pb" in its title (but not in its description). And I'm assuming your source is Amazon, since it's not noted in the record itself. If so, they give a price of $17.20. I've also noticed that you're capitalizing the central article ("The") in your submissions adding new publications, although most appear to not be capitalized. No big deal, but I'd hate to have to deal with later submissions that changed the titles. Mhhutchins 06:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about that Library Binding. At first I put in "hc", but the Amazon record seemed pretty clear that it was a library binding on a "pb", and I have certainly seen some of those myself, so I changed it to that. My apologies for "The" instead of "the"; it came from copy and paste from the title records on the Orchard Book website. I added the price. Chavey 06:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Every book "published" by Turtleback is actually a rebinding of the original softcover edition with a hardcover for libraries. Thanks. 06:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll change it to hc. Chavey 11:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Izzy and Inky

Having fun with the fairies? Please take a look at Izzy the Indigo Fairy. You made Inky into a variant of that one, but there's now a lost title record for Inky by Narinder Dhami. Is Dhami the real author? --Willem H. 16:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There are going to be a couple of lost title records for Dhami as I go through this. I'm entering the 1st editions, and as I understand it I need to enter those as "by Daisy Meadows", then after they're approved, make them variants of ones by "Narinder Dhami", then (I hope), all should be good. But then I'll have another step of going through and removing the orphaned Dhami variants for later editions. (Unless I misunderstand how the variant stuff works, which is certainly a possibility.
And I wouldn't describe my time with "X the Y Fairy" as fun, but I did volunteer to try to clean up the pseudonym relationships involving Daisy Meadows (along with other authors in the range C - F), and this is a necessary part of that. Chavey 16:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Your reasoning is ok. The one thing that went wrong, is that you made Inky (by Daisy Meadows) into a variant of Izzy (also by Daisy). I suspect both should be variants of Inky (by "Narinder Dhami"), that's why I asked. You volunteered for a heavy one. Most of us would rather not touch the fairies. :-) --Willem H. 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is making "The Destroyer" series look like an afternoon stroll. But I'm getting close. I've entered all the 1st editions, organized the sub-series, and I'm nearly done checking the "Bibliographic Warnings". Then I'll tackle the actual assignment of ghost-writer pseudonyms, and see if the problems like those you just mentioned resolve themselves (I hope!), or whether I have to go in and fix up all the two-way VT's (A is a variant of B; B is a variant of C). My sincere hope is that when I start with one and add the second, that the software inserts the short cut. But I suspect I am being too optimistic. (In which case, I'll have a FR to submit!) Chavey 16:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't found any shortcuts here, but it gets easier when you can approve your own edits (no waiting). It now involves undoing the variant relationship of A and B and then making both A and B variants of C. --Willem H. 16:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If B is a variant of A and you make A into a variant of Z, then the software will automatically turn B into a variant of Z to avoid "chained variants". But that's the extent of what it can do on its own -- anything more complex and you need human intervention. Ahasuerus 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I had noticed that this happened, and solved all of the re-assignments I had to do for the Fairy series. I went ahead and checked, but everything I expected to have to do, you had already done for me automatically! Chavey 03:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It does happen on occasion. Of course, we wouldn't want to make a habit of it! Ahasuerus 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Product Dimensions: 19.2 x 12.8 x 1 cm

If you're looking at the product sizes on Amazon UK, this indicates tp size rather than pb. BLongley 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's frustrating. I saw some Orchard editions entered as "pb", and I followed that lead instead of stopping to think about it myself. Now I have a bunch of corrections to make. Oh well, ... Here goes. Then I think I may be done! Chavey 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't spot them earlier. :-/ I corrected a few while I was checking your variant creations - and did a few "The" to "the" standardisations too. I haven't touched the US editions as the few I looked at seem to be confusingly marked as "mass market paperback" on Amazon despite being slightly larger than normal. I find that Wikipedia does have have a good definition of A Format (pb) and B and C Formats (both tp) for the purposes of British paperbacks: on Worldcat those tend to be rounded. BLongley 02:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Weather Fairies

The cover image doesn't match the title of this pub. Mhhutchins 00:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And $14.99 for a book clearly marked "£1" on the front cover sets my alarm bells ringing too. ;-) BLongley 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Image corrected. Sorry 'bout that carry-over from the previous book. Chavey 01:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think you're ready to be a Moderator?

Hi Darrah, I personally think you should have been nominated for moderator months ago, and your recent posts and activities make me think you're more than ready, but we have to ask if you're willing. Take a look at the Moderator Qualifications and the Moderator Helpscreen, and let me know what you think. Being able to approve your own edits makes things a lot easier (I do remember :-). --Willem H. 19:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your response here, and started the nomination process. You can follow it on the Community Portal. --Willem H. 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Casitians Trilogy

Do you have copies of these books or is your information from a secondary source? If the latter, it should be recorded in the note fields. Here's a trick to remember to record your source: Before hitting the submit button take look at the note field. If it's empty, something is wrong with the submission. Mhhutchins 15:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I remembered it on the 3rd book in the series; I'll go fix it on the other two. But that's a good pointer on remembering to do this. Chavey 19:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


The ASIN is Amazon's catalog number, not the publisher's catalog number, and as such should not be placed in the ISBN/Catalog # field. There was a discussion earlier this year, but it came to no definite conclusion, except that ASINs are not assigned by the publisher, only the merchant (in this case, Amazon). It was also determined that this number is not part of the ebook's file, so it can't be used as a identifying or unique number for the ebook. When or if a Kindle-ready ebook is ever sold by another merchant it would not have the same number. If you feel that the ASIN should be part of the record, it can be recorded in the note field. Mhhutchins 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I remembered that discussion, and was looking for the current policy. So I went to the ISFDB Policy page, where it says:
 Rules of Acquisition, IN: e-books with a unique identifier such as an ISBN, ASIN, EAN, or catalog number 
 (note: software support added in mid-2006, non-ISBN identifiers allowed in March 2011)
This quote seems to treat ISBN #s, ASIN #s, and catalog numbers alike, all in the same breath. And since that field is where we put both catalog numbers and ISBN numbers, it seemed like that was telling me to put the ASIN number there as well. And I said to myself "Well, the ASIN number is essentially Amazon's catalog number, so I guess they want me to put that where the catalog number would go." If our actual policy is different, maybe it would be helpful to re-word that part of the "Policy" page. Chavey 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the policy as stated. It doesn't tell you where to record these "unique identifiers", because that's outside the purpose of a policy statement. The field is clearly labeled ISBN/Catalog #. Any other unique identifiers should be recorded in the record's note field (LCCN for example, or a second publisher's catalog number when an ISBN is also stated). The same leap of logic that you used to place the ASIN in that field would lead another editor to believe he could put the catalog numbers from Currey's latest catalog into that field. After all, Currey's a merchant and has "unique identifiers" for his books. Why should he be treated differently than Amazon? Mhhutchins 21:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

More on author credit for the pseudonymously published Destroyer novels

I just got a copy of Reginald3 and he gives credit to those authors who actually wrote the books (up through 1991). Let me know if this will help in your research, or I can email you a scan of the pertinent pages. Mhhutchins 21:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do! I've had trouble finding authoritative sources for those ghost-writers, so it would be great to have them from Reginald. I only have Reginald1, so if you can send me a scan of those pages it would be great! Chavey 22:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to get to it later tonight. You can email me using my ISFDB email link so that I can have your email address. (The ISFDB email link doesn't allow attachments.) Mhhutchins 23:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Using Amazon data on books pre-2000

Don't use Amazon for publisher credit on books published before 2000. I'm giving the year as roughly 2000, but it may even go back further. In fact, I wouldn't use Amazon as the sole source for any data other than current publications. For an example, you (I'm assuming it was you because you were working on the series) entered this record as published by "St Martins Press" (actually St. Martin's Press), which was probably based on this Amazon listing. The book was published by Pinnacle. How could Amazon make such a mistake? By convoluted logic, that only Amazon's software writers could explain. Back in the early 80s, Pinnacle was a viable publisher of paperback books. In fact, they were so good that Tom Doherty used them to distribute his books, published under the Tor imprint. When Pinnacle went belly-up in 1985, Tor was left high and dry (and probably a few dollars poorer), so Doherty went to St. Martin's, a respected hardcover publisher who wanted to get into the paperback business. St. Martin's would distribute Tor and other Tom Doherty Associates books, and several years later bought the company outright...along with the ISBN range that Tor had used when it was being distributed by Pinnacle: 0-523-XXXXX-X. So Amazon's software has many books published under this ISBN range as "St Martins Mass Market Paper". And this isn't the only example. Look for hundreds of books published by Signet and you'll find them as "Roc" books, decades before the Roc imprint was ever imagined. Books published by Harper & Row are given as HarperCollins or even Collins! With all of this in mind, and having years of experience, I've found that the most reliable source is OCLC, and I only use Amazon and Abebooks listings as a last resort. (Many Abebooks dealers feed the ISBNs into the same database that Amazon gets its data from without even looking at the actual book they're selling. That's a reason to always question an Abebooks dealer before ordering a book from them. I've been burned once because of this and will never let it happen again.) For the book in question you'll find this OCLC record. Mhhutchins 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That explains a lot. If the ownership of an ISBN range was transferred from one publisher to another, then it would be very easy for Amazon and others to get confused about who published the book. And I wondered about those books being attributed to St. Martin's. So I'll go back and check those. I found an interview with Murphy where he talked about the move from Pinnacle to Gold Eagle with issue 95, so that would seem to give some definitive evidence for the actual publishers to that point. Chavey 22:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
We should probably put our heads together and explain our experiences with Amazon Publisher data, then build in a few more warnings. For instance, there is no reason to accept "Wizards of the Coast" as a publisher for books published by "TSR" before WotC even existed. British pubs by TSR were often badged and co-credited with "Penguin". A big warning sign on British publications is a publisher of "Littlehampton Book Services", that as far as I know never published anything, but supplied Amazon UK with (surprisingly accurate) publication dates. There's a lot we could do with our accumulated knowledge, but we seem to have given up after a few edit-wars over publishers, imprints, etc. I did a lot of Wiki-work on publisher and imprint documentation, and Al gave Mods the tools to mass update and merge "publishers", but we've never really agreed how to use such. BLongley 02:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be useful to collect such information. One problem, of course, is where to put it. As a relatively new editor, I've realized that there's a ton of information (and precedent, decisions, and "rules" not in the rule book) that are in the wiki pages and nowhere else. Mhhutchins was recently complaining about not being able to find anything on the wiki pages, and I've had some of the same problems. The help pages are good, but somewhat intimidating, just from the number of such pages that an editor should try to understand before getting going. And, of course, they just don't include all the rules/decisions/hints, etc. So figuring out where to put such collected knowledge is, I suspect, a challenge. Chavey 02:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
A lot is recorded on the Wiki, but unless we can standardise publisher names a bit more then the information either needs to be duplicated or it can't always be found. For instance, there's enough information about "Borgo Press" that anyone moderating a 2002 publication for such (as Fixer did twice today) will know it has to be an error - and a further check via OCLC shows that they should have been "Wildside Press" at that time. It might be worth putting start and end dates for imprints and publishers and using those to flag up the most obvious errors. BLongley 17:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
That seems like a really good idea! Would that be a flag to the submitter, or a flag to the moderator? (Either way seems useful to me.) Chavey 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually they switched to Signet first, just before Pinnacle bankrupted, starting with No. 59, and it looks like that one came out before No. 58, the last from Pinnacle. Mhhutchins 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I mispoke myself. I have many of those Signet editions myself, and as soon as I got home from work I went upstairs to verify that they really were Signet editions :-) Chavey 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


You made "Paul Neimark" the anonymous editor of this anthology. There's a story in it by "Paul Niemark". Surely it must be the same person and the names should be reconciled (either corrected or varianted.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also instead of "Author's true name from Contento1", perhaps "Editor credit from Contento1" would be more fitting. (It was uncredited, not pseudonymously edited.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that this seems incorrect. However, it is what is listed in the Contento online database, and it's how this is listed in Ashley/Contento's The Supernatural Index: A Listing of Fantasy, Supernatural, Occult, Weird, and Horror Anthologies--the editor spelled Neimark, and the short story writer being spelled Niemark. Searching for the names online doesn't give me much evidence: There's a writer named "Paul Neimark", but he writes very little fiction; and I am unable to find a writer named "Paul Niemark". My guess is that until we find a verifier for this, all we can do is to add a note that this is what Contento says, but it looks suspicious. We could VT one to the other, but I don't know which to make the canonical. Suggestion? Chavey 17:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
We can leave them as stated in the secondary sources until we can get a primary verifier. Just record the sources and how they differ in giving the name of the editor and the author. Mhhutchins 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've made "Niemark" a pseudonym for "Neimark", and added more detail on the Bibliographic Comments page for Neimark. Chavey 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rod Serling = ghost-edited by Dickson

Shouldn't we have a more definitive statement of editorship than "apparently" before changing our records? Mhhutchins 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

They use the word "apparently" in the online database. In their print version they just say that Dickson ghost-edited these books. Is that enough? I can change the note. Chavey 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The link didn't reveal anything to me. "Apparently" I've reached my quota of looking at Google Books for this title. If Ashley/Contento states it straight out, credit them as the source. (BTW, Contento1 and Ashley/Contento are two different sources. The first is an online version of the combined 1978 and 1984 indexes for Science Fiction anthologies and collections. The second is only available in a book version and covers Horror and the Supernatural.) Mhhutchins 18:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I updated the notes so they refer to Ashley/Contento instead, with the straight-out credit. And while I knew these were different sources, I didn't quite realize the time difference -- i.e. since Ashley/Contento is a decade later, it's more likely to be accurate. Too bad the didn't fix Neimark/Niemark though :-) Chavey 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Worlds of AE Van Vogt

The Contento date is wrong, due to ACE being mental midgets when it comes to copyright page data. The real Jan '74 edition is already in the data base under the correct number 22812 and at the lower price of $1.25. I've let Bill Contento know about it before, but the Index doesn't get updated very regularly. It's unlikely the year is correct in our record, price would put it maybe '75-'76?? Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there something about being a Bill that makes you lean toward Bibliography? I haven't quite got my father (also a Bill) to join us yet, but he was a professional librarian and has access to my mother's SF&F books... BLongley 00:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Not that I know of? Though by the time I was 12 I had read nearly everything fictional in the local library.... does that count? The more Bills the better, hijack Dad! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
12? You were obviously a slow reader, I'd finished the children's section when I was about 9. ;-) Anyway, I think we might persuade Willem to become a Bill, then we work on "Bill Kraang" and "Bill Tpi". "Bill Ahasuerus" might take a bit of work. :-/ BLongley 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't read the kiddie section, read all the adult fiction the librarian would let me have [loved Eric Ambler, Ian Fleming] then ran into HP Lovecraft at about 12, never quite been the same since..... not that you could tell, could tell, could tell..... --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe your "kiddie section" didn't go as high as ours? I know I encountered Nicholas Fisk, Robert Heinlein, Mary Norton and Andre Norton (presumably no relation), Hugh Walters, and even Terry Pratchett in the children's section. I even got the complete "Sherlock Holmes" stories from there, although I read the "Professor Challenger" stories first. Mum was very good and let me get four books for her, and then use my, my Dad's, and my sister's library tickets to get 12 for me. I think I'd finished all the Big Yellow books of Gollancz SF available before I was 11. BLongley 03:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just realised that we have multiple Rons as well. So we might need to quote the song "I met him on a Monday and my heart stood still. Da do ron-ron-ron, da do ron-ron. Somebody told me that his name was Bill... BLongley 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Bill, (whichever Bill :-), Contento1 also lists a 1977 edition of "Lost: Fifty Suns", which we do not have in the system, but gives essentially no data about it. Do you know if that's an error with them? (I see at least two other date errors for them in van Vogt books alone.) They also claim that "The Gryb" is the Same as The Proxy Intelligence and Other Mindbenders, except replaces the story "The Proxy Intelligence" with "Humans, Go Home!", which might be worth adding as a note (I see you're the verifier for that). Chavey 02:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The '79 edition seems to be the first under this title, though the verified copy is the fourth printing. I found a different cover with a $1.95 price [same artwork] that is likely the Canadian one and the printings usually went 1/2, 3/4, 5/6 etc with the odd #s being the US and the even #s the Canadian printings [not always, but mostly]. Since Van Vogt was a Canadian, maybe we got dibs on the third printing??¿?? Actually Hérve Hauck has verified a third printing so the Locus date may simply be a typo as the magazine is the source for the date in the fourth printing. The note on The Gryb is correct, plus the order of the stories was altered. As Bill says, ISCHI is quite good. I've been through the Storysource, though not in a fine-combed manner. --~ Bill, Bluesman 15:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Icshi has been pretty good at van Vogt data. The Storysource download is probably worth a look still, despite the web page redesign. BLongley 02:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much! Icshi verified that the '79 edition of "Worlds of A. E. Van Vogt" that we have listed is the first one, and that Contento1 is wrong about a '77 edition. They also listed the 3 printings of "The Book of van Vogt" which preceded the first appearance of "Worlds of A. E. Van Vogt", which is why it's listed in the verification copy as a 4th printing. I updated the link from van Vogt's page in ISFDB to point to the new location of Icshi, I'll add a note to "Worlds..." about the error in Contento, and I'll add that note about "Gryb" almost = "Proxy Intelligence". Chavey 19:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Destroyer listings from Reginald3

Just checking back to see if you'd received the pdf that I emailed to you last week. Mhhutchins 16:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding. Yes I got them. Insofar as they go (vol. 86), they are in complete agreement with, including the one place where and disagree. Combining this with an essay by Will Murray, where he claims books 74-107, this gets the true writers for about 3/4-ths of the series. I'll see if I can get more verification on the later (apparent) Jim Mullaney volumes of 111-131, and maybe some of the others as well. But I'll probably have to leave some as bibliographic comments, and not author credits. Chavey 21:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I've finished my research on the ghost-authors for the Destroyer series, continuing where Reginald3 left off. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your looking at my analysis in The Destroyer series' Bibliographic Comments page before I continue with setting up (or removing) the VT's for these books. Thanks, Chavey 00:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The series bibliographic comments page really spells it all out, so proceed to variant the title records based on the information you've researched and noted on that page. We'll just have to deal with "Special Thanks..." pages when or if we ever get primary verification of those records. Good job. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I just verified #110 and it does thank Mike Newton on the copyright page. Ahasuerus 02:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Aha! One down and, really, only two to go. Chavey 02:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hm, #112 thanks James Mullaney and Daisy Snaggers, but there is no mention of Snaggers on Mullaney's page, although he describes how someone tried to sabotage the book. Interesting... Ahasuerus 02:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I don't have #111, but Gary Jonas' biblio page mentions that it was written by "James Mullaney & Daisy Snaggers". Ahasuerus 02:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I had just found that reference myself, and a couple of others that mention "Special thanks" to both of them in #111. But Daisy Snaggers really sounds like a made up name. In particular, it was used in the mystery short story "White Elephant" by Theodore Tinsley. The agency is actually owned and run by a woman, who pretends to be a secretary "Daisy Snaggers", because clients expect to see a man as the detective. So she's hired a good looking man to pretend to be the main detective. If Mullaney knows this story, then he's probably commenting that a woman helped him with the story (or did all the real work), but not necessarily someone by that name. Chavey 02:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
A clever way to credit the editor, perhaps? Mullaney's comments re: 112 read, in part, "There was some mix-up with an outgoing editor who thought it was too similar to a Remo chapter in a book that came out just before I took over, and so she removed it." Note the use of the pronoun "she". Ahasuerus 02:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. And as an editor, we don't need to credit her, although we probably should add notes about this on those titles. Sheesh, I finally think I have the book closed on Daisy Meadows, and another Daisy comes along to torment me :-) Chavey 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Al, Chavey 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, I have been promoted! The Peter Principle in action! :-) Ahasuerus 02:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I thought I knew your True Name. I got called "Bill" a few days ago, and had the same reaction to that promotion :-) Chavey 03:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
could you look at the note I added to Destroyer #112 and see if you think that's appropriate? Chavey 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It looked pretty good, so I just added a reference to the Web page where Mullaney discusses the incident. I also removed the word "snide" because I don't think we know who is responsible for these acknowledgements. It may have been done by a third party or there may have been other reasons not to use the editor's name. Ahasuerus 02:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's an improvement. Chavey 03:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There's Daisy Harris still to do - we only have her dead-tree books so far, her "Love-Bots" series still needs entering at some point when we can agree on how to do Kindle books. BLongley 15:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
He says with a grin on his face, as he tries to trap me into doing another series. I have this vision of Bill, when we both volunteered to do alphabetical batches of the "Pseudonyms with Titles" clean up, grabbing letters later in the alphabet and then cackling when he saw me select a range with "D" ... knowing what I was getting myself into. But did he warn me! No, he did not. And now he's trying to trap me into another one! I see right through you Bill ;-) Chavey 17:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Just thought you might like something else to look at while waiting for Ahasuerus to test the changes that will allow you to start your Carl Brandon award work! ;-) There's nothing worse than sitting in front of ISFDB with nothing to do. BLongley 18:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor credited novel record

The editor should not be given credit in the author field of this publication. I discovered this because the record came up as an error when matching pub record credits with title record credits, a script that Bill Longley wrote awhile back to find such potential errors. Mhhutchins 19:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if my real error was in listing this as a novel instead of as non-fiction? Very slightly more than half of the book is a reprinting of the novel, while most of it consists of essays about the novel. And it's those essays that make the book significant. Thoughts? Chavey 19:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The book is promoted and sold as an edition of Shelley's novel. I can't think of any other way to type it. We have this same problem with all "critical editions" that include essays. Regardless of their significance, the essays are all in support of the novel, without which the book probably wouldn't have been published. This is another case where the ISFDB software fails to fully support such hybrid publications. One day we're going to be able to give editors credit, but until then we muddle through. Mhhutchins 19:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I moved Joanna Smith's name to the notes, with a slight additional description of the "hybrid publication". Chavey 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Approved. And that may be the last of your submissions that I'll ever have to approve. I see you're officially a moderator. Congratulations! Mhhutchins 20:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I hadn't heard. Half-an-hour ago I know I wasn't. But I doubt you'll get rid of me that easy; I suspect I'll still leave some submissions in the queue to have someone else look as well -- especially until I feel more confident about the various types of approvals. Chavey 20:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. If I see any that are in the queue for more than a few hours, I will look them over and discuss them with you. Mhhutchins 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations indeed! Help:Screen:Moderator just called and asked you to stop by and read it :-) Ahasuerus 20:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good to have you on the team. --Willem H. 20:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
.... and if I remember correctly, don't the rookies have to buy the beer??  :-)) --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I've got 8 bottles of a local brew. Where should I email them to? Chavey 23:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Just send them to the Moderator Group's Gmail address and we'll fight over them. (8 really isn't enough to go round, but some may be lesser drinkers than I am.) Welcome aboard! BLongley 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
That's OK, Bill, you can have mine. Ethanol is for those who can't handle quinine, the real thing! Ahasuerus 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll save up my beer money for the next of those infamous "moderator retreats" I've heard so much about :-) And Ahasuerus, I'll have you know that under doctor's orders I drink a large glass of tonic water, with quinine, each evening. And if that stops working, he's prepared to move me to quinine injections! Chavey 10:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Quinine was very popular in the 19th and early 20th century, but it has lost much of its luster within the medical profession over the last few decades. It looks like your doctor may be one of the holdouts. But regardless of its health benefits, the taste can't be beat! Ahasuerus 23:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course one glass of tonic water a day isn't a lot of quinine, but as it turns out, it's one of only two known folk remedies to prevent leg cramps during sleep (the other being a bar of soap under the sheets). No one seems to understand why either folk remedy works, but medical science has been unable to find anything better. The soap didn't work for me, and I would still wake up in agony every other day or so, but the quinine has stopped it cold. One of my dance students had the same problem, I suggested the tonic water to him, and it has also stopped his evening leg cramps. Chavey 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Checking Thorpy/Plazzi's recent The Parasomnias and Other Sleep-Related Movement Disorders, I see that double blind studies of quinine's effect on nocturnal cramps have been inconclusive so far: there is a strong placebo effect, but some studies also suggest that quinine is somewhat effective even when you account for the placebo effect. The big problem with quinine, however, is not that its alleged effectiveness may be attributed to the placebo effect (no harm in that), but rather that its side effects can be serious in some patients, which is why the FDA told manufacturers to stop marketing it back in 1995. On the gripping hand, although certain other medications (diltiazem, verapamil, etc) look promising, the studies have been small and not exactly conclusive, so if tonic water (which contains a miniscule amount of quinine and is extremely unlikely to be harmful) works for you, then so much the better! :-) Ahasuerus 03:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I've read the same studies, and I have real trouble attributing the physical changes to a placebo effect. Given that the leg cramps happen while I'm sound asleep, the normal mechanisms proposed for a placebo effect aren't present. And the physical effects are pretty dramatic (e.g. I wake up screaming), so various other explanations of placebo effect aren't particularly viable. What I am confident of is that quinine will not solve the problem for all people who suffer from this. And if it is true that quinine works for only a modest sub-set of people with nocturnal cramps, it is possible to have run studies that would confuse this behavior with a placebo effect. My suspicion is that the fact that it works for me may be connected to my having diabetes. One effect of diabetes is that my body has trouble getting enough blood circulation to the ends of my legs, which is where the cramps are occurring. And this is particularly a problem at night when my heart doesn't have gravity working with it to get the blood to the legs. Since quinine is a mild muscle relaxant, it is a reasonable hypothesis that relaxing the leg muscles allows the blood to flow more easily to those extremities. If this hypothesis were correct (fairly easy to test, although I am unaware of any relevant studies), this would explain why the people for whom the tonic water would be an effective treatment might be limited to those who have circulation problems (diabetes or otherwise) in their legs. Now if the FDA runs a placebo test on that particular population, I conjecture that they would get different results than their previous, more general, studies. Chavey 03:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Which reminds me that I need to update the distribution list over on Gmail... Ahasuerus 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
And when the new Mods have recovered, ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard#Moderator_availability needs a couple more entries. BLongley 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Albert Paul Blaustein = Allen DeGraeff

Even though DeGraeff is a penname for Blaustein, we consider it to be the canonical one (he never published a genre work as Blaustein, probably trying to separate his "ghetto" work from his respectable work as lawyer, professor, and government consultant.) I think we should give Davenport's ghost editor credit to DeGraeff. What do you think? (Check out this additional source that credits his ghost-editing.) Mhhutchins 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm glad you had that other reference -- Contento1 was misleading on the status of these books. I'll cancel those submissions and submit replacements. I'll leave those replacements in the moderator queue so you can look at them first. (Took me a bit to get to this -- I spent my evening ISFDB time on one Fixer submission, adding and organizing all of the books by Adrienne Wilder.) Chavey 02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The three submissions look good enough to accept. We'll need to record our source for the ghost-editing attribution. Mhhutchins 18:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
These have been sitting in the queue a couple of days, and I wasn't sure if you'd wanted me to accept them after looking over them, so I went ahead and accepted them. Mhhutchins 05:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I got side-tracked. I've added attribution notes to all three DeGraeff/Davinport books, using the same note for all 3. Chavey 23:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
About the Wilder books, especially this one. I find it hard to believe that 6 novels could be printed in 338 pages, regardless of the type size. From the title, it's clear that each of its contents are novellas. I suggest changing them to SHORTFICTION, with novella length. Their individual publications as ebooks will have to be changed from NOVEL type to CHAPTERBOOK type, and a content entry for the SHORTFICTION record will have to be added to each CHAPTERBOOK record. Then these will have to be merged. If you agree with these changes, I can walk you through the steps if you need assistance. (It's going to take quite a number of submissions.) Mhhutchins 18:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I found actual word counts on all of the "Darwin's Theory" books; 3 were novellas and 2 were novelettes. The other books all have page counts on Amazon, and are novels. The one that still looks suspicious to me is "Stained", which Amazon lists as 230 pp., but which sells in ebook format for $0.99. But I guess we should go with Amazon's page count unless somebody actually verifies the book. A question I have is how to list Darwin's Theory: Complete novella series (Volume 1). It's currently listed as an Omnibus, which is wrong because none of the books inside were novels (although they were published separately). The novella descriptions show that it's a series of linked novellas, and I suspect it's really more like a "fixup novel", but I'm guessing that I should list it as a collection. Recommendations? Chavey 23:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds closer to a collection than a fix-up novel, so I'd go with collection. Mhhutchins 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The 10th Kingdom

Could I get you to take a look at your copy of The 10th Kingdom. My copy has the same ISBN as yours and is a mass market paperback. However, mine does not have any pages numbered with roman numerals, nor any pages preceding the numbered pages. Also, it has 479 pages as opposed to your 421 and the photos are between pages 240 and 241. The price on mine is $6.99/C$8.99. The copyright page on mine mentions a simultaneous hardcover printing. I'm wondering if perhaps yours is the hardcover, or maybe a trade paperback, though it would be unusual for two different bindings to share the same ISBN. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. My copy is, in fact, a trade paperback with the same cover but a different ISBN. I don't know how I made that mistake, except possibly that an Amazon search for "10th Kingdom" only shows one book with that cover: the mass market paperback. (A search for the correct ISBN then finds the trade paperback edition.) I've created the appropriate tp edition and moved my verification to that one, then deleted the data that was (or may have been) incorrect on the version you have. You should be able to finish the data on that one and verify it. Chavey 16:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ann MAxwell - Dancer's Illusion

I added amazon art to your verified pub Dancer's Illusion. Thanks - Kevin 14:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Charmed Destinies

Can you confirm that this pub gives only the ISBN-10? If it has both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, the latter should be the one stated in the ISBN field. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. In fact, the book doesn't even include an ISBN-10, so that must have been entered from Amazon. I've corrected it. Chavey 02:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes for Publication Series

You can add notes, web page links, links to a Wikipedia article, etc to publication series. I've updated the Novacon publication series based on the note on your user page. Mhhutchins 04:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I was expecting to see a link near the top of the page (as with "Bibliographic Notes"), but now I see where that link really is. I've got a few other series that I may add notes to as well. Chavey 04:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
A question about the series: the Ken MacLeod book seems to be out of place. Shouldn't it be dated 2006? (He didn't publish his first fiction until the mid-90s.) Might have to ask Hauck to recheck the pub's date. Mhhutchins 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I already have a note into Hauck asking him to check. It certainly does look like a data entry error to me. Chavey 04:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Please look at this topic when you get a chance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

SFBC dating

Original offerings of SFBC editions are dated by when they became available to club members, not by the gutter codes. A book could be printed weeks or months before becoming a selection. Locus/Contento may have received some before the offering dates but the recorded date will still be when they were 'published/offered' to the club. Saw the change for [this] but couldn't hit hold quick enough. Later printings that have new SFBC #s or new covers are dated by gutter codes as they usually weren't re-offered officially, just became the new stock for any orders received. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me! I'll revert the two changes I just made, and inform the verifiers of my error. Chavey 23:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
But how could Thuvia, Maid of Mars and The Chessmen of Mars be offered to SFBC members in Jan. 1973 if the gutter code, 20 P, implies it wasn't printed until May 1973? Aha! Checked our gutter code page and found that the true 1st printing has gutter code 49N. I'll update the notes for that book. Chavey 23:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't know who, but someone mistakenly changed the publication date of Thuvia, Maid of Mars and The Chessmen of Mars from January 1973 to May 1973. The first printing of the title had gutter code 49N (December 1972) and was published in January 1973. Do you recall seeing a submission to change the publication date? The two primary verifications were done years ago. There's a note that the verification copy has gutter code 20P, but that was a reprint and doesn't reflect the publication date. The date should be changed back to 1973-01-00. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeds of Yesterday

Added an okay image to [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Arabian Nights Entertainment

A search on OCLC found dozens of editions in English, but I can't find any evidence that Galland translated his own work into English. The OCLC record for the 1783 Longman edition doesn't explicitly claim Galland is the translator either. Why would it take 70 years after his death for his English translation to appear, especially from the same publisher who'd published it in an anonymous English translation? Personally, I would create a record for the first complete 12-volume edition, credit Galland as the author, but note that his work was anonymously translated into English. I wouldn't even begin to touch any later reprints, but that's your fish to fry. (An aside: I highly recommend that you only source dealer listings as a last resort.) Mhhutchins 05:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm trying to fill out the Windermere publication series (since I just got one of their books), and while doing that I'm also trying to put in "first editions" of some of those books. (For example, Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1851 book "A Wonder-Book for Girls and Boys" showed up in the ISFDB with a 1968 title date.) But how to handle Arabian Nights is a little above my pay grade. So I'll rethink it. And those versions that claimed Galland had translated it into English may be wrong, but it looks more like they're just reprinting some substantially earlier Galland English translation. Chavey 05:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I've spent the better part of the last hour trying to find any evidence that Galland translated his French translation into English. This Wikipedia article claims that all English translations that credited Galland were anonymously translated and credited to Galland only in order to cash in on his name and the reputation of the original (French) edition. It's rare for an author to translate his own work into another language, but I'm sure it's possible. Mhhutchins 05:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that is certainly believable! There seems to have been a bunch of that type of thing going on around that time. I think I may stick with adding some of the particular versions that the Wikipedia article references. It seems to me, though, that we don't really have a way to deal with "meta-titles", i.e. if I add the Galland, Lane, Payne and Burton editions, that seems like they need to be 4 different titles, since they have 4 different authors. I don't see any way to "connect" them to each other, except possibly to create a title series into which we put them all. Is that appropriate? Chavey 06:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
There are many issues with older books. For example, the University of New Brunswick record for the "third edition" says:
  • Uniform Title: Arabian nights. English. 1706-1717.
  • Title: Arabian nights entertainments [microform] : consisting of one thousand and one stories told by the Sultaness of the Indies to divert the Sultan from the execution of a bloody vow he had made to marry a lady every day and have her cut off next morning, to avenge himself for the disloyalty of his first sultaness, &c. / translated into French from the Arabian MSS by M. Galland, of the Royal Academy, and now done into English.
  • Publisher: London : Printed for Andrew Bell, at the Cross Keys and Bible in Cornhill, 1706-1717.
  • Phys. Desc: 2 v. in 1 : ill.
  • Note: "In two volumes."
  • Note: "Containing a better account of the customs, manners and religion of the eastern nations, Tartars, Persians, and Indians, than is to be met with in any author hitherto publish'd."
  • Note: Volume [II] is marked: Vol. III. The third edition.
  • Note: Reproduction of original in the Bodleian Library.

The date alone -- 1706-1717 -- is headache-worthy. Ahasuerus 06:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several books which, when published in multiple volumes, have a "multi-year publication date". And that doesn't just happen with older books. Having just been working on filling out the Pharaoh Audiotapes spec fic works, I saw a few of these where the audio tape for a single book was published over a year or more. I've gone on the assumption that we would post these with the publication date of the first volume, and then note the time span. I doubt, however, that we have a policy on this -- and it seems that we should. Thoughts? Chavey 21:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've made a stab at the earliest editions of Arabian Nights (working in chronological order), based on too many hours of research through WorldCat and Google Books. If anyone wants to take a look at this start, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Chavey 02:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, but the work is outside my interests so I'm not the person to ask advice from concerning which editions to include. The only edition that I feel should definitely be included is the first one that contains all 1001 stories. But bibliographically, your work is excellent, based on the notes you've added to the title record and the pub records. No one's gonna fault you on that count, or expect you to add all editions! Based on an OCLC search for English translations of Galland's version, I came up with 53 editions. The 5000+ figure you cite in the title record's note field is for all editions of all versions of the Arabian Nights stories in all languages, but only 2000 of those records are for books in English. Did I really just say "only 2000"??? Mhhutchins 03:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "only 2000". Except aren't we supposed to be trying to integrate other language editions as well? Nevertheless, I think I'm going to work my way through all the 18th century English translations, add a couple of important 19th century editions, and leave it there. But I was just having second thoughts about listing the anonymous translations from Galland as by "uncredited". If we have a regular book translated into another language, we still credit the original author. And while Galland was himself a translator, there's more than that at work here: (i) He mostly translated one particular edition, but he did include some stories from other places and (it's conjectured) added two stories from an Arabic tradition that he had heard orally; (ii) Most other versions that get listed by the author's name are really a translator's job there as well. So I'm thinking that I should change all of those "uncredited" to "Antoine Galland", with a note that the English translator is anonymous. Chavey 17:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You're correct, of course, about crediting Galland, regardless of who the anonymous translator was. Being anglocentric, the thought never even entered my mind. I agree the "uncredited" records should be changed to credit Galland. As for "trying to integrate other language editions" that's only in the experimental stage with several editors boldly going forward. Until it's completely phased in, I'm going to stay away as much as possible from that can of worms. Who knows if what's being done today will have to be changed before complete integration of non-English publications? Mhhutchins 17:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely on holding off on the non-English editions! If I experiment and add my dozen or so international Tiptree's, it won't be hard to change them if necessary. But if I spent hours wading through international OCLC records, I want to be sure it's in the final form! Chavey 17:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Camelot / Avon

How committed are you to using "Camelot / Avon" as the publisher of this book? At the moment, it's the only record under this publisher name. Most are entered as Avon Camelot, which I believe is the actual imprint name. If you were to enter the "imprint / publisher", it should be entered as "Avon Camelot / Avon Books". Not that I want you to do that! In this case it would be overkill to enter the publisher name as well. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I misread how the imprint and publisher were listed. I have corrected it to "Avon Camelot", since I agree that "Avon Camelot / Avon Books" would be overkill. Chavey 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Eisenstein's Born to Exile

The note on Pyhllis Eisenstein's Born to Exile states that it is a "Stated 1st printing". I can't find a statement of printing in my copy and I'm fairly certain (and secondary sources agree) that there was only 1 Arkham House printing. Could you double check your copy to see if there is a printing statement in your copy? Congratulations on your signed copy. I also got mine signed at LA Con IV in 2006, so it isn't much use in dating the publication. However, I did have a nice chat with her about how much she enjoyed working with Arkham's Jim Turner, as an editor. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My copy doesn't have such a statement either, so I wonder where that note came from? (From the "Information ... from ABE"?) It just doesn't seem that I would have added it. Since we're the two verifiers, I've removed the note. It's neat that you got a chance to talk with her. I've met a reasonable number of authors, had lunch or dinner with a few, but haven't met Phyllis. By the way, the actual signature on my copy says
"For Steve - who believed Jerry Pournelle. Read and enjoy! Phyllis Eisenstein Iguanacon Sept. 3, 1978".
It really makes me wonder who "Steve" is, in particular whether it might possibly be Stephen Fabian, the cover artist. That would be cool! (But unlikely, I suspect.) Chavey 14:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I think "read and enjoy" in the inscription makes it unlikely to be Fabian, who hopefully had read the novel before he did the drawings. Perhaps he did the art from the original short stories and had not read the fix-up? If you ever get a chance to meet her, she is quite accessible. I usually am a little in awe of meeting authors at signings, but she initiated the chat and put me at ease. Anyway perhaps she can tell you who inscription is for, and why they believed Pournelle.
I made a few more additions to the notes. I also removed the ABE note. I can't see anything in the OCLC record that is incorrect. I should have mentioned my intended changes in my first note. Do let me know if you disagree with anything. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I just checked my copy and couldn't find a statement of printing either. I suspect that the source may have been Currey or another secondary source. Ahasuerus 04:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A question: what is the publication series Arkham House Science Fiction Novel? Never heard of it. Mhhutchins 07:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
"Arkham House Science Fiction Novel" is at the bottom of the half title page. There also appears a "SF" near the top of the spine. I probably would have ignored it, but Sheldon Jaffery in The Arkham House Companion discusses the reason for the "SF" and speculates that it indicated a new Science Fiction line. Jaffery doesn't mention the statement on the half title. Regardless, he states that this is the only book that AH ever marked as such. So, if this is a series, it is a series of one. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Preceding comment added, nearly verbatim, to the notes for this publication series. Chavey 14:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tanith Lee's Dreams of Dark and Light

I added further notes to this record, added the extended title, and created individual records for each of the illustrations. Mhhutchins 06:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

additions to Help:How to convert a novel to a "chapterbook"

You added the following text:

When you edit this publication record, and look at the "Contents", you should see two copies of the title of the book in there: One as a "Chapterbook", and one as "ShortFiction".

This seems to me to imply that the CHAPTERBOOK title and the SHORTFICTION title are always the same. That is most often the case, but I have seen instances where the pub has a title different from the title of the included work of shortfiction. Perhaps this can be revised to somehow mention that possibility? -DES Talk 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I updated the wording on that item, see if you think that covers it. Chavey 06:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I think it does. -DES Talk 02:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I created a draft revision for this section at Help:Converting a NOVEL publication to a CHAPTERBOOK/Conversion-draft including a new example sub-section with lots of screen shots. I would appreciate some feedback before I move this over the existing section. -DES Talk 03:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Ship from Nowhere / The Moon Mirage

This pub record has different author credits than the title record it's under. (It shows up on the stray publication author clean-up script.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked my copy, and "Raymond Gallun" has no middle initial on either the cover or the story title page, so I corrected the title rec. That should remove it as a stray. Chavey 02:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Next step is to make "Raymond Gallun" a pseudonym of Raymond Z. Gallun. Then make variant records of both the book and the shortfiction record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me, I overlooked that. Done now. The other thing I need to do is scan in the covers of that series. Chavey 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools