User talk:Dirk P Broer


Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Dirk P Broer, 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:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

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! BLongley 17:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Cover artists

On the cover of A Voyage to Arcturus, wouldn't it be better like Arnold Kohn as coauthor?

I was in doubt with The Year 3000: A Dream and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders: Volume 2, at last credited Forrest J. Ackerman, but searching, I saw that they look like Wonder Stories, July 1934 by Frank R. Paul.Hyju 08:59, 2 January 2020 (EST)

That is a good catch. I already wondered about the unknown artistic career of Forry, but it all comes from his collection. They are all variants of the Frank R. Paul art!--Dirk P Broer 09:09, 2 January 2020 (EST)

The Number of the Beast - Heinlein

Hi Dirk, I've submitted changing the page count here from 355+[1] to 356 and added an explanatory note, as per case 2 here [1]. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 18:33, 2 January 2020 (EST)

The Bohr Maker art: variant vs. merge

Hi Dirk. Any particular reason you varianted this art with this art record instead of just merging? Imo there's not enough difference to warrant varianting (although you could) - I myself tend to rather merge. Thanks! MagicUnk 05:55, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Background not only has a different colour, but also has a different design.--Dirk P Broer 05:58, 3 January 2020 (EST)
OK. Makes sense. Fine with me :) MagicUnk 06:22, 3 January 2020 (EST)
But that is not what variants are for - we do not variant slightly different images. They are either similar enough to merge or they are not and then they do not get connected. We variant for title, author and language change only. Annie 06:36, 3 January 2020 (EST)

Nature Futures • 1

Hi, please approve this to continue editing. --Florin 05:21, 6 January 2020 (EST)

Thanks, I believe is done. --Florin 05:37, 6 January 2020 (EST)

De Wereldbrekers

You have this submission on hold. Can you reject it? I already adapted the credit and the notes. Thanks, --Willem 15:29, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Done so.--Dirk P Broer 18:23, 7 January 2020 (EST)

Wonderwaan magazine

Hi Dirk. This might be of interest to you (see also here). Any advice? MagicUnk 17:44, 8 January 2020 (EST)

Franz Kafka: The Metamorphosis, including "The Retransformation of Gregor Samsa" by Karl Brand

Hi, Dirk! I do wonder where the credits for the two editors is from. There's no hint at DNB or within our entries, causing stray pulications for the editors. Can you take a look into the matter? Christian Stonecreek 02:41, 9 January 2020 (EST)

Their names are on the copyright page, between the translator and the illustrator.--Dirk P Broer 07:09, 9 January 2020 (EST)

The stray publications were caused because someone varianted the bi-author anthology to the Franz Kafka story.--Dirk P Broer 07:14, 9 January 2020 (EST)
Ah, that was the cause. Thanks for the inspection! Christian Stonecreek 15:45, 9 January 2020 (EST)

BNB vs. BL

Liking BL links better than BNB just because one targets end record with fewer clicks is not really a very good reason (this is a similar argument to liking ISBN-10 over ISBN-13 because Amazon makes their ASIN the same as an ISBN-10 for most published books and their product detail pages can be reached by ASIN; I am sure you probably have noticed ebook ISBN-13s that can be resolved to lettered ASINs often exist and why our software has carved around that; frankly I believe we should just search by ISBN period even though it takes another click to get to the detail page).

I can't follow you here. ASIN (Amazon Standard Identification Number) is alphanumeric, ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 (International Standard Book Number) are purely numeric. Part of the moderating job is to remove ISBN-10's from the ASIN field.--Dirk P Broer 18:55, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Yes, ASINs are alphanumeric identifiers, but for published printed books the vast majority of them are entirely numeric and match the ISBN-10. —Uzume 21:42, 15 January 2020 (EST)
It explains why some editors enter ISBN-10 in the ASIN field. It does generate maintenance reports though, so we erase them on daily basis. Only standard alphanumeric values are allowed in the ASIN field. It looks like Amazon is the inconsistent one here, using ISBN-10 as ASIN.--Dirk P Broer 04:24, 16 January 2020 (EST)
No, Amazon started selling printed books and ASINs started out as just an ISBN-10, but then they added other things and ISBNs went beyond the ISBN-10 (e.g., French ISBN-13s that starts with 979- and thus have no way to even be converted to an ISB-10, etc.), so Amazon extended their ASIN making it alphanumeric instead of just ISBN-10 numeric. I am sure you have noticed how most of the non-ISBN-10 ASINs you have seen start with "B"? There is some methodology to it. —Uzume 00:39, 17 January 2020 (EST)

For one these two things are actually quite different things (I realize that the British Library's main search basically displays these in the same way currently). BL identifiers are basically OPAC identifiers for the BL's holdings where as BNB identifiers are entries in the British National Bibliography. It is theoretically possibly to have one without the other (although I have not seen the BL do this yet). As comparable example, we also have NDL bib and JNB/JPNO identifiers. In a similar fashion the NDL bib is about NDL OPAC entries and JNB/JPNO are about the Japanese National Bibliography entries. The NDL tracks holdings from other Japanese libraries and I have found JNB entries for books at other libraries that the NDL does not seem to have any of its own records for. Typically the national bibliography concept is more encompassing, however, I have noticed the BL does not does a very good job and differentiating these two concepts. —Uzume 18:48, 15 January 2020 (EST)

Yes, there are entries in the British Library that do not have a BNB, and only a BL, I've encountered them. Ultimately you arrive at the same page and BL is leading you straight there, while you have to click yourself from the BNB-link to the very same page as the BL-link would have brought you. I can live with adding one to the other, I can't live with BNB replacing the BL.--Dirk P Broer 18:55, 15 January 2020 (EST)
Yes, I know that but I meant the other way around. In theory you can have a BNB without a BL entry but so far the British Libary does not do that much (if at all). The fact they are the same page is also just how the British Library does things now. That is not true for the general concept of a national bibliography. I cited the NDL and the JNB as a counter example. —Uzume 21:42, 15 January 2020 (EST)
I still see absolutely no reason to replace the BL with the BNB, as you did.--Dirk P Broer 04:24, 16 January 2020 (EST)
Just to throw a few thoughts here. We support both - adding both is fine. Adding just one of them is fine. Replacing one with the other when both are correct is not. Personal preferences are just that - you are free to add whatever IDs you want, you cannot remove a valid is someone else added just because you think it is useless or you do not like it. This is a collaborative DB. Removing valid IDs is destruction of data and should not happen. Annie 09:59, 16 January 2020 (EST)

Rocannon's World - Lumea lui Rocannon (excerpt)

Hi, about this note: With taking 15 magazine pages (at most) this has to be an excerpt of the novel. (I think it's yours.)

I checked twice Orion Orfeu, #4 (pp. 17-32 minus 2 pages in total of Barbarella comics) and this book (Editura Orion, 1990, Pages: 160) and contain the same text: Prologue: The Necklace; Part. 1 Lord of the Stars with chapters I-V, Part. 2 The Wanderer with chapters VI-IX and Epilogue. Some text, some translator.

Image:Orion 4, pp 21.jpg

Image - one page from issue = cca. 18 or 20 pages on book (Pages: 160). Conclusion - 100% is not a excerpt. --Florin 10:01, 17 January 2020 (EST)

A3 is gigantic in size (29.7 x 42.0cm; 11.69 x 16.53 inches).--Dirk P Broer 12:16, 17 January 2020 (EST)
Exactly. And it is published in very small fonts. The magazine contains the whole novel in a few pages, novel which is not too big. So, what next... --Florin 12:52, 17 January 2020 (EST)
Is the same situation like Roadside Picnic in Almanah_Anticipa.C8.9Bia_1985 (the difference is that it is not A3). --Florin 12:55, 17 January 2020 (EST)
A novel it is now.--Dirk P Broer 13:11, 17 January 2020 (EST)
And as NOVELs do not go into MAGAZINEs I had to make it a SERIAL (complete novel). I also looked up the format for A3-sized magazines: tabloid.--Dirk P Broer 13:24, 17 January 2020 (EST)
Sorry, it was me who started this fuss. I thought it wouldn't be possible to fit the novel in the space of less than 20 pages, and had changed the title type & added the note (the format wasn't stated at that time). Learned something new! Christian Stonecreek 13:30, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Fixing broken links

You rejected my 4551773 based on your understanding that the NDL external identifier was still linking to a record correctly. Unfortunately, I was removing that because it links to the *wrong* record for a different issues of the magazine than the one it was attached to. This means the link was still broken, just not a 404 not found. In the future, if you cannot read the NDL records, then please trust someone that can. You needn't preemptively try to fix this as I already have submission 4552635 to rectify this. Thank you. —Uzume 17:14, 17 January 2020 (EST)

Incomplete template

I removed the incomplete template from this pub. The help text makes it clear it should not be there. --Willem 05:35, 25 January 2020 (EST)

That sounds just like the text I left in the 'note to moderator' field when I checked the 'incompletes'...-Dirk P Broer 10:53, 25 January 2020 (EST)
I was wondering about the note to moderator, and how the template came in the notes in the first place. your edit looked a lot like you did it , so I searched for earlier edits to this pub until october 2016, but couldn't find any. --Willem 15:02, 25 January 2020 (EST)
I can assure you it wasn't me (Zapp?). I just placed a [li] between the template and the explaining sentence -and wrote the note.--Dirk P Broer 22:49, 25 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks, it looked unlikely, but I couldn't find any proof. --Willem 04:34, 26 January 2020 (EST)
Found this thread by chance. The Edit History shows I didn't make any submission to that pub. --Zapp 14:54, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

rejected edit to Dobson 1970 'World of Null A'

you rejected because "Decimal Day in the United Kingdom and in Ireland was on 15 February 1971, so the price of a January 1970 book can not be £1.50, this has to be a later edition." In my edit I added pub note 'On jacket front flap: ... "£1.50 net" and "30s net".' The year before "Decimal Day" Dobson was including both prices in anticipation of the switch. There's no clear ISFDB standard here: note prices on 1970 Dobson books If you'd prefer I use the "30s" price, then please make that change and accept the edit. I'd rather not have to re-enter it, if that's avoidable. Markwood 14:24, 26 January 2020 (EST)

It is the fact that you wanted to change the price to a format that does not fit with the publication date that made me reject your submission, note that you mention two prices in the note. If we are not consistent we should at least try to be more so, e.g. for people born in either West or East Germany we also try to be precise -even for people born in villages around London that at the time of their birth belonged to other counties.--Dirk P Broer 21:17, 26 January 2020 (EST)
I've re-entered your submission, except for the price (obviously) and the faulty HTML.--Dirk P Broer 21:28, 26 January 2020 (EST)

Dead Reckonings, No. 26, Fall 2019

Looking it over you're right on the reviews, I'll revise those entries later. Also yes, "The joey Zone" is indeed the credited author. Eguimont 10:07, 27 January 2020 (EST)


Hi, Dirk (I suppose you must be)
Happy New Year. Or Fabulous February!
Probably you re-located one of my source notes to the parent ESSAY record (T973869), along with approving the submission yesterday. Thanks. I am rusty after most of January immersed elsewhere.

Congratulations on your upcoming 100,000th. --Paul Pwendt|talk 22:00, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Unliked Foss covers

Hello Dirk

this cover and this cover are identical except for being flipped horizontally. --Mavmaramis 01:37, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 19:03, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Nico Keulers duplicate art

Hi Dirk.#

Found another here and here

And other:

here; here and here all seem to use portions of the same image. --Mavmaramis 14:45, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 19:03, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Sideman by Bryan Thomas Schmidt

The correct ISBN for this submission (you have it on hold) is 978-1-62225-7539. The correct series is John Simon. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:47, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Also, this is the correct image URL: ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:48, 5 February 2020 (EST)
Already done with the exact same info as you supplied.--Dirk P Broer 18:57, 5 February 2020 (EST)

A Circus of Hells

Hi, the cover artist of this is Ian Craig, see Horzel 14:15, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 14:19, 7 February 2020 (EST)

The Moon Hoax

Dirk, "The Moon Hoax" is a title coined in 1852, whose first publication is the one whose ISFDB publication record update I submitted hours ago Canceled/Rejected 4571016. Perhaps I should not have noted to Moderator "(note to self)". --Pwendt|talk 20:32, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Better do a title search on 'Moon Hoax' before making a remark like this....We do have interior art dated 1835 with that title. Perhaps your notes to moderator should be to the moderator, and not notes to yourself. You know your intentions, we have to guess them.--Dirk P Broer 20:34, 7 February 2020 (EST)
(edit conflict last hour) OK, I retract. 1852 "The Moon Hoax" may well be the presumption or inference of Rtrace or Chris J, or the same, or a misunderstanding, by one of their sources TitleUpdate submission. I may be able to investigate by online research as early as tomorrow (Saturday here). Today no more than inquire at those two User talk.
Let's suppose 1852 first publication of The Moon Hoax is genuine (and without subtitle) on the one hand, and spurious on the other hand. What does that imply for our 1859 record as "The Moon Hoax" (CHAPBOOK title) and "The Moon Hoax; or, A Discovery That the Moon Has a Vast Population of Human Beings" (publication title, known from title page image). I am inclined not to use the short CHAPBOOK title --a day or three from now-- if we have no publication under the short title. --Pwendt|talk 21:36, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Edit to tile of Relapse

Hi Dirk -

I've reverted your edit to my verified publication, the Spring 2013 issue of Relapse. First off, I would have preferred that you had discussed this with me before making the edit. I don't mind when minor corrections are made without notification, but changing the titling of of a publication is certainly not minor. The reason I've rolled it back is that you changed the title to a format that is not standard. Per the help page, the format of magazines should be Magazine Title, Date. There is an exception when the date can't be found, for French magazines, or ones like Interzone, to use the issue number and title in place of the date. Since we have the date here (Spring 2013) that exception wouldn't apply. Regardless, there in no stated standard that allows both the date and the issue number. I am aware that several records have crept into the project using both date and number, but these are incorrectly entered. There was a discussion in 2018 about this issue, but it resulted in no changes to the standard. In any case, that's why I've reverted the edit. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:39, 8 February 2020 (EST)

I tried to make the entries for Giles look more like each other, but we can make #19 Spring 2011 just like your Spring 2013 too of course.--Dirk P Broer 18:11, 8 February 2020 (EST)

The Best of If Volume 1

Cover artist of this is currently given as Brian Boylan, while the cover artist of Donovan's Brain is given as C. Achilleos. Achilleos must be correct, see his site. Award Books and Tandem Books shared quite a few covers. Brian Boyle (Studios) was Achilleos' agency or employer or something. Horzel 09:48, 10 February 2020 (EST)

Now there's a funny one...I hope they are still on good terms.--10:36, 10 February 2020 (EST)~

Golden Age Masterworks x3

Hi Dirk, thanks for adding the "Cover design Tomás Almeida." to the pub notes through the series. However, my last three submissions were to remove your added line from just those three, as the cover design credit was already in the pub notes. If left to stand as is, he is credited twice. Thanks, Kev

I just discovered and rectified it, but thanks anyway!--Dirk P Broer 08:21, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Patreon links

A quick question re: this rejected submission, which would have added a Patreon link to an author record. According to Advanced Search, we currently have 37 author records with Patreon links. Do you happen to recall if we have had a discussion of this topic? Ahasuerus 12:01, 24 February 2020 (EST)

Hmmm, that's an interesting one. As Patreon is soliciting payments, I'd stay far away from it, lest we'd be accused of luring people to pay sites to rid them of their money :) MagicUnk 13:24, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Patreon is a platform which lets authors set up Web pages and facilitates accepting donations. Some Web fiction authors that I am familiar with have Patreon pages but no author-specific sites, so their Patreon pages are effectively their primary presence on the Web. It's similar to the way some authors who mostly sell on Amazon have Amazon pages instead of traditional author sites and we have 995 author records with Amazon URLs. We also have 196 Smashwords pages, which also "rid people of their money" :-) Ahasuerus 14:14, 24 February 2020 (EST)
LOL. I should have know that it is never that clear cut :) It might be more of a gut-fill than anything else, but I think the difference is in the 'donate' vs. 'buy'... MagicUnk 14:27, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Well, it's a different business model. For example, consider John C. McCrae aka "Wildbow". He creates speculative Web serials, which are posted on the Web. The reason he can make them available for free is that he has a Patreon account, which nets him $5,851 per month. Or consider the award-winning author Seanan McGuire, whose SF novels are published by traditional publishers. She makes her SF stories available via her Patreon, making $11,056 per story. It's a very different way of making fiction available to the public, but it's proven its viability and we'll need to account for it in some fashion.
There are other issues to consider, e.g. we currently ignore most Web-published fiction even though one of Wildbow's serials, Worm, has spawned more than 7,000 works of fanfiction, but that's a whole different can of worms. Ahasuerus 15:12, 24 February 2020 (EST)
Said submission would add the Patreon-link as 8th author link. I agree with MagicUnk's argument "I'd stay far away from it, lest we'd be accused of luring people to pay sites to rid them of their money".--Dirk P Broer 16:01, 24 February 2020 (EST)
One of the existing links already has the Patreon link, another leads to the page where that link is. I wouldn't have batted an eye if it would have been the sole link, but in this case I draw the line.--Dirk P Broer 19:39, 24 February 2020 (EST)
It looks like there are a couple of different (but related) issues here. The first one is whether Patreon links should be eligible given that Patreon facilitates donations to authors. The second one is whether the total number of author-specific links to third party sites should affect our decision to include or exclude additional links. I guess I'll wait for the current crop of Rules and Standards discussions to wrap up and then start a discussion of these issues. Ahasuerus 13:11, 25 February 2020 (EST)
It would be fine to have a guiding line. Some editors throw in everything, but [and sometimes including] the kitchen sink, when it comes to author links.--Dirk P Broer 14:53, 25 February 2020 (EST)

The Rest of the Robots - Asimov

Hi Dirk, regarding your PV here, I've recently added the 8th and 9th printings.

Your copyright page omits the 1970 (4th), 1974 (7th), 1975 (8th) and 1976 (9th). From the wording in your pub notes I think you're already aware of probably two of the omissions, but would it be alright with you if I change the printing to 11th and add an explanatory note as I've done, for example, 7th printing here and import the additional Introduction contents? Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 07:46, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Alright by me, if we have a clear path up to and including the 11th printing.--Dirk P Broer 07:48, 26 February 2020 (EST)
Thanks, and yes, I've checked all the printings and I've got them clear to the 1981 12th printing which is currently tagged incorrectly as the 8th printing. I'm working to get them all straight. Kev. BanjoKev 07:52, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Jules Verne (in error)

You approved my submission for Package Holiday. I just noticed that the author has been changed from Jules Verne to Jules Verne (in error). Do you know anything about this? ../Doug H 10:22, 26 February 2020 (EST)

Yes, it is the only way to prevent massive maintenance reports because this title gets varianted against the original author, Michel Verne, who actually wrote it. We can't make Jules Verne a pseudonym of Michel Verne -that would create a real mess-, so we have to give the author another name than Jules Verne. Another option is Jules Verne (I).--Dirk P Broer 11:22, 26 February 2020 (EST)
I'm not sure I understand how this is different than the books where Michel made uncredited changes that get ascribed to Jules Verne and varianted to titles with both of them, or ghost written volumes such as Alan Dean Foster for George Lucas on Star Wars. This approach seems to hide titles that have long been attributed to Jules, and indeed, if not for some fortuitous circumstances, would still be credited to him. It shouldn't take a Verne scholar to find these books. Are the maintenance reports reacting to the complete name change, where these other examples have a name in common? ../Doug H 12:24, 26 February 2020 (EST)
In both these case the canonical title (against which the variants are made ) is the one with two authors: either Jules and Michel Verne or Alan Dean Foster and George Lucas. Here the canonical is only by Michel Verne, and the Variant by Jules.--Dirk P Broer 21:20, 26 February 2020 (EST)
It was already causing maintenance reports, as Jules Verne is not a pseudonym for Michel Verne, but Jules Verne titles were varianted to Michel Verne titles. Normally we solve that by making the one author a variant of the other, but that would in this case mean that all Jules Verne titles would have to be varianted against Michel Verne, an absurdity. Believe me, either 'Jules Vene (in error)' or 'Jules Verne (Michel Verne Pseudonym' or Jules Verne (I) is the only solution for this. I choose 'Jules Vene (in error)' as it offers a partial explanation of what is going on.--Dirk P Broer 19:34, 26 February 2020 (EST)
I found another solution: set all the warnings we get when using Jules Vernes for Michel Verne's work to 'ignore'. I think you'd prefer that.--Dirk P Broer 21:15, 26 February 2020 (EST)
I'm looking at Kenneth Robeson, which seems to be an alias used by multiple authors. I'm guessing that to make that work for Jules Verne, we'd need to use 'Jules Verne' as an alternate for both 'Michel Verne' and a '(real) Jules Verne) and variant every title to one or the other. And it looks like the alias name doesn't get an author summary page. So, yeah, if it's as easy as using ignore, that's preferred. Just curious - do you annotate 'ignore' settings? And when is a good time for me to reset the TITLE records (with a link to this conversation in the moderator notes)? ../Doug H 22:34, 26 February 2020 (EST)
You're not getting it. Kenneth Robeson IS an alias. Both Jules Verne and Michel Verne aren't, that's the whole point.--Dirk P Broer 07:35, 27 February 2020 (EST)
Sorry, but the last section was the process of my getting 'it' - the distinction between author and alias - as it isn't really explained anywhere I've run across. Anywho - back to my question - When should I reset the TITLE records? Do you need to do anything first or is it something that gets dealt with after I've committed the deed? ../Doug H 08:26, 27 February 2020 (EST)
I've already done it.--Dirk P Broer 09:35, 27 February 2020 (EST)

Title of Farmer essay

Hi Dirk, I noticed you make the title "Hayy ibn Yaqzam" by Abu ibn Tufayl: An Arabic Mowgli a variant of this Hayy ibn Yaqzam by Abu ibn Tufayl: An Arabic Mowgli. Although i have two questions: 1 - The title is with quotation marks only in the index of the web page, the preview on the bottom, the actual page of the magazine where the essay begins, doesn't have any quotation marks,(see here), but, although is in Italic. So my question is: Is a standard rule here to put italic text between quotation marks? 2- If it is, and that make the title different, shouldn't be the title with quotation marks the original title and not a variant? Since it is the first publication of the essay? Thanks, Best regards--Wolland 11:09, 27 February 2020 (EST)

You may have a subscription to JSTOR, I come no further than the web page, so I made it a variant. We variant to the most common version, not to the first version per se. Funny thing is that I can set a line in Italics by putting quotes around it look how this shows up -but no single user will look for titles that way. I'll un-variant the original story.--Dirk P Broer 16:41, 27 February 2020 (EST)

Changing a PV book

Hello Dirk! I'm confused why you changed my primary verfied book Das Weltraum-Abenteuer from chapbook into novel without asking me first. I've estimated the words of the book and they are approximal 35.000 words. Rudolf Rudam 07:57, 28 February 2020 (EST)

It is a variant title to a novel, and so creates a maintenance report. 148 pages is long enough for a novel. It is either this, or making the canonical a novella too.--Dirk P Broer 08:33, 28 February 2020 (EST)
I guess I forgot to change the canonical title. I have corrected that. Though I would have appreciated to be asked first. BTW it has 143 pages. Rudam 09:11, 28 February 2020 (EST)


Hi there, I was wondering about a recent change to a PV ebook ( While this author has self-published several of his own works, he doesn't credit himself (or anyone for that matter) for the Cover Art. For the ebook in question, there's no mention whatsoever about who created the Cover Art, thus I initially indicated so in the Publication Note before marking it PV. So, why was the change request accepted without the editor giving a reason? Anyway, actually I don't doubt the author might be the actual artist, and he even explains where the design comes from in a tweet replying to a user: I guess a note indicating this might suffice. In this situations, would you suggest removing the Cover Artist and putting back the Pub Note along with a link to the tweet to clarify this on the entry? (not sure if adding external tweet links is acceptable on isfdb). Let me know and I can help submitting the change. Arctorbob 07:36, 10 March 2020 (EDT)

User Yeahfine claims he has the ebook and that the artist credit can be found in it. He won't primary verify for some reason though. I you have the ebook and are to primary verify, feel free to change the note. Yeahfine can't claim any rights by not verifying.--Dirk P Broer 07:54, 10 March 2020 (EDT)
Thanks. I've added a note to the publication to explain more clearly ( as well as removing the cover art title ( Arctorbob 19:15, 10 March 2020 (EDT)

Change of Pub Type to OMNIBUS

Hi Dirk, I have just come across your two updates for Peter Terrid Gedächtnisband and Voltz Gedächtnisband 599042 and was a bit surprised to see the changes. The way that I understand an omnibus is that at least one of the major contents was previously published independently. Virtually none of the pieces in the two pubs were so, practically all of them are from magazines, fanzines, or even previously unpublished. Please help me understand the rationale. Cheers, John. JLochhas 16:31, 11 March 2020 (EDT)

Both titles appeared on a new maintenance report as having the wrong content. They both were NONFICTION, and NONFICTION titles should have ESSAYs as content. Clearly, this is not the only type for these titles, there's fiction too, only by Terrid in one case, by various authors (only Voltz and Gries though) in Voltz case. They even contain a complete novel, both, so COLLECTION or ANTHOLOGY are both out of the question. I am afraid only OMNIBUS rests as possibility, or you must have another solution.--Dirk P Broer 20:48, 11 March 2020 (EDT)
I don't have a better approach - technically, the Terrid book is a fan publication but FANZINE doen't really make sense. So OMNIBUS it is. We'll be seeing a whole bunch of slightly weird to look at omnibuses... JLochhas 17:03, 12 March 2020 (EDT)
We had some slightly weird to look at NONFICTION before...--Dirk P Broer 20:15, 12 March 2020 (EDT)

General advice

Hello there, I am new to new to editing the ISFDB. With regards to tags, on some titles the option to add or delete tags are not available. For example, the short story "The Snail Watcher" by Patricia Highsmith is wrongly labelled as fantasy (it is in fact horror), and I don't know how to change it. Some general advice and help on this would be helpful, thanks. --RedWizard98 14:15, 16 March 2020 (EDT)

Tags are on (top)title level, not on publication level (one title can have lots of publications/variants). Tags are a kind of personal information, you can add your own tags too, and choose to have them public or to remain personal. Tags are not removable, one person's tags needn't be the same as the tags for others. The definitions of both 'Fantasy' and 'Horror' are not absolute, just as the definition of 'Science Fiction' isn't. I hope this answers at least part of your questions.--Dirk P Broer 17:30, 16 March 2020 (EDT)

Approved submission

In this approved submission, it looks like you added the OCLC number, as I have no record in my research for it and there are no subsequent edits. I followed the link and found it was for the Seaside Library Pocket Edition, not the magazine edition published 10 years earlier. Can you explain? ../Doug H 12:03, 17 March 2020 (EDT)

It looks like I approved the submission. You have to ask the submitter for the reason why he did not submit OCLC 1129395431 instead, not me. You can hold me accountable for letting it slip through though.--Dirk P Broer 12:05, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
I was the submitter. I was wondering if you would have added the OCLC? ../Doug H 13:27, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
Doug, as of a few days ago, all edits will show up on the pub edit page: here. Annie 13:35, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
Moderators edits show up as regular edit - we cannot change anything during approval. If we want to add something, we do a regular edit after that. So if someone else had added it, there would have been an EditPub. Annie 13:37, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
Then it's my mistake and I apologize for any inconvenience. It appears I missed that OCLC is not mentioned in the raw XML - it's external ID 12. Thank your for your patience. Yet again. ../Doug H 13:51, 17 March 2020 (EDT)
No problem.--Dirk P Broer 16:35, 17 March 2020 (EDT)

Author's name

Marion Stamatu-Witting is Marion Stamatu-Wilting, see here and here --Zapp 08:57, 18 March 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, corrected.--Dirk P Broer 09:13, 18 March 2020 (EDT)

Title merges on collections today?


I just logged back into ISFDB to see if the two new collections I submitted earlier today had been accepted, and to do the TitleMerges necessary on the stories that were previously published and already in ISFDB - but I see that you've already done them! That's great, and much appreciated, but can I just check - as someone who's really only looked at comparatively simple publications like novels in the past, am I submitting these collections correctly, and not inadvertently creating extra work for mods? Submitting a new collection, and then doing TitleMerges afterwards to clean up the dupes, felt a bit wrong when I'd previously tried - and ultimately retreated from - adding a collection, but it seemed like that was the only way?

Thanks ErsatzCulture 18:47, 21 March 2020 (EDT)

The alternative is to first submit an empty collection, then lookup the title records for the stories that are in that collection (with the exact same author name and exact same title -try it with e.g. Edgar Allan Poe to really freak out) and add these title record numbers to the publication record. The usual method creates a little bit of extra work for the mods, but can be quite rewarding, database-wise.--Dirk P Broer 21:53, 21 March 2020 (EDT)
Thanks - I presume by "usual method", you mean the way that I submitted those collections yesterday, with the stories in the initial submission, right? (I'm querying this because I only submitted a collection for the first time today, so I'm not sure if that's the "usual" way or not...) ErsatzCulture 04:57, 22 March 2020 (EDT)
Yes, that's the usual and fastest way to enter a collection.--Dirk P Broer 04:59, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

my PKD submissions

Hi Dirk, could you tell me what you've changed and why in these two pubs 301383 and 567038? Your edits give no hint. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 13:50, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

The first had a mentioning in this maintenance report, so I changed the LCCN link Note to Moderator: Template:LCCN, which is for the 1992 1st printing, the second had an ISBN-13 where an ISBN-10 was needed, so featured in this maintenance report Note to Moderator: ISBN-13 to ISBN-10 (2001 publication date). So you see where to look for in the future.--Dirk P Broer 20:02, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

Copyright registration versus publication date

Hi Dirk, you accepted a number of edits by new user SPGraham1957, changing the publication date of a set of Heinlein novels, with a note saying 'Publication date from Catalog of Copyright Entries (Third Series)'. One of these shows up on the Title Dates after Publication Dates cleanup report. Please remember we do not register the copyright registration date, but the publication date. These edits should not have been accepted, and should be reversed. --Willem 05:01, 24 March 2020 (EDT)

I've notified user SPGraham1957 and reverted this case, as it was easy. How do I revert the other ones. I am under the impression that the others merely added an exact day to the date as we already had, but I'm not 100% sure.--Dirk P Broer 07:14, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
Googling on the internet gave this "if the book is a first edition, the copyright date will be the same as the date published." in the defense of SPGraham1957, who only edits first (Heinlein) editions.--Dirk P Broer 11:09, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
Not true! In most cases the year will be the same, but even that is uncertain. We do not ever use the copyright registration date, just like we don't use the printing date. I'll see what I can do about the wrong dates, and else ask Ahasuerus if the overwritten dates can be extracted from one of the backups. --Willem 15:12, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
If we, as you say, don't use the printing date, I would like you to look into your verified copy of The Menace from Earth that says on its copyright page "First Printing, April, 1962", a date exactly as the publication date 1962-04-00 in isfdb. Perhaps the soup isn't always eaten as hot as it is served?--Dirk P Broer 18:47, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
I sure hope this is a joke, or do you really not know the difference between a publisher's statement about when a printing was published and the printer's date stamp as seen in gutter codes? --Willem 05:33, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
There is no mentioning of gutter code in the notes for The Menace from Earth, there is the "First Printing, April, 1962" on the copyright page. It nowhere says 'Publication Date'.--Dirk P Broer 07:28, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
So you really have no idea. Worrying. Read this about gutter codes, it also explains the difference between the date a book was manufactured (printing date) and the date it was made available to the public (publication date). If you want to challenge that the term "First Printing, April, 1962" means the book was published in April 1962, go ahead on one of the community pages and see what happens. Don't bother me with such nonsense. --Willem 15:56, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
From the wiki you cite: "Please note that "gutter code" is an informal name used by book collectors. Doubleday and the Science Fiction Book Club (SFBC) have never formally acknowledged their existence." You are holding unto an interpretation of a value that might be denied by reality. Likewise with "First Printing, April, 1962" it is an interpretation that they mean "publication date", and that Signet books themselves might deny that. I'll write them too.--Dirk P Broer 16:54, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
The date as given by SPGraham1957 is the publication date according to SPGraham1957's source, as you can read here on page vii. It looks like we have dated 'The Door Into Summer' by its first review.--Dirk P Broer 21:14, 24 March 2020 (EDT)
If you read a little further, it's 'Date of publication as given in the application', which registers the date a publication's copyright is registered.
If you want this to be accepted as a source for publication dates, I suggest you go to the rules and standards page, and seek consensus. --Willem 05:33, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
Another question then: Where is the evidence for June 1957 in the case of the 1st hardcover edition of The Door Into Summer? I can only find this review on page 120 to support the date can't be later than 1957-06-00. BTW: On the preceding page 119 it is stated at the bottom "The next Infinity goes on sale April 30!" -it is also on the inside front cover. There is no mentioning of gutter code with the record for The Door Into Summer either. Perhaps I'll contact Doubleday about their actual publication dates as compared to the date in the copyright catalogue.--Dirk P Broer 07:50, 25 March 2020 (EDT)
Why ask me? You can see the edit history of the publication these days, so you can easily find that the initial pub entry was by user Grendelkhan on 2006-05-17, and that 'Doubleday catalog #57-5529' was given as the source. I have no idea why this note was removed in a subsequent edit, and have no reason to doubt the June 1957 publication date. --Willem 15:56, 25 March 2020 (EDT)

Hello, I wanted to post a comment, because it was me that started all this trouble. As mentioned above the dates in the early copyright catalogs are described as 'Date of publication as given in the application'. I take this to mean that the date is the intended publication date as entered by the publisher on the copyright application form. If Willem is correct, it is also the copyright registration date, but that does not mean it is not the date of publication. I'm a little bemused as to why a date described as 'date of publication' cannot be regarded as the date of publication. At least things are a little clearer in the post 1978 copyright database (, here the date of publication and the registration date are separate and often quite different. Evidence that the dates in the catalog are publication dates can be found by comparing them with sources. Here are two examples:

Heinlein - Rocket Ship Galileo: Heinlein's biography by William Paterson contains the statement (Vol. 1, page 437): "Rocket Ship Galileo came out on October 13", which checks with the date of 13 Oct 47 in the Jan-Jun 1948 Catalog of Copyright Entries.

Asimov - Pebble in the Sky: Asimov's autobiography "In Memory Yet Green" contains the statement (page 580): "On January 19, when Pebble in the Sky was first published...", which checks with the date of 19 Jan 50 in the Jan-Jun 1950 Catalog of Copyright Entries.

Can you suggest how to get the copyright catalogs accepted as a source of publication dates? It seems perverse to not take account of this valuble source of information. Note, I've also posted something about this on the moderators board, so apologies for the duplication, I'm still finding my way around your site SPGraham1957 15:32, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for your reaction, and you did the right thing to get this to the moderators board too.--Dirk P Broer 20:27, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

Judith Merril 9th Annual S-F

This book has the same cover art as this]. Credited on the later. --Mavmaramis 12:27, 9 April 2020 (EDT)

Machine's Last Testament - duplicate pubs?

Hi, I noticed there on the May Forthcoming Books page a title with 2 seemingly identical pubs (and where the pub IDs are consecutive, which might hint at an accidental repeat submission): Tocchan was the editor and you were the approver - is there some difference between these pubs that I haven't spotted, and if not, any reason why they shouldn't be merged?

(Also, how would I go about merging 2 pubs - is that something that only mods can do? I can see tools for publication comparison, but not anything that would allow me to do anything based on that.)

Thanks ErsatzCulture 03:31, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

The publications are already merged into one title. I'll delete one.--Dirk P Broer 16:52, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks! ErsatzCulture 03:27, 21 April 2020 (EDT)

Mindbridge - Haldeman

Hi Dirk, could you please let me know what the 'other prices' are on your printing? I'm preparing my copy of this title which has the same cover and price as yours but lacks the "(Reprinted 1979)". The Australia price on mine is $2.85 and New Zealand price is $2.60. I suspect this may be a missing 1977 2nd printing. Thanks, Kev. BanjoKev 08:15, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

The Australia price on mine is $2.95 and New Zealand price is $2.60 -The Eire price is 93½p.--Dirk P Broer 16:47, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
Thanks Dirk, that definitely places my copy between the known 1st printing (with the different cover) and yours. Kev. BanjoKev 07:08, 23 April 2020 (EDT)

Jules Verne Translations

I have been documenting the various translations of Jules Verne's works and trying to identify a piece of text from each translation so editors can position their publications under the correct title record. You are on record as a primary verifier for one or more publications for which I am looking for text or which are placed under a generic translation title. I would be grateful if you could assist in this by checking your copies, as listed below, and providing the initial text for missing translations or an indication of the translation for those unspecified. These are listed on the Jules Verne Translations wiki. Thank you. ../Doug H 15:01, 18 April 2020 (EDT)

I don't quite understand your problem. Op bezoek in de toekomst is the sole Dutch translation of Hier et Demain. That same fact goes for all stories in this collection. All have been varianted against their original French title record, complete with translator. What is missing in the present situation?
Van de aarde naar de maan is the first full Dutch translation of De la terre à la lune, as was already present in the publication record. I have added it to the title record too now.--Dirk P Broer 16:37, 20 April 2020 (EDT)
Not so much a problem as a desire for completeness. The English reprints are notorious for not crediting translators, and there has been a recent upsurge in re-translating Jules Verne. I know there have been multiple Dutch translations of various Jules Verne books and didn't know how much of this dastardly English behaviour carried over to the more civilized Dutch. By including text for each translation, I was hoping to encourage editors to check their copies, so that if a new translation appears, it will not be lumped in with the existing publications. My understanding is that at some future time, support for translation will be incorporated into ISFDB and I'd hoped the wiki template would help by illustrating some of the complexities and required supporting data. By the time that happens, some of the primary verifiers of these publications may no longer be available. My apologies for not having read the notes on the Van de aarde naar de maan publication. With hundreds of title / translation / publication combinations to track down, I've been doing some things on autopilot. I hope this provides a bit more context for my request. ../Doug H 15:33, 28 April 2020 (EDT)
The Loeb editions are, to the best of my knowledge, all-new translations. I will dig them out and add to your wiki translations page.--Dirk P Broer 22:50, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

New Worlds SF, February 1966

Since I found in Your pv pub an essay by A. F. Hall, I wonder if the spelling of A. R. Hall is wrong. Maybe it's a fault of printing. A. F. Hall has no other publications. --Zapp 08:48, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

Sorry, A. F. Hall, both in TOC and on page 101. And mind you, there's some 50 years between A. F. Hall and A. R. Hall...--Dirk P Broer 13:09, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Highway of Eternity

Cover art for this confirmed as Chris Moore by artist himself via email correspondance. Removed the note containing a dead link to a Tumblr site. --Mavmaramis 18:11, 8 May 2020 (EDT)

David R Bunch

Hi Dirk,

I'm looking for more information and insight into sci-fi writers similar to David R Bunch. Do you have any suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keaton (talkcontribs) .

The above unsigned note was not put here by me. --Mavmaramis 02:08, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
Nope - a new member. I've added their name the usual way. Annie 02:25, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
R. A. Lafferty and Walt Whitman are both mentioned in his SFE3 lemma.--Dirk P Broer 13:15, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Layzell duplicate art

this cover same as this. Note for the former references 70s sci-fi art tublr site which I suggest should be removed as it's credited in later. --Mavmaramis 18:54, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

If you click on the cover record in the first book, you will see that they are already connected - we variant art that is the same but with different title, language and/or artist name pseudonym). I will leave the site reference for Dirk to review. :) Annie 19:42, 9 May 2020 (EDT)
Yes i was aware that the image shows up on three publications when you do that. Melted brain due to heat and isolation. It caused a wee bit of confusion. The note for that and for this both link to the tublr site whereas it is actually credited to Layzell in this publication. --Mavmaramis 07:28, 10 May 2020 (EDT)
I find the inclusion of the art on his own facebook page more re-assuring.--Dirk P Broer 21:35, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Found credit

Cover art for this is Robin Hiddon. It's this artwork only mirrored. --Mavmaramis 19:04, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks.--Dirk P Broer 13:23, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Night of the Dragonstar

Cover artists for this identified as Alan Guitterez. Credit from the same art used on Altan no. 836 ebook from here --Mavmaramis 19:17, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks again.--Dirk P Broer 13:23, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Uller Uprising

Hello, I noticed that there's an excerpt of Steven Barnes's Streetlethal in this edition of Uller Uprising that you've verified (pp 191-201). If you think it's advisable, you could add this as a new title in the publication, or I could do it if you prefer. All the best, Ldb001 21:56, 24 June 2020 (EDT)

Excerpt added--Dirk P Broer 13:05, 25 June 2020 (EDT)

Tubb - Dumarest

Hi Dirk. Could you check the following Dumarest saga book covers please for any evidence of a signiature - FJG. The cover art for all of these is by Fred Gambino (Wallcae & Harbottle claims Blas Gallego but that is patently wrong).

  • Prison of Night.
  • Incident on Ath.
  • Iduna's Universe.
  • The Terra Data.
  • Nectar of Heaven.
  • The Terridae.
  • The Coming Event.
  • Thanks --Mavmaramis 11:54, 3 July 2020 (EDT)
    Will do, look tomorrow.--Dirk P Broer 20:20, 4 July 2020 (EDT)
    I agree as to one common artist, but only found two signatures, Prison of Night and Iduna's Universe.--Dirk P Broer 03:51, 5 July 2020 (EDT)
    Thanks Dirk. No idea where Wallce & Harbottle got the idea they were by Blas Gallego from as they are totally different styles. Gambino is on Twitter but I don't really want to bug him regarding them as I don't actually own those books. He was kind enough to inscribe my copies of Ground Zero and Dark Shepherd Limited Edition. --Mavmaramis 06:47, 5 July 2020 (EDT)

    Thuvia Maid of Mars

    Cover art credit Bruce Pennington for Your pv pub from Pennington: A Portrait of a Master Fantasy Artist. --Zapp 15:02, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

    Suspiciously similar cover art

    Cover art of this totally looks like this --Mavmaramis 13:50, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

    I totally agree. I think Werner Sramek was only responsible for the cover design, not for the cover art.--Dirk P Broer 11:03, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
    I've amended the cover art credit to Chris Moore and editied the note re Werner Sramek. --Mavmaramis 14:34, 19 July 2020 (EDT)
    So the coverart note should also be updated. --Zapp 10:45, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
    No need for that, the main title is still 'Colony', it is just that there's a variant made to it. The other Chris Moore cover is also titled 'Colony' and the text adequately deals with that -just try to look for duplicate Chris Moore art.--Dirk P Broer 07:12, 22 July 2020 (EDT)

    Das Auge des Phönix

    Hello Dirk, the introduction by Dieter Hasselblatt P.198 (Warum Science Fiction schreiben ...) is also included in the Publication Marija und das Tier as Warum ich SF schreibe. Would you add the essay? Thanks Henna 06:10, 10 August 2020 (EDT)

    Done so.--Dirk P Broer 07:45, 12 August 2020 (EDT)
    Thanks Henna 16:51, 13 August 2020 (EDT)

    Pending submission from July 21

    Just pinging you to make sure you're aware of this submission that's be awaiting approval since July 21. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

    Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 20:31, 6 September 2020 (EDT)

    New Writings in S-F 18

    (my apologies if this isn't the right way to do this:

    hi, dirk; i spotted that the cover prices given for the dennis dobson uk h/cvr edition of new writings in science fiction 18, ed. john carnell, are in fact the cover prices for the corgi books uk p/b edition: i submitted a correction removing these from the h/cvr's record, and have been informed i should seek your agreement to this, as you are the prime source/wotsit - sorry, term escapes me, as my bus home soon will.

    - love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 10:49, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

    See here: MagicUnk 13:40, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
    I think you have discovered a side-effect of record cloning. People tend to give less attention to an already filled field (look how often the default 'English' creeps into the entries). Most likely the real price was 21/-, but my 2nd hand copy came without cover.--Dirk P Broer 20:23, 6 September 2020 (EDT)
    I still have this submission from ppint on hold. So should we update to 21/-? Or remove the price and notes with additional prices alltogether (as ppint suggests in this edit)? Thanks! MagicUnk 06:23, 16 September 2020 (EDT)
    I'd go for an approval of the edit. We do not know for sure whether the real price was indeed 21/-. Someday someone might verify the rel price.--Dirk P Broer 09:39, 23 September 2020 (EDT)

    Walter Tevis 'Steps of the Sun'

    Hi. Re: your verified, my copy has printing code "Y45" on page 251 (early November 1983) and does not have "First Edition" on the copyright page, so it's probably a later printing. If you would please update your listing with the printing code on your review copy and whether it says "First Edition" on the copyright page, I'll then add a listing for my copy. Thanks! Markwood 11:10, 5 September 2020 (EDT)

    My copy has printing code "Y37" on page 251, and it says "First Edition" on the copyright page.--Dirk P Broer 20:28, 6 September 2020 (EDT)

    Asimov's The Rest of the Robots

    I've started a discussion on the Community Portal regarding some changes I'd like to make to the publications of Asimov's The Rest of the Robots. Since you verified a copy, please weigh in there and let me know your opinion on the proposed changes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:30, 15 September 2020 (EDT)

    Long overdue edit, in retrospect.--Dirk P Broer 07:40, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

    Unfamiliar Territory, mine doesn't say 'second impression 1981' nor does it have the cover of the apparent first edition --Spacecow 07:02, 21 September 2020 (EDT)

    If you have the price than you can pinpoint it before, after or in between the two records you mentioned. Though those two don't differ in ISBN number, it would be nice to check that too.--Dirk P Broer 08:45, 23 September 2020 (EDT)
    WorldCat has one record for a 1981 Coronet edition, and three for a 1977 Coronet edition.--Dirk P Broer 09:42, 23 September 2020 (EDT)
    Thanks for the help. Mine is identical to yours, except that it doesn't say 'second impression 1981'. I will go ahead and add a publication then. --Spacecow 10:06, 23 September 2020 (EDT)
    You can save work cloning the existing record and editing what makes it different. Isn't the year 1981 mentioned at all on the copyright page?--Dirk P Broer 21:41, 23 September 2020 (EDT)
    cover: [2] titlepage: [3] copyrightpage: [4] --Spacecow 23:11, 23 September 2020 (EDT)
    Yours must be a first 1981 impression then, mine the second.--Dirk P Broer 22:08, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
    Why 1981, when there is no reference to it? Didn't you just write you found 1 for 1981 and 3 for 1977? --Spacecow 05:47, 28 September 2020 (EDT)
    Right, but yours doesn't mention 2nd or 3rd impression 1977 either. Best make it 0000-00-00 for date then and in the notes explain about the different versions of the Coronet edition, for which we now positively have identified at least three impressions. Your copy being at the same price as mine will at least suggest a later than 1977 publication.--Dirk P Broer 08:15, 28 September 2020 (EDT)

    The Ragged Man

    I replaced the amazon image for The Ragged Man with a local one so Amazon won't randomly change the danged image! Susan O'Fearna 16:48, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

    Annoying habit of Amazon to assign a single cover to an ISBN, no matter how many editions there are and how long the same ISBN is being used. And not only Amazon, see e.g. WorldCat, or the way GoodReads threats ISBN's.--Dirk P Broer 22:13, 27 September 2020 (EDT)
    That is because Amazon has 2 paths to each image in its system (or at least 2 anyway) - one based on ISBN and one based on the image itself. When someone uses the URL that uses the ISBN (aka the images/P/ISBN10.jpg paths ), it get tied to the ISBN and indeed is a problem when the image changes but the ISBN does not. If you are using the images/I/Unique_string.jpg URLs, they are different per edition and stay stable (or as stable as possible anyway - although I am yet to see one shifting - they can assign a different image to the book (and thus having a new ID) but the image itself is not changed). Which is why the help page is discussing the /I/ ones and these are the ones we want here. :) Annie 22:25, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

    The Cloud Walker

    I contacted Pauline Jones some time ago (July) by email to ask about this possible cover attribution. I have received a reply from her to inform me the cover is not by her. Amended the note to reflect this. --Mavmaramis 12:36, 14 October 2020 (EDT)

    Wyndham's Sleepers of Mars

    I'm going to change the author credit to your verified publication Sleepers of Mars from "John Wyndham" to "John Beynon Harris". this help section, indicates that these "writing as" credits should be entered as the original name. I suspect that this publication was entered before that policy was implemented. I've got another printing with the same issue that I'm trying to correct and it seems better to update all the publication records. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 08:34, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

    Beyond the Beyond

    Hello Dirk. Re this book. Someone on a Facebook group suggested the cover could be Trevor Webb so I decided to email him (with an attached image). Turns out it is by him as he wrote back in an email the following: "this is one of my very early book cover artworks.....produced for my own illustration portfolio. By chance it was then sold as a second rights sale by the artist agency I was with at the time called "Sarah Brown Agency" based in London." - I'll amend the record accordingly. --Mavmaramis 09:41, 28 October 2020 (EDT)

    Duplicate covert art

    Hi Dirk Cover art for this is Peter Jones, same art as this cover. --Mavmaramis 16:51, 30 October 2020 (EDT)

    Little Fuzzy

    Cover artist of this is Wayne Anderson, see which has sold the original art. Horzel 19:17, 31 October 2020 (EDT)

    Same for Unquenchable Fire, see here. Horzel 19:39, 31 October 2020 (EDT)

    Foundation / I, Robot

    Robot on the cover of this is the same robot as on the cover of this thus by Chris Moore. I've left an identical mesage on PV2's talk page. --Mavmaramis 06:08, 7 November 2020 (EST)

    Lev A. C. Rosen

    The author Lev A. C. Rosen has contacted SFE3 to let them know that the date of birth that they use (1981-04-13) is incorrect. It would appear that they got it from Bio:Lev A. C. Rosen, which you researched back in 2012. According to Rosen, one of his old biographies included a joke about the day of the week he was born on, which may be the source of the confusion. He has also asked that the year of his birth be removed from the SFE3 article. Ahasuerus 09:59, 13 November 2020 (EST)

    'a monday April 13' must be the joke then, as I found out that that only occurred in 1959, 1970, 1981, 1987, 1998 since I was born till the day I searched.--Dirk P Broer 18:43, 13 November 2020 (EST)
    There is also a pending edit (on hold by MagicUnk) to remove the date from our DB. Annie 13:20, 13 November 2020 (EST)
    We should be able to make the birthday invisible when required by the author/artist -but leave it in the database, to be able to use it in our age statistics.--Dirk P Broer 18:43, 13 November 2020 (EST)
    If it's a derivable date from publicly available data (even if it may turn out wrong), it should not be removed or made invisible upon request by the author imo - after all, everyone can do the same research and deductions as you did. SFE3 now has it as 13 April circa 1980 [author is on record as having published a story in 2003 at age 22]. Having said all that, and as long as the author does not provide an explanation as to why the date is clearly wrong I am inclined to reject the edit (and perhaps adding the info such as from Bio:Lev A. C. Rosen, including a statement that the date may be wrong, into the notes) - he could provide a reason (in private by sending an email through the 'E-mail this user' in the toolbox at the left hand side if he wishes to do so). Just my 2 cents. MagicUnk 15:57, 23 November 2020 (EST)
    ISFDB:Policy makes a distinction between bibliographic data and biographical data. For bibliographic data the rule is simple: "the ISFDB doesn't delete publications/titles that are known to have been published". On the other hand, for biographical data the current rule -- which was formalized on 2017-03-15 -- says:
    • If a living author (or their authorized representative) requests that the ISFDB remove the author's detailed biographical information, the ISFDB will comply after confirming the requester's identity. The ISFDB will remove as much biographical data as needed in order to accommodate legitimate privacy concerns while preserving, to the extent possible, the work of the editors who have compiled the data. A note will be added to the author's record explaining what type of information has been removed and why.
    In this case we have an additional complication: the publicly available data was a joke and therefore misleading. I have removed the date of birth and added a note explaining why the ISFDB used to have a value in the field, where it came from and why it has been removed. Ahasuerus 10:49, 30 November 2020 (EST)

    Isle of the Dead

    Replaced Amazon cover of this with one from my own copy. Edit. Cover art confirmed as Fred Gambino by artist via Twitter. States he posed for the caveman in the foreground. --Mavmaramis 16:39, 13 November 2020 (EST)

    Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 05:09, 15 November 2020 (EST)

    Doors of his Face

    Cover art of this confirmed as Fred Gambino via Twitter. He posed for the figure on the left. --Mavmaramis 03:44, 14 November 2020 (EST)

    Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 05:10, 15 November 2020 (EST)

    Another duplicate cover

    This cover is a mirror image of this cover. --Mavmaramis 08:39, 14 November 2020 (EST)

    Thanks for finding these - though you are allowed to establish a variant on your own. I'll do this in this case, but why do you hesitate? Don't be shy :-). Stonecreek 13:55, 14 November 2020 (EST)

    Not shy Stonecreek just easier for someone who knows how to do it than me making a pigs ear of it. --Mavmaramis 02:36, 15 November 2020 (EST)
    I really trust you to manage more than you're doing now: in this case it's straightforward to use 'Make This Title a Variant' by inserting the parent title's ID (here: 515782) into the field 'Parent #'. See also the corresponding help screen. Stonecreek 03:52, 15 November 2020 (EST)

    Kiff Strike Back

    Made some edits on the notes of this from my copy. --Mavmaramis 07:39, 28 November 2020 (EST)

    House of Suns

    Hi Dirk. This publication that you've verified states 'third printing', with a pub date of 2009-03-00, but there's no statement in the notes where that date came from. Incidentally, the first printing for this ISBN isn't in the DB (yet), so probably a mixup with the 1st printing. Could you double check if this date is on or in your copy? If not, I guess the date must be updated to 0000-00-00... (and a 1st printing added) Thanks! MagicUnk 15:47, 16 December 2020 (EST)

    I verified the number line to be 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3. I bought the book August 2009 at Forbidden Planet in London, so any updating will not get further than 2009-00-00.--Dirk P Broer 06:06, 17 December 2020 (EST)
    Cloned my printing into a 1st and changed the date of the 3rd printing to 2009-00-00.--Dirk P Broer 11:10, 17 December 2020 (EST)
    Thanks! One more thing. As BL & OCLC refer to first printing (at least I assume so), shouldn't BL & OCLC be removed from the 3rd printing record? MagicUnk 11:26, 17 December 2020 (EST)
    They do belong to the 1st edition of 978-0-575-08237-3, that's for sure. Whether they only belong to the 1st printing is open for debate. How is OCLC or BL to distinguish between 2009 printings? All parameters match (title, publisher, publication place, publication year, pages, size, etc.) --Dirk P Broer 11:30, 17 December 2020 (EST)
    OK, not a big deal - I'm not sure myself whether or not to only add external IDs to the 1st printing, so fine by me :) MagicUnk 14:09, 17 December 2020 (EST)

    My Eagleheart rejection

    Hi! You rejected my review of Eagleheart because you stated that it was a review of the series Eagleheart. It was not, the title Silver Wings and Leather Jackets was never used in the review, as can be seen in this scan of the review. Again, I own this book, being a trash brat from way back, and the book is a mess of typos, but I can change the title of the review, or add a note to the review stating the title Silver Wings and Leather Jackets is never used in the review. Either way, the review is for the first book only. I don’t mean to kick up a fuss, but I won’t add false facts to this site if I can help it. MLB 15:57, 16 December 2020 (EST)

    P.S.: I seem to remember a long time ago that C. T. Westcott is a pseudonym, and the author was saying that he was from Westcott, CT. Can't swear to it, but a fun fact to clutter up your mind. MLB 16:02, 16 December 2020 (EST)
    Submit it again, but first append the notes to explain the discrepancy in titles then. And thanks for cluttering up my mind!--Dirk P Broer 05:33, 17 December 2020 (EST)

    Dangerous Vision 2

    Cover of this is Joe Petagno. It is signed vertially on the extreme left very close to the spine near the bottom on my copy but may be cropped. --Mavmaramis 07:58, 22 December 2020 (EST)

    Thanks, I long suspected it to be Petagno's.--Dirk P Broer 06:29, 24 December 2020 (EST)


    Hi Dirk,

    Can you look at the moderator note here. Can you check the price of your book? If it is indeed .60, we apparently have two versions. If not, is there a typo? Thanks! Annie 18:25, 17 January 2021 (EST)

    Must have been a typo.-Dirk P Broer 10:14, 18 January 2021 (EST)
    Thanks! Annie 16:49, 18 January 2021 (EST)

    Campfire Story

    Nice find for this book's cover, which even I couldn't find anywhere. God bless.--Username 19:53, 18 January 2021 (EST)


    Hi Dirk,

    A few updates on something you moderated: (this one):

    • The price format is incorrect (space after $ and comma instead of dot) and it is not the list price (see
    • "20.4 x 13.6 cm" book is definitely not pb. :)
    • If there is an ASIN or ISBN, we really do not need to have the Amazon BR link in Web pages.
    • No source notes and no verification :)
    • The only source has 200 as number of pages, not 171. The 171 belong to the ebook (and these can be wildly different depending on how they are calculated). We need either a second source or we record what is in the source. From what I saw in the editor's other submissions, they are mixing up data from the ebooks and the paperbacks together (I suspect this is what happened here as well a bit).

    It is a new editor, let's try to help them not make these mistakes - that's what the moderators are for, right? And these (the format and the price format, especially are always a problem for new non-US/UK/AU editors. :) Annie 22:00, 22 January 2021 (EST)

    I was trying to do too much in too little time...--~~
    I understand completely :) But with new editors it backfires when we are not careful (unteaching bad practices is harder...) so I am just giving you a heads up :) Hope you are doing well :) Annie 22:05, 22 January 2021 (EST)

    The Seep

    Please see this cleanup report. You edited these chapbooks/novels yesterday, and now we have four chapbooks containing a novel. --Willem 05:42, 25 January 2021 (EST)

    I already ment to continue with this one today. It was originally six chapbooks, four of which that had 'novel' printed on their cover.--Dirk P Broer 05:49, 25 January 2021 (EST)
    That makes me wonder why you think the version in the 2021 publications is different from the 2020 publications. All I see is an added story that makes the 2021 editions collections. Should we ask Annie why she turned the 2020 versions into chapbooks? --Willem 07:27, 25 January 2021 (EST)
    You guys have seen this on Annie's talk page, right?
    TL; DR is that the UK pubs include an extra story not in the US ones. Kobo reports the UK pubs as 46k words, but I believe the US pubs lacking that story come out around 36k words (IIRC, but whatever it was, it well under the 40k word novella limit). ErsatzCulture 07:45, 25 January 2021 (EST)
    EDIT: The Kobo US page reports 32k words for the US edition ErsatzCulture 07:53, 25 January 2021 (EST)
    I hadn't seen that, but it confirms my belief that you should not mess with other people's edits without asking. --Willem 09:04, 25 January 2021 (EST)
    Annie converted them to chapbooks because the story is too short to be a called a novel regardless of what the cover wants to call it... The audible length is a very good indication - a novel needs ~4 hours... anything so close to 3 is most likely a chapbook and Kobo confirms the 32K words or so - which are consistent with ~3 hours in Audible despite its 216 pages. So - a chapbook. :) Kobo lengths do not come out 2 months before publication (when the paper and ebook were added) so the 216 made me do it initially as a novel. When the Audible came in from a batch a few months later and Kobo concurred at this point, I converted. Happens with pre-publication stuff. I even added a note to the story itself at some point it seems. Annie 18:44, 27 January 2021 (EST)

    Case and the Dreamer

    Hi, Simona D'Achille has checked the archives and confirmed by email that her father Gino D'Achille painted the cover art of this. Horzel 15:29, 26 January 2021 (EST)

    Same for Robert Sheckley - Options. Horzel 15:29, 26 January 2021 (EST)
    Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 10:32, 27 January 2021 (EST)
    Both publications now have two covers ?? Horzel 09:26, 30 January 2021 (EST)
    seems like you mentioned it here, and made a change request. The other moderator didn't catch my -earlier- change, it seems. It is corrected now.--Dirk P Broer 19:16, 30 January 2021 (EST)
    And they have two covers again, after I tried to clean up.--Dirk P Broer 06:10, 31 January 2021 (EST)
    It should be fixed now.--Dirk P Broer 06:14, 31 January 2021 (EST)


    How I undo a rejection of a entry that I clicked wrong? --Paulotecario 17:04, 27 January 2021 (EST)

    You have to supply me with more detail, I'm afraid.--Dirk P Broer 20:17, 27 January 2021 (EST)
    From the wording, I think they were looking for this and we’re trying to catch the attention of whichever moderator was working. :) Annie 22:58, 27 January 2021 (EST)


    Hi Dirk, I've added an interesting little note to your verified edition of Gregory Benford's Timescape. PeteYoung 23:20, 30 January 2021 (EST)

    Thanks!--Dirk P Broer 06:27, 4 February 2021 (EST)

    Time Out of Mind

    Hello Dirk,

    I want to change the publisher for this one to "Quartet Books" for the following reason:

    • The ISBN belongs to Quartet Books.
    • Due to a new distribution model around that time (see Quartet Books), books carried Orbit on their covers but ISBNs and internal pages including the title page said Quartet Books.
    • We go by title page for these things and the note says that the inside of the book is crediting Quartet Books so it sounds like one of those confusing ones from the transition period.
    • Even OCLC credits Quartet :)

    Any objections? Thanks! Annie 22:57, 3 February 2021 (EST)

    Quartet / Orbit, like here?--Dirk P Broer 06:25, 4 February 2021 (EST)
    We can do that as well but they are not really an imprint as the name implies - and the rest of the similarly afflicted books are in Quartet Books. If you prefer it there though, that’s file - I will add some more notes and link the two publishers as well. Annie 08:55, 4 February 2021 (EST)
    We can't have the slash have two different meanings, IMHO. I'd rather have them all under one designation, so "Quartet Books" is fine by me. BTW: I own Dare too.--Dirk P Broer 09:02, 4 February 2021 (EST)
    Agree. We can do "Quartet Books & Orbit" I guess but I would rather leave them in just "Quartet Books". So should we move both? :) Annie 09:08, 4 February 2021 (EST)
    And what about the sole Quartet / Futura? The ISBN belongs to Quartet Books too.--Dirk P Broer 09:10, 4 February 2021 (EST)
    It is the same year and the same description so sounds like the same kind of mess -- cover from one publisher, the book being from another. Still not an imprint situation though so we either need to go for "Quartet & Futura" or move over to Quartet Books. Annie 09:44, 4 February 2021 (EST)

    Where Do We Go from Here?

    Re this and this publication. I'm going to amend the note to read "Cover art uncredited, no visible signaiture. Possibly Joe Petagno by style." Can't prove it of course but the style is markedly similar to the ones from the 1974 Sphere editions of Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions 1; 2 and 3. --Mavmaramis 13:10, 8 February 2021 (EST)

    I agree.--Dirk P Broer 07:05, 9 February 2021 (EST)

    Slate Editor - year titles

    Thanks for taking care of the "Slate - 2014" and "Slate - 2017" Editor/Titles. With that, I think Slate is done for now. Great to have this added to ISFDB. Dave888 11:09, 10 February 2021 (EST)

    Importing content into publication record The Best Science Fiction of the Year: Volume 5

    What does "forced" mean? What is wrong with importing the table of contents into two editions after it's gone into one? Can you explain what's going on? Sfmvnterry 16:13, 19 February 2021 (EST)

    "Forced" means the only option a moderator has is to click "forced" to close the proposal, because it no longer applies. This can be due to a retraction or another approved change that affected the record.--Dirk P Broer 19:18, 19 February 2021 (EST)

    The Best Science Fiction of the Year: Volume Four

    I own a copy of this book. I can confirm the title page uses the digit, just like the other four. Would you like to see a picture? Sfmvnterry 16:37, 19 February 2021 (EST)

    I unrejected the submission. Please verify your edition, and change the publication record -which still will have 'four', as your submission only changes the title record.--Dirk P Broer 19:27, 19 February 2021 (EST)

    Pattern Recognition redux

    Hi, I see you made the edit User_talk:ErsatzCulture#Pattern_Recognition you mentioned on my talk page a week or back. You did see that I'd replied, and that I wasn't simply ignoring you?

    Basically I said that whilst I didn't have any objection personally to what you were proposing, the entry as it currently stands was the work of another mod, and that their earlier comments on my talk page seem like they're going from a different interpretation of the rules? ErsatzCulture 06:20, 21 February 2021 (EST)

    As I found this record because it featured in a maintenance report because of the mismatch of isbn and date I changed the publication date according to the rules as I know them. Otherwise that maintenance report would be full of these cases, and it is not. I should have mentioned it at your page too.--Dirk P Broer 06:24, 21 February 2021 (EST)

    The House of the Hatchet and Other Tales of Horror

    Please see this discussion regarding your verified The House of the Hatchet and Other Tales of Horror. Specifically about the double contents for page 117. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (EST)

    Thanks. Should be solved now.--Dirk P Broer 16:46, 26 February 2021 (EST)

    The Best of John Wyndham 1932-1949

    Cover art of this is Patrick Woodroffe, same as this edition. Entry amended. --Mavmaramis 04:36, 27 February 2021 (EST)

    The Best of John Wyndham 1932-1949

    The Best of John Wyndham 1932-1949 has two cover art records. Is this intended? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2021 (EST)

    No, it was not intended.--Dirk P Broer 12:23, 28 February 2021 (EST)

    Made Things is a novel

    Hi Dirk, I notice you changed Made Things from novel to novella. However, I did a conservative count and I ended up with at least 40,800 words - and likely more, so clearly a novel-length piece (it's also in the notes of the pub I've verified). Can you revert it back to novel? Thanks! MagicUnk 07:19, 2 March 2021 (EST)

    according to this submission by user JJ: This is a novella of 38,541 words. Verified by converting the EPUB version to RTF, opening in Word, removing extraneous front and back matter, and doing a Word Count. I will add it to the novella. BTW: Tor also calls it a novella.--Dirk P Broer 07:31, 2 March 2021 (EST)
    Ah, thanks for the heads-up. Clearly, I'll have to review my counting method then. Feel free to remove my statement of the approximate page count from the notes of the pub I've verified. Thanks! MagicUnk 09:00, 2 March 2021 (EST)
    We'll cross those bridges when we get there. Your approximations seem to trigger exact word counters, so nothing is lost.--Dirk P Broer 09:02, 2 March 2021 (EST)

    Mindbridge – a missing chapter?

    Hi Dirk, according to a letter in Matrix #93 copies of this edition omit a final section, meant to be on page 186, titled "53 For They Shall Be Called the Children of God". Apparently there is no page 186. If true, this may worth adding to the Notes for your verified pub. Can you check and hopefully solve this small mystery? Thanks. PeteYoung 23:12, 3 March 2021 (EST)

    Hi, my 1979 copy has page 186 as last page, titled "53 For They Shall Be Called the Children of God".--Dirk P Broer 04:53, 4 March 2021 (EST)
    So it looks like there's only the chapter title and no chapter. I see that in Matrix #94 (June '91) the director of Orbit, John Jarrold, apologised for the missing chapter, so I'd say it's worth adding this detail to the Note for your pub. Up to you. Unfortunately I'm unable to check the later SF Collectors' Edition, which I verified as Transient but no longer have, to see if the error was repeated. Thanks. PeteYoung 10:09, 4 March 2021 (EST)
    The page is filled, it is titled "53 For They Shall Be Called the Children of God", text goes further to fill the page.--Dirk P Broer 16:00, 4 March 2021 (EST)

    And the Lurid Glare of the Comet varianting

    Hi, I think this title's variants has got a bit messed up, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it... here's the history of what I think has happened:

    1. There has a single title & pub created at some point in the past, with the title text starting with ellipsis, and credited to "Brian W. Aldiss" i.e. the primary record for that author.
    2. Last week, I submitted an edit for an upcoming pub, that has both a different title (no leading ellipsis) and is credited to "Brian Aldiss" i.e. one of the variants for that author. The mod note had a TODO that it needed to be varianted to the aforementioned prior title record.
    3. I'd forgotten about that TODO when the edit was accepted the following day, and then - if I'm reading the history correctly - you created a new parent title record, with the parent "Brian W. Aldiss" author, but with the same ellipsis-less title.
    4. Earlier today, I noticed that the Aldiss bibliography page was showing these as two separate titles in the Non-fiction section, and I realized I hadn't done the varianting I had in the TODO in the original edit.
    5. So I submitted this edit to make the two "Brian W. Aldiss" titles relate to each other. (I also tried to CYA in the mod note, by saying I wasn't sure if I was doing the right thing...)
    6. That edit has just been accepted, but I'm not sure that what's now in the DB is ideal. The Aldiss bibliography page now has all the titles grouped together as variants, but this title now shows no pubs, which looks a bit odd. Should it maybe be deleted, or should it be fixed in some other way, or is that normal/expected behaviour?

    (There's also an ebook that I need to add for this, but I'm not going to touch that until everything else seems correct.)

    Thanks! ErsatzCulture 10:52, 5 March 2021 (EST)

    It should look alright now.--Dirk P Broer 11:19, 5 March 2021 (EST)
    Thanks, looks fine to me?
    Would what I put in the original mod note, about varianting to the existing record with different author name and title, have been the right thing to do, assuming I'd not forgotten about it? I ask because there's another upcoming Aldiss reissue that looks like it might again have author name and title discrepancies ("Super State" vs "Super-State"), so I'd like to get it right next time. Thanks ErsatzCulture 11:57, 5 March 2021 (EST)
    You can mention the canonical title that is to be varianting against, 23287 Super-State by Brian W. Aldiss.--Dirk P Broer 11:59, 5 March 2021 (EST)

    Merges and titles histories

    Hi Dirk,

    Please see this - just a friendly reminder that now we have history on all records and these can be used to try to see who keeps unmerging something (and from there to either ask them why or see if there are any moderator notes to be checked to see why it keeps happening). Thanks! Annie 11:26, 5 March 2021 (EST)

    I am just reacting to the maintenance reports, there is absolutely no intention of abusive merging. The newly created (by unmerging) records show no information. And why choose unmerging, when a name change should be enough?.--Dirk P Broer 11:37, 5 March 2021 (EST)
    Because a name change would not have solved this. The title was merged under one author name - so there was only 1 title record. So if he changes the name, the other one would be wrong. The options were:
    • Edit to add a new cover and submit "remove Title" to remove the old cover or
    • unmerge to create two covers that way (and a moderator note so a moderator knows why you need the unmerge)
    Both are valid ways to do it. The first leaves the two covers in the same work and can be forgotten that way thus leaving weird records though so I would also do an unmerge for this usecase more often than not.
    I hope you are not just blindly "fixing" all that is on the reports without doing any checks to see what caused them to be there just so they get off the report. There are cases where the needed fix is not to fix whatever the report is flagging for but somewhere else on the same record or a connected one. Fixing it to get it off the report leads to cases like that - an editor is in the middle of s a series of fixes and someone brings them back to square one. Annie 13:22, 5 March 2021 (EST)
    I would have asked a moderator to change what can't be done in one change request, to prevent a case like this. The logical step would have been to ask a moderator to change the artist in the publication record where the change would have to take place in, so all needed changes could take place shortly after each other, and are done by someone who knows the ins and outs of the case.--Dirk P Broer 13:29, 5 March 2021 (EST)
    Not everyone knows the ins and outs of the DB either. And new editors will always try whatever seems to work. Not chasing down what is going on and working with them to explain the options is not going to get them to learn the best practices. I am just reminding you to check the histories of the titles before merging/changing instead of blindly fixing because they are on a report. :) Annie 13:33, 5 March 2021 (EST)
    I am not blindly fixing, I check whether it is indeed the same art and whether the two names are correctly linked. From now on I will also check the history of the to be varianted against title. I can't recall ever having problems like this before.--Dirk P Broer 13:40, 5 March 2021 (EST)
    A lot of the moderators will indeed complete the full fix in such cases but not all will - thus my friendly reminder for the history being here now making it a lot easier than it used to be to find out what happened. Thanks, Dirk! :) Annie 13:57, 5 March 2021 (EST)

    Esacpe Plus

    I've amended the note for this. The link to an image on Munchkin Press website no longer exists - gives Error 404. I've removed the link as pointing to an non-existant page seems fairly pointless to me. --Mavmaramis 09:45, 7 March 2021 (EST)

    Looks like the owner of the original, JP Griffin, has transferred his viewable collection. The picture plus attribution can now be found here.--Dirk P Broer 18:13, 7 March 2021 (EST)
    Thanks for that. I've updated the note to point to the webpage you found. --Mavmaramis 04:10, 9 March 2021 (EST)
    Thank you for finding the dead link.--Dirk P Broer 11:38, 9 March 2021 (EST)

    James Blish's The Quincunx of Time was identified as a novella

    Hi, Dirk! It happened here. I'm going to change the pub.s and titles accordingly. Christian Stonecreek 01:57, 10 March 2021 (EST)

    I can verify that the Arrow edition starts on page 15 for the story (foreword on page 9) and that 24, 25 and 26 are completely blank (between prologue and 'The Song of the Beep'). Page 106, before the epilogue, is blank too.--Dirk P Broer 07:46, 10 March 2021 (EST)

    Savage Heroes

    Hi, Dirk! Can you take a look into your verified 1977 copy if the subtitle 'Tales of Magical Fantasy' is there? And re: this argument: Is there any hint for a prior hc edition (which I doubt, since there's no trace at Amazon or OCLC). Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 12:44, 10 March 2021 (EST)

    There is a subtitle, but it is 'Tales of Sorcery and Black Magic' on the title page ('Tales of Sorcery & Black Magic' on cover).--Dirk P Broer 15:43, 10 March 2021 (EST)

    Checking things while approving

    Hi Dirk,

    Just heads up: This should have produced a question to Christian on the numbering (1988 in the title vs. 1987 in the titles under it) - one of the two is wrong - or a note will need to be added explaining the discrepancy if they are correct. While in this case he came back to fix it a week later, it should have never been approved with no comment... Annie 14:22, 15 March 2021 (EDT)

    Annie, it is #1988 in the title, but that number has nothing to do with the year, it is the number within the series....BTW: all dates have been changed to 1999 now.--Dirk P Broer 11:47, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
    I did not mention an year/date anywhere (even if it looks like one) - it was the disambiguators based on the issue number: "Perry Rhodan Glossar (Perry Rhodan #1987)" for example instead of Perry Rhodan Glossar (Perry Rhodan #1988):) Annie 12:33, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
    We need more moderators -especially for those long-running German magazines with their crazy editorships, or I go crazy trying to get the queue to decent proportions. I might as well quit altogether and re-start reading a good SF book.--Dirk P Broer 14:07, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
    It was a heads up to remind you to glance at these more than anything - as Christian and John had been self-approving for years, we had not seen them much lately in the regular queue so we had lost the practice to look at these lately :) Reading a good book is always a good idea though :) Annie 14:10, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
    It being a submission from a subject matter expert -Christian himself- I hardly gave it a glance first time, and I completely read over it again the 2nd time, checking your reminder.....--Dirk P Broer 17:52, 16 March 2021 (EDT)
    I think it's useful to make a distinction between being a "subject matter expert" and "consistently following the data entry rules". Christian may well know more about Perry Rhodan than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean that he always enters the data correctly as we have seen recently. Or take any number of SF authors who have tried entering their books into our database -- they were the ultimate "subject matter experts" on their own work, but they still needed to be guided to make sure that the results were in line with our data entry standards. Ahasuerus 18:36, 16 March 2021 (EDT)

    Dragon #17

    Not sure what happened with Dragon #17. I'm trying to update the Editors on the Dragon issues to meet the non-genre standards. Since Tim Kask is only an editor, and has no genre entries, I have been trying to remove all of his entries. Is this a problem? TAWeiss 11:19, 20 March 2021 (EDT)

    You issued a remove request for the interior art and by mistake had also checked the title record, it seems. I approved your request yesterday without seeing the check for the title record, but found out this morning that #17 had a missing title record. I have tried to get it right but, boy what a mess.... Also note that #18 contains an essay by The editors of Dragon magazine that I added to #18. All three entries for #18 are also in that edition of Swords and Deviltry.--Dirk P Broer 11:26, 20 March 2021 (EDT)
    got it. Thanks for clarifying. TAWeiss 19:45, 20 March 2021 (EDT)

    Impulse, April 1966

    Replaced linked Galactic Central cover art of this with one scanned from my own copy. --Mavmaramis 13:18, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

    Nice crisp image.--Dirk P Broer 18:15, 25 March 2021 (EDT)

    Practical Electrics Aug 1924

    Hello, It appears you added a cover image to the record for Practical Electrics Aug 1924 ( which I had removed when I verified the publication. I had removed this image per ISFDB guidelines for covers of non-genre magazines, which state that covers should not be entered if they do not illustrate the SF content and are not by a well-known genre artist. A better scan from my own copy is linked in the pub notes. Could you let me know why this was added? All the best, Ldb001 12:07, 30 March 2021 (EDT)

    You are right, I'll remove it again.--Dirk P Broer 12:08, 30 March 2021 (EDT)

    Username's Moderator Notes

    A quick note about Username's Moderator Notes like this one. He has been increasingly more consistent about providing the source of the added/changed data -- which is great! -- but the information/URL is often relegated to the Moderator Notes field. Moreover, the provided URL link doesn't always tell you where exactly the data is and how it needs to be interpreted: it may be a publisher's code on one of the flaps, the copyright page, something on the back cover, etc. Could you please try to make sure that the source is fully identified and stated in the main Notes field when approving his submissions? I know it can be time-consuming, especially if you need to put the submission on hold and ask the editor, but we really need to make sure that our data is fully sourced in Notes. TIA! Ahasuerus 13:31, 30 March 2021 (EDT)

    I put info in the Moderator Notes field because it's always better to have someone else see what you saw. I'm not perfect, so someone with much more experience doing this stuff may catch an (very) occasional error I made. Also, I always find it amusing when moderators or other editors add/fix stuff because often they misspell simple words/have poor grammar/enter things incorrectly, so I have to make an edit to correct their edit. In my 3.5 months here I've added a huge amount of info not found anywhere else, but much of what I do is adding info easily available elsewhere or fixing obvious errors that should have been fixed long before I started here (from what I've read, 2006 is when ISFDB started letting people be editors). This might come as a shock, but anyone I've ever read who mentioned this database says they use it mainly to find old paperback covers they remember from when they were younger, or to find a short story because they can't remember where they first read it. The huge amount of covers I've added may not be the most rewarding for me personally but I know lots of people are looking for them. If some on here think people care about most of the info that gets entered in the notes, they're free to enter it. Anyone seriously looking for info like that would never trust an online source anyway, since most of them (and I speak from experience) are notoriously untrustworthy; they'd check a physical copy. Reality TRUMPs virtual reality. I'll try to remember to be specific when I leave a note for the moderators so they know where to look. --Username 20:58, 30 March 2021 (EDT)
    When you have your info via FantLab it doesn't do any harm to have them as external ID. The same with -often via Open Library-: it doesn't harm to link them in the fields meant for them (webpage for, yet another external id for Open Library). It makes it far easier for people to look at other sources than isfdb.--Dirk P Broer 21:05, 30 March 2021 (EDT)

    Beyond the Porch Light

    Re: your recent notes on my edit for the above book, a search on Google Books' page for "THOMAS" gets 1 hit, a piece of the back cover that says, "Cover Art by THOMAS Moore". He's referred to informally as "Thom" on the copyright page, "To my brother Thom", but he used his full name professionally. Also, there's a piece of Ferrel Moore's bio on the back cover which says his eighth novel is due to be published in 2003, which would seem to suggest this book was published before 2003. Also, "about the author" in books are usually a few paragraphs long at most, so a page count of 184 suggests the "about the author" in this book runs for 11 pages, which makes no sense. So cover artist should be same as later edition, date should be 2002, and pages should be 173. Considering previous editor just copied contents from later edition without verifying anything, and half the contents were wrong until I fixed them, I think my info is more reliable (as usual). --Username 10:04, 3 April 2021 (EDT)

    Page ix: Acknowledgements "The cover art for "Beyond the Porch Light and other Tales..." was created by Thom Moore, who may be reached via". On the back cover it is inded Thomas Moore, but NOT Thomas Brian Moore, as I encountered in the record. The fact that his eighth book is due to be published in 2003 says nothing about the copyright year for that book, nor for the publication date in the book we are discussing here. The two things are not each other's equivalent, copyright year and publication date. A book can have a copyright year 2000 and have been published not earlier than 2001, even when it is a first edition, see,just%20saving%20a%20word%20document. . 'About the author' can be as long as the author/publisher wants and, again: We enter the last printed page number, and if the text goes on on an unnumbered page we note that as e.g. 184+[1]. If the story stops at 173, and the last printed page number is 184 we note 184. And it is not just the previous editor that gives 2003 and 184 pages either, your own sources do as well.--Dirk P Broer 07:14, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
    Regarding the unnumbered page example, if there is only a single unnumbered page, we add one to the page count (so "185" for your example) with a note. The "+[n]" syntax is only used when there is more than one unnumbered page. See the third from the bottom rule at Template:PublicationFields:Pages. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
    USERNAME here again. So if you go to Google Books' page, it gives you up to page 130 for free and then says, "pages 131 to 174 are not shown in this preview". Therefore, the book is 174 pages long. The 184 page count is most likely an old misprint that was copied by many websites, a very common occurrence. Just because sources say something doesn't make it true. Whatever info Google Books writes on their pages is very often wrong, and the only way to know the facts is to look inside the actual book. The copy of Beyond the Porch Light on Google Books is the actual book with the correct info. Reality TRUMPs virtual reality. If you want to believe the book came out in 2003 even though the copyright inside the book says 2002 that's up to you; if you want to credit the artist as just "Thomas Moore", be aware there's 1 other man with the same name on ISFDB, so this book's artist will need a (I) after his name. --Username 21:27, 4 April 2021 (EDT)
    If reality trumps virtual reality, please base your opinions on the actual copy. If you do not want to read or comprehend evidence that is contrary to your view, please take your superman-complex somewhere else. I am not approving your submissions anymore.--Dirk P Broer 04:39, 5 April 2021 (EDT)

    Post-2007 books with ISBN-10 only

    Please see this conversation since it involves you. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

    Apparently I need to press Save Page before I leave for the night. Sorry for not posting here last night, Dirk! JLaTondre, thanks for posting :) Annie 18:51, 4 April 2021 (EDT)

    Currey Verification

    Hi Dirk -

    You've marked the Currey verification of Tales of the Wonder Club, Second Series] by M. Y. Halidom. I don't believe this is correct. The Currey verification refers to publications detailed in L.W. Currey's Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors which does not cover Halidom. I believe that confusion comes from a note that links to a sale of this publication on L.W. Currey's website. It's certainly useful information (until they sell that copy), but we probably shouldn't mark it as a Currey verification. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:35, 16 April 2021 (EDT)

    I changed 'L. W. Currey' into 'L. W. Currey, Inc.' in an attempt to lessen the confusion.--Dirk P Broer 07:49, 17 April 2021 (EDT)
    I also changed the secondary verification to N/A, based upon your "which does not cover Halidom".--Dirk P Broer 08:19, 17 April 2021 (EDT)

    The Hamish Hamilton Book of Magicians

    When you have a free moment, could you please take a look at this submission? It looks like a duplicate submission which may have gotten lost when you were making other edits which affected this pub. TIA! Ahasuerus 23:26, 19 April 2021 (EDT)

    Looks like a time-out left-over. I suffer these quite a lot, time-outs.--Dirk P Broer 07:27, 20 April 2021 (EDT)

    The Robots of Dawn

    I see you fixed the cover image for The robots of dawn. Why not process submission 4970095. It does that and also corrects a typo? Scifibones 08:32, 21 April 2021 (EDT)

    How many screens do you think have at a certain time? If I react on a maintenance report about a wrongly formatted Amazon picture link, do you think I can simultaneously see (all) the relevant submission(s)? The answers are that I have just one screen, and that there are no pop-ups that warn a moderator that there is also a submission for record x, however handy that would be...--Dirk P Broer 08:51, 21 April 2021 (EDT)

    Papa's War and Other Satires

    Hi Dirk -

    You have marked the Reginald1 verification on Garnett's Papa's War and Other Satires for the George Allen & Unwin printing. Reginald actually has the Office of the Herald printing listed. I've added the earlier printing which Reginald also lists as 1918. I noted that some Worldcat entries also had a 1918 date for the Allen & Unwin. Both the Clute encyclopedias are skeptical of the 1918 date, so the 1919 date for the Allen & Unwin is probably fine. However, you should probably remove the Reginald verification from that printing. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:53, 29 April 2021 (EDT)

    Just made the change, thanks for spotting my mistake.--Dirk P Broer 22:00, 29 April 2021 (EDT)

    The Paralyzing Rays Vs. the Nuclears / Nizzi

    I'm not sure why you changed [The Paralyzing Rays Vs. the Nuclears] to use quotes around SKIPPER, but on the title page, parenthesis are used. --GlennMcG 16:00, 31 May 2021 (EDT)

    You can change it back then, but to prevent it happening another time: state in the notes that the author credit on the title page is different from that on the cover.--Dirk P Broer 10:12, 1 June 2021 (EDT)

    Figures of Earth

    Have tried to upload a better scan of the cover of [[ but it seems not to want to update it and reverts back to the one BLongley uploaded. --Mavmaramis 15:19, 12 June 2021 (EDT)

    The old wiki software the ISFDB uses has a bug in that when you upload a replacement image, it doesn't tell your browser a new version is present and so your browser continues to use its cached version (if the image has already been viewed). You need to force the new image to be displayed (Ctl + F5 on most browsers). Any other user viewing the image will see the new one. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2021 (EDT)
  • Personal tools