User talk:MLB/Archive/2014Jan-Jun

From ISFDB

Contents 1 Amazing Stories Annual, Vol. 1 2 Nicholas Spark 3 Talebones #2 4 Graveyard Honeymoon 5 Nanok and the Tower of Sorrows 6 Talebones #9 7 Extrapolating credit 8 Review in Talebones #3 9 Analog March 2014 10 Druids 11 Question asked in the Note to Moderator field 12 Time-Traveled Tales 13 Tales of Terror 14 AHMM, November 2001 15 Analog, April 2014 16 Merging editor records into a magazine series 17 EQMM, May 2013 18 Ladies of Horror 19 F&SF Nov-Dec 2012 20 Talebones #25 21 Misaligned ISBN 22 Off on a Planet 23 Cover for Phantastic Book of Ghost Stories 24 Covers for nongenre magazines 25 Classic Pulp Fiction Stories 26 In the Night Room 27 Family Pride 28 Ex-communication 29 Likely wrong varianting 30 A couple of issues with proposed variants 31 Odyssey, Summer 1976 32 Black Gate, Spring 2007 33 Creating pseudonyms 34 Pulp Tales Press reprint of Amazing, February 1942 35 The Gift and Scream 36 Re: Henry Gade 37 Fantastic Novels Magazine, July 1948 38 James Reasoner 39 The Beholder 40 Secret Passage 41 Battle Scars 42 Series data incorrectly added to CHAPTERBOOK title record 43 Asimov's June 2014 44 Julius Accused Rejection 45 Linking to image files on unapproved websites 46 Shock Totem 6 47 Cover scan for Apostle 48 Fangoria 49 Review for Stuff Out'a My Head or ...Mind 50 Adding data to F&SF 51 "Primary" verification vs. "Primary (Transient)" verification 52 Writers of the Future #29 53 Gathered Dust 54 Review for Last Dangerous Visions 55 Analog, July-August 2014 56 Highlight(s) 57 OCLC 58 Problem variant submissions 59 Dark Valley 60 Question about merges 61 Linking reviews 62 Chimeraworld #4 63 The Walking Dead 64 Web of the City 65 Harcourt Brace 66 The Venom Business 67 "Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet", #15 68 Cemetery Dance #71 69 Serial for The Hunting of the Unicorn 70 Problems with uploading? 71 The Further Adventures of Solar Pons 72 Ellison's Web of the City 73 Hitchcock's, Sep 2014 74 Reviews of graphic novels by non-qualifying authors 75 Shock Totem 76 Uncredited art 77 Publication format 78 Silverstein: Janna vs Jenna 79 Cemetery Dance, #71 80 Edward Valigursky 81 Ekaterina Sedia's Timka 82 Strange Tales of Mystery and Terror, March 1932 83 Primeval Cover Art 84 Analog, January/February 2014

Amazing Stories Annual, Vol. 1

Hi, Mark! You gave 'magazine' as binding, maybe there's a better one; please choose one of the possibilities for magazines in the help pages. Thanks, Stonecreek 13:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is magazine sized, but, trade paperback would probably be more accurate, so I;ll change it. MLB 18:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Spark

I have no idea why Sparks is in the db. All of the records here are either NONGENRE or non-sf-related NONFICTION. I'm going to delete them from the db. Mhhutchins 19:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, with any luck I'm gonna be reading True Believer soon, but Amazon.com's reviews give the impression that this novel might have some speculative or supernatural content. It might be marginal, but it seems to be there. I'm not defending it, mind you, just goin' by Amazon's reviews, and my copy of the condensed version, which implies that there is some. MLB 18:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is speculative content, make a new submission and enter it as NOVEL. The only reason I deleted it was because it was originally entered as NONGENRE, and having no spec-fic records would disqualify Sparks from the database completely. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I found this spoiler synopsis. If you intend on reading the book, don't read the synopsis. It might even spoil your reading if I say the novel is not eligible for the db based on this. Mhhutchins 18:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm about a third of the way through it and its not doing well to hold my attention. It looks like you will be right to have excised this novel from the database. MLB 10:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Talebones #2

Are you certain of the binding you provided in this record? A publication of 60 pages seems to differ from the ISFDB definition of pamphlet. If you're not sure, check out the list of bindings under "Print magazines" listed here and determine which one may better define the publication. If none are close you should enter "other" into the Pub Format field, and describe the publication in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If I read the guidelines correctly, if something is digest sized, but saddle-stitched, it should be considered a pamphlet. If this is wrong, then I will stand corrected. The page count is sixty-two pages as per the ISFDB guidelines, however I just had to leave the record after a few additions and corrections because my mother informed me that she was having problems with her car, and since it was about ten degrees below zero, and we’re still digging out of sixteen inches of snow, I just had to enter what I had to an already existing record and go and help her. I’ll finish the corrections and additions now. MLB 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All thumbs. I accidently hit the enter button, okay what I've done and I will finish this, including correcting the page count. MLB 19:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look again at the list that I linked for "Print magazines" you won't find "ph" as an option. What is its dimensions? If it is 5.5 x 8.5, it should be entered as "octavo". If it is 4.5 x 7, it should be entered as "digest". You can add in the notes that it is saddle-stitched. (Does that mean it is bound by thread?) Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you confirm that the three pieces on pages 30 and 31 are artwork? That conflicts with the notes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I trained as a printer for a couple of years, and saddle-stitched meant was anything that was stapled like a pamhlet. The magazine is 8.50 by 5.50 inches. Will fix. The poems are poems, color me embarrassed. Again, all thumbs am eye. MLB 19:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I always thought "saddle-stitched" meant it was bound with a thread. I have several pamphlets which are like this. (And the signatures of better produced books are also saddle-stitched.) Publications which are folded and bound with staples are "saddle-stapled". I think the Locus database and Miller/Contento use "s/s" for either binding. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am also going to merge this and this although it seems odd that a story would be reprinted in the same magazine only two issues later unless there was something wrong with the first printing, although the second issue of Talebones gives no clue as to what. MLB 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't merge them if they're not the same title, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to remove it when updating the later issue. Mhhutchins 22:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you correctly varianted the records. It happens rarely, but stories will be reprinted in subsequent issues if it was botched up when it was originally published, e.g. missing sentences or paragraphs, and even chopped off endings. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Just checked a secondary source and the story had the same title in both issues. I'll have to unvariant them and merge them to one record. Also saw that this was published in Issue #0 which was a preview of the magazine, so it's not unusual to reprint the story "officially" in a later issue. Mhhutchins 22:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Graveyard Honeymoon

About the note concerning the misogyny and racism in this publication: I'm not sure that we should make such statements in an ISFDB publication record, or actually anywhere in the database. Such subjective opinions vary from reader to reader and from one time period to another. Also, please check the ISBN which comes up as an invalid number. And if the title story is "non-speculative horror/suspense", it could be borderline and thus acceptable into the database as we try to be inclusive in such cases. (Consider Stephen King's Misery and Robert Bloch's Psycho.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

•About the racism: go to the review on Amazon here in which the reviewer gives a rather long-winded, and borderline-offensive, opinionated review of these three stories. There is even a quote that clarifies the racist basis of one of these stories. Check out the images for further clarification. I know the reviewer and more examples could be given. Normally I don't point these things out, but there is a real audience for these things, usually by literary historians. Minor racism is not mentioned in my notes, but extreme stuff, I think should be mentioned, and this IS NOT subjectism when it comes to "The Sharp Teeth of Satan", although, if you say eliminate I will, or move it to the story's synopsis page. (Yes, that creature in the background is an Asian child).

•Knowing the reviewer on Amazon, who is me, "Graveyard Honeymoon" IS NOT speculative, not even borderline, it's just another lurid man-in-a-rubber-mask story that was so common in the weird menace pulps. Although I didn't want to totally spoil the ending in the review.

•Yeah, that's the correct ISBN. Don't know why it don't work, can't use it on Amazon either. Do you want me to list a note stating that the ISBN is invalid? MLB 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether the book is misogynist, racist, or not, isn't the issue here. The ISFDB should be neutral in its inclusion of works, and the opinions of a work by ISFDB users should not be part of the database. (You don't see such statements on the works of John Norman!) That's why synopses should be objective and non-opinionated. If you believe the ISFDB should provide its users with warnings about the "incorrectness" of a work, please start a discussion on the Community Portal. Until the outcome of such a discussion, such warnings should not be part of a publication record.

To remove the "Bad Checksum" warning from the visible record, add the # symbol before the bad ISBN, and make a note that the stated ISBN is an invalid number. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. MLB 18:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nanok and the Tower of Sorrows

I'm holding your submission to add a new publication to this title which appears to be based solely on the Amazon listing showing a different cover. Amazon is notoriously bad about displaying the incorrect cover image, and I would not suggest creating a record based on this difference. Does your copy of the other printing have the same interior as that which is shown in Amazon's Look-Inside? Mhhutchins 00:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that the Look-Inside gives different cover art credit, so I'm going to accept the submission. (Here is the record.) Your note that it gives the publication date as March 2012 may be incorrect. That appears to be the copyright date. Also, looking on the back I see the publisher given as PMP Books, which is the same publisher as your copy. How is the publisher given in the interior of your copy? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have given the publication date as given in the Amazon listing, as this is the source for all other data in the record. That makes it an earlier printing than your copy. Mhhutchins 00:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a comparison of both copyright pages--

•Copyright March 2012 by Jack Badelaire (both copies)

•Cover Art & Design by Ander Plana--http:anderpeich.deviantart.com/ (Amazon) / Cover Design by Jack Badelaire / Cover Art "Barbarian Silhouete" by Yogy Ikhwanto @ iStockPhoto.com / Additional Artwork by Jack Badelair and D. Eldredge (mine)

•Published by Post Modern Pulp Books (Amazon)

•Published in the United States of America (both mine and Amazon's)

So there you go, different copyright pages. I'm not even sure that my initial listing is the first edition. Print on demand books, such fun. I hope this helps. MLB 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Talebones #9

Could the review on page 61 of this issue be for Passion Moon Rising? The 1997 reprint edition may be the subject of review. If so, please make the correction and link the review to the title. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Extrapolating credit

Re the reviews in this record: When someone signs a piece with just a first name, and it's obvious who the actual author is, it is better to enter the full name in the author field. Making them into pseudonyms would be overkill. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, will change. MLB 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Review in Talebones #3

Can you look at the review on page 38 of this publication for Intermix and let me know exactly what it is? If it's a review of a magazine, it should be removed, deleted, and replaced by an ESSAY type record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed your note about this review, and have changed it according to ISFDB standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Analog March 2014

Hello, in this verified pub, you attribute _Life Flight_ to Brad R. Torgerson. My copy seems to have the regular Brad R. Torgersen, can you have a look ? I've changed the title of Cramer's essay from Entablement to Entanglement. Hauck 12:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Yes, you are correct, I must have mistyped. Thanks for catching it, will change. MLB 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Druids

Re the cover art credit in this record: If anything isn't explicitly stated in a book, you should give the source in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm holding the submission to remove the art credit. Who requested that you remove it? I only asked that you note the source, which is standard ISFDB practice. Please re-read my message above. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Question asked in the Note to Moderator field

You asked "How do I change the dates of the original stories to 2012-00-00 as is stated on this first printing of them?" in the submission adding this record. That's not a good place to ask questions. If you had asked on the Help page before making the submission (as has been suggested in the past), you would have been told to update the original publication record before you cloned it. You could have changed all of the dates of the contents in one submission. Now that there are two publications with the same contents, you'll have to make separate submissions to update each title record with the correct date. Mhhutchins 01:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Hutchins, please stick your head out the nearest window and listen carefully, that's not thunder, but me banging my head against the nearest wall. ***Sigh***. Will do. But I'm going to have to do it later. MLB 02:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Time-Traveled Tales

I'm not sure if it's necessary to include the title page as part of the cover image. I've not seen it done before and am not sure why it's done here. Perhaps there's a reason I'm not comprehending. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I only did it to show that this was a limited edition, and not a figment of my demented mind, also note that the title page doesn't give a publisher credit. I have a better image and will substitute. MLB 18:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As a verifier of the record, and a reliable editor, you need not worry that anyone is going to question your credibility. Occasionally, I may question certain entries based on ISFDB standards. Feel free to add the statement concerning the book's limitation in the record's note field. I usually enter the limitation statement in quotation marks to make it clear how it is explicitly stated in the book, and not from a secondary source (which is still OK as long as it is sourced.) Thanks, and take this as a virtual handshake. :) Mhhutchins 19:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tales of Terror

Is the version of "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" in this publication a teleplay or a short story adaptation? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, is the Glossary an except or did you intend on disambiguating it with the title of the book? Mhhutchins 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" is a teleplay, I'll change the date. The Glossary is more like selections from the 1986 The American Heritage Student's Dictionary. Sorry. MLB 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've merged it with the record for the teleplay which is already in the database. I've also changed the title of the glossary to "Glossary (Tales of Terror)" and will add a note of the dictionary being the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then I will add the cover image. MLB 20:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AHMM, November 2001

I've removed and deleted the editorial entered into this record. We only include speculative fiction and illustrations of that fiction in non-spec-fic magazines. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Analog, April 2014

Re this record" Schroeder's credit is misspelled. Also, "The Reference Library" was entered twice, the second time as an interview. That will have to be removed and then deleted from the db. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So Don Sakers interviews himself as part of this Reference Library column? Mhhutchins 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I've seen this before, so I've listed this page and a half interview as an interview and I put a note about this in the note section, and then he reviews his quota of books. Jeffery D. Kooistra did this here a couple of months back. MLB 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Merging editor records into a magazine series

If you look at this editor summary page, you'll see that there is a record for the 2013 issues. In order to add the record for March-April 2013, just merge the two records. I rejected two attempts to do this earlier today with the records for Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine, but I guess you didn't get the message. (It helps to occasionally look at your rejected submissions. There's a link labeled "My Rejected Edits" on the home page. When there's a simple reason for rejecting a submission, it's not necessary to contact you on your talk page.) I went ahead and did the merges of AHMM for you. I'll leave you the EQ merge so that you can get some practice. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge all of the editor records that have the same year. In this case merge the two editor records which are dated 2013. Mhhutchins 00:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Go to this page and click on the link "Show All Titles" under the Editing Tools menu.
2. Check the two boxes for the records you want to merge. (They are the ones dated 2013.) Click "Merge Selected Records".
3. On the next screen, you have to reconcile the differences. Choose the title which is Year only. Choose to keep the series. Choose the earliest date. Click the "Complete Merge" button.

This is the procedure to add any un-series editor record to one which is in the same series and the same year. Mhhutchins 00:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I know that I've done this before, I think, let's hope I got it right this time. You've been very patient. MLB 00:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It can be confusing. Believe me, I screwed it up several times before finally catching on. Mhhutchins 02:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

EQMM, May 2013

The issue date was omitted from the title field of this record. It is also unnecessary to create a record for the column in which the review appeared, if you only want to record the review of a work of speculative fiction. Actually, you're not supposed to record any nonfiction published in a non-spec-fic magazine, regardless of their relation to the spec-fic field. One or two aren't going to hurt, but be careful that you (and other editors) don't use these as a precedence to record other sf-related works in non-sf publications. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I know. MLB 21:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I said "you're not supposed to record any nonfiction published in a non-spec-fic magazine, regardless of their relation to the spec-fic field." you continue to add reviews from EQMM. The more you add, the more other editors will use it as an excuse to add further nonfiction from non-spec-fic magazines. I'm going to ask you now to please stop adding the reviews as content records. You have the option of recording them in the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I will erase them. MLB 20:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As already noted above the issue date was omitted from the title fields of the latest 2011 issues. I added them for you: May 2011, June 2011. Please be sure to enclose them with later submissions. Stonecreek 09:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. MLB 09:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ladies of Horror

Re this book: is CreateSpace specifically credited in your copy of the book as the publisher? (They're usually a printer and distributor.) Also I'm not sure that it's necessary to disambiguate the titles of the biographies. That's only done in cases where there's a possibility of duplication and merging of two identically titled pieces by the same author. I don't see that as the case here. What do you think? Mhhutchins 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

•Disambiguation:I didn't know this until I looked up the printing date on Amazon.com that there is also a Ladies and Gentlement of Horror 2013 project from the same people, and some of the same authors are printed therein. I don't have these and I don't know if the format is the same. I did this to be on the safe side.

•There is no publisher given anywhere on or in this book. If a singular author, I usually just list the author as publisher, but since this is an anthology, I listed CreateSpace, which is what is on Amazon, as publisher. There are links within the book, but they all go back to MySpace pages. This may be a vanity project.Even the copyright page is barely functional as it merely states "Printed in 2008".

•Since there is also a 2013 series from the same person, Jennifer L. Miller, when I can, I'll create Ladies and Gentlemen of Horror 2008 as a series for the two listed books here, and then probably create a Ladies and Gentlemen of Horror as a parent series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MLB (talk • contribs) .

If there is one basic ISFDB rule it would be that you should record data that is present in the publication, and source all data that isn't. The notes should say that the publisher isn't stated and the source is Amazon. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Done and corrected. Hope that the note that I added is correct. MLB 07:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

F&SF Nov-Dec 2012

Can you check the cover art credit for this issue? The other verifier isn't active and I'm hoping you have easy access to your copy. Is it "Cory Catska Ench and Catska Ench"? We have several records for "Cory Ench and Catska Ench". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the cover image credit. MLB 07:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Talebones #25

Do you recall any strange circumstances around updating this record? I'm discovering that almost every one of the dozens of content records have duplicate publess records. (All of the reviews and interior art records.) It looks like the contents were removed and then re-entered. I'm in the process of going through each record and deleting the duplicates. If you can remember what happened, then we can figure out how to avoid this in the future. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the integrated submissions list I may have figured out what happened:

2014-01-29 06:58:25 2304244 - TitleRemove - Dwarzel - Dwarzel - Talebones #25, Fall 2002

2014-01-29 06:54:46 2304236 - PubUpdate - MLB - Dwarzel - Talebones #25, Fall 2002

2014-01-29 06:54:32 2304239 - PubUpdate - MLB - Dwarzel - Talebones #25, Fall 2002

This is in reverse order (look at the times, starting at the bottom). It looks like within a minute there were two different submissions from you to update the record accepted by the moderator. You may have double-clicked or, more likely, there may have been a hiccup in the system when accepting the submission. That happens when the system is extremely slow and the moderator when accepting the submission doesn't wait until it is completely integrated before moving back to the queue. Thus the submission stays in the moderator queue which is accepted again, meaning that all of the contents added in the first submission gets added again. It looks like the moderator, after accepting both of them, removed the duplicated titles. Unfortunately, he didn't delete all of those titles, which is what I've been doing the past hour. I've come to the conclusion that this wasn't caused by anything you did, just a quirk in the system, especially considering how slow the server has been lately. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope that it wasn't my fault. I'd like to finish updating this record (twenty-six more reviews!!!) and I don't want to screw it up or cause you any more problems. MLB 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea to only enter a limited number of contents per submission. I enter monthly issues of Locus, and I add the contents in at least three submissions: 1) all contents except the reviews, 2) half of the reviews, and 3) the remaining reviews. These submissions contain about 25 contents each. This method will save you a lot a frustration if a submission gets screwed up because of a single mistaken keystroke (some browsers are more tolerant than others of these errors and allow you to go back to the page while some return you to a blank entry form.) Mhhutchins 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Misaligned ISBN

Can you check to see if the ISBN-13 is given in this book? Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I have this book, but you caught me on the way to disconnect my computer. I'm getting a new one, and I'll going to see if I can get all of my files, etc. switched over to my new one. If I can readily find it, I'll see what the problem is and reconnect from a library. MLB 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know where I got the ISBN-10, but the ISBN-13 is correct. MLB 21:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Off on a Planet

A couple of questions concerning this record: You give the page count as "472+[70]" but note that there are 36 pages of illustrations. The OCLC record states that there are 35 plates. So the page count should be either "472+[36]" or "472+[36]". We don't count the backs of plates in the page count field. Also you say that the illustrations "are not included in the official page count." Do you mean that they are are on unnumbered pages (i.e. "plates")? I'm assuming that's what the bracketed number in the page count field are. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's thirty-five and not thirty-six, and as far as not counting the blank back pages of the plates, now I know. I will also have to erase the cover image. My inter-library copy does not have a dust jacket (as issued?) and does not have any cover art. Will fix immediately. Also, with some net surfing, I identified the artist as C. Laplante through the artist's signature. See this site for some artwork by the same artist with the same signature. MLB 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Now done, If accepted, let me know if anymore changes need to be done. This book is a loaner, and I won't have it for long. MLB 17:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Cover for Phantastic Book of Ghost Stories

I'm not sure why it took four attempts to upload this image. Except for being too large, the first attempt is as good as the last. And the final three are identical. As has been advised in the past, are you clearing out your cache (hitting "F5") to make sure that your computer isn't displaying the older version? Also, we try not to have the price sticker displayed on the cover if at all possible. I'll download the image and remove the sticker and then re-up it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the second OCLC record you link gives the publisher as Carroll & Graf (who was the publisher of the original 1990 trade edition.) It's better not to link to an OCLC record that provides data that doesn't match the copy of the book which is the basis of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my Moderator’s note, I am working from a whole new computer system here and some things that used to work on my old computer no longer exist on this one, including certain shortcuts that are on the ISFDB site, so I’m relearning some stuff all over again. Don’t even ask about the complete elimination of ALL of my music files, game files, puzzle files, shortcuts, and some of my word programs. My Louisville Slugger is looking very tempting about now. I left the price sticker on the cover as this is the only place in or on the book that gives the book’s price. Sorry for the mistake. MLB 18:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Since you're the verifier of the record, we don't need proof that the price you've provided is on a sticker. (Just as no image in the database is required to show the dustjacket's printed price.)

Sorry about your computer troubles. I feel for you. My computer is going on five years now and I can see it giving up the ghost any time soon. I've backed up most of my media files just in case. Even so, it's going to be hard to transition to another one. Mhhutchins 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Covers for nongenre magazines

The rules for nongenre magazines explain that we don't link images of their covers unless the art illustrates the fiction which prompted the record to start with. Is that true of the cover you want to add to this record. (Otherwise, everything was uploaded OK.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't downloaded much in the non-genre cover area, but I downloaded the cover to this issue, besides that this issue had content worth listing, because this cover shows the magazine's previous book reviewers, including F&SF editor Anthony Boucher (middle image) and because all of the authors shown have listings on this page. MLB 19:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept this one, even though it's clearly against the stated policy. It would mislead other editors to assume it's OK to upload covers for nongenre magazines with nongenre cover art. Please remember this for future uploads. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Classic Pulp Fiction Stories

I see that you've entered issues of this periodical giving the format as "A5". That is a non-US designation for periodicals with dimensions of 15 x 21 cm. (or exactly half the size of an "A4" sheet of paper.) If this is a US publication (which I assume it is based on the price) with dimensions of approximately 5.5 x 8.5 inches (roughly a sheet of standard US printer paper folded in half) then it would be classified as "octavo". The FictionMags Index designates them as "ph" which I assume is pamphlet, even though that abbreviation is oddly omitted on their list of abbreviated terms. What do you think? Mhhutchins 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, octavo sounds right, when I can I can go back and change the designation, I'll add a note about them being published in pamphlet form. Oh, and talking about small presses, there are separate listings for The Pulp Collector Press and Adventure House, I believe that they are the same publishing company, John Gunnison just changed the name of his publishing company when he changed the name of the Pulp Review to High Adventure. I'll check on this if you want. MLB 01:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You can add a note to each of the two publishers, but they can't be merged. We have to go by what's stated in the publication at the time it was printed.

You changed this one to "quarto". Is it twice as big? Also, check the date field. It's one month later than the title field date. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Every issue after that was also changed to "quarto" (measures 8.5 x 11 inches without a fold.) Mhhutchins 23:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, shouldn't all of the Asimov's and Analog's be changed when they went to a larger size? Of course, that would be a lot of work for "somebody". MLB 00:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In the Night Room

With respect to your comment in the note to moderator field: URLs should be entered using HTML link syntax (see Help:Using HTML in Note Fields for specifics). I've edited the note.

However, it looks like this link only works for those with accounts? If so, I question its inclusion for general use. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the British library system, not living there, so I just wanted to show that the British Library had a copy, but this may be redundant if the OCLC is shown. I don't know. MLB 23:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Family Pride

Re this publication: you should only link the OCLC record for the actual publication that is represented by the ISFDB record. Since this is a print book with a different ISBN, etc, it should not be linked to the OCLC record for another edition. Feel free to create a record for the ebook and link it to OCLC if that is the source for your data. Since the source for your data is the book itself, then it's unnecessary to link it to a source that provides data of another publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the HTML in the Note field is malformed. Mhhutchins 01:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed everything. MLB 02:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at how the Notes field of the record is displayed. This was caused by malformed HTML. If you're unable to correct it, let me know and I'll fix it. Mhhutchins 02:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that I got it right this time. MLB 02:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ex-communication

Re this publication: Are you certain that B/D/W/Y is an imprint, or just a graphic representation (logo) of the publisher's name? The use of a slash between two names is the ISFDB method of separating imprint from publisher. It appears that Broadway Books is an imprint of Crown Publishers, a division of Random House. If neither of those appear on the title page, then it can be entered as just Broadway Books. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is how it is represented on the title page:

• B\D\W\Y
• Broadway Books
• New York

At the time I couldn't find the backward slash on my fonts, I just did, but that's the way that it is listed. It could be a logo, but that's the way it was also listed on Worldcat. I'll change it. MLB 16:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I did a search on Amazon to see how it looks on the title page, and found it in the "Look Inside" of this publication. If you look at the copyright page, it states "Published in the United States by Broadway Books" and further down "BROADWAY BOOKS and its logo, B\D\W\Y, are trademarks of Random House." So they don't consider "B\D\W\Y" to be an imprint, or it would state something like "Published by B\D\W\Y, an imprint of Broadway Books..." The slash (surrounded by spaces) is an ISFDB standard for indicating the relationship between an imprint and its publisher. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Been gone for a couple of day, so sorry. Won't do it again. MLB 18:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Likely wrong varianting

Hello, Mark. I guess something went wrong with varianting Amazing Stories, December 1939: it would have been varianted to a SHORTFICTION by E. F. Russell, so I rejected the submission. Christian Stonecreek 19:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of issues with proposed variants

I have a couple of submissions for proposed variants on hold that seem to be mistaken:

• INTERIORART Jungle Stories, Spring 1945 by Gross to SHORTFICTION Touches by Benford.
• INTERIORART Black Gate, Fall 2005 by Krall to COVERART You Are Spider-Man vs. the Incredible Hulk by Zeck & Zimelman.

If you need info from either submission, let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on, I'm doing this right, but my computer seems to keep mixing up the numbers. I will fix. MLB 17:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In the first case you varianted the title record to the number for the publication record which contained the cover art (59322) But 59322 is also the title record for a work by Benford. It should have been varianted to the title record of the COVERART record (1706736). In the second case, you varianted the title record to the number for the artist (146377), when, I'm assuming, it should have been varianted to the number for the COVERART record (1197689). ISFDB record numbers are not unique unless they're in their own type of record. For example, there's title record 5000, publication record 5000, author record 5000, and title series 5000. (We don't have that many publication series yet, but eventually will.) Be sure to variant titles to title records only. You should cancel the submissions and try again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I've done all that now, and let's hope I got it all right. MLB 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Try again. I've given you the correct title record number above. Mhhutchins 18:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I can see why nobody has entered the content of this magazine before. If you don't mind, I'll do issues 11, 12, & 13 a bit later. I don't have 14, and 15 is a purely digital issue. MLB 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be because you're over-complicating the entry process, by adding so much detail, like a separate content record for the each game review instead of a single content for the essay, or adding the covers of magazines which are reprinted in an article, or each letter in a letter column. There's nothing in the standards that require an editor to enter content to this degree. If it's too difficult to do, just enter the basic data. That's always be an option. No one is gonna come down on you if you choose the less-detailed method. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Odyssey, Summer 1976

When crediting per a secondary source, a note needs to be added to the publication stating the credit source (typically worded like "TYPE credit per SOURCE"). I would add it as part of the approval, but your note to the moderator doesn't specify which Black Gate Magazine issue. Which issue is it? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue #10, Spring 2007, page 60, column 2, at the very top. MLB 17:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note added. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Black Gate, Spring 2007

If the piece of art on page 136 of this publication illustrates the story that starts on page 137, then the starting page for the story should also be 136. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Same situation with the stories on pages 33, 89, and 109. Mhhutchins 18:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, although this would make the Table of Contents wrong in several cases. ToC states that the story on page 33 starts on page 33, even if the illustration is on page 32. Ditto for stories on pages 89, 109, and 137. The table of contents gives the correct page number, it's just that the full-page illustrations for these stories are printed a page before the story, and I got careless, I guess. MLB 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard is:

Interior art as the first page of a story. If a magazine presents a story with artwork on the first page, but no text from the story, that page should still be counted as the first page unless there is no title, author's name, or other direct evidence that the artwork is part of the presentation of the story. If the table of contents lists the page with the artwork as the first page of the story, then use that page as the page number for the story as well as the artwork. If it is simply a page of artwork, with no text to indicate that it belongs to the story on the succeeding pages, and no indication in the table of contents that it is part of the story, then do not count it as the first page of the story.

Never ever, never use a publication's Table of Contents when entering content records in the ISFDB. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand, I went through this magazine one page at a time, that's how I got the page numbers of several stories wrong, and found all of the magazine cover reproductions. I have corrected all mistakes. MLB 18:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A question: in the notes you say "All magazine covers and their artists are often uncredited". Are all magazine covers uncredited, or are some of them uncredited? If the latter, then the note should read "Some magazine covers and their artists are not credited". Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Will correct. As a sidenote, maybe it's my computer, but some of the reviews don't have links, but the reviews are mentioned when you go to the book itself. Also, on the screen Chuck Palahniuk's name is misspelled, but in the contents field it is spelled correctly. Is this my computer? MLB 19:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You misspelled Palahniuk's name in the first submission to update the record. I corrected it so that I could link the review to the title record. If you're still seeing it misspelled, then you probably need to clear your cache. I also linked every review (5 of them) which didn't automatically link because your submission either had a variant title or variant/misspelled author credit, and the system wasn't able to match it. Clear your cache and you should see that all of the reviews are linked. Mhhutchins 16:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating pseudonyms

If you discover that a work is published under a non-canonical name, not only should you create a variant title, but you must also create a pseudonym. Because they are two different functions, doing one doesn't automatically do another. Look at the author page for Paul Berglund to see what I mean. Until he's been made into a pseudonym of Edward P. Berglund, there won't be a link from his page to the canonical author's page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected the interviewee of this interview. In cases where the author/artist is interviewed under a pseudonym, you correct the interviewee field (but not the title field.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, when you create a pseudonym, you must follow-up and variant all of the pseudonymous titles to the parent name. I did that for you for this record. Mhhutchins 15:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Pulp Tales Press reprint of Amazing, February 1942

Perhaps you weren't aware that there was already a record in the database for this reprint of Amazing, February 1942. It was easily found using the standard search. Mhhutchins 01:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, "a non-fact article" is usually entered as ESSAY. Almost all of the "Henry Gade" pieces in Amazing are in the database as ESSAY rather than SHORTFICTION. Some of them have been primary verified. Perhaps you and the other editors should get together to determine how they should be typed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. I know that there was another listing for this facsimile reprint, but I didn't see it until after I started mine. I thought mine better, but that's no excuse for sloppiness. I'll finish mine, and erase the other as it's not verified.

About the Henry Glade story. It is by my definition a story, an unknown narrator takes us on a tour of Gatos, a city in a crater of Ganymede, and we are introduced to the cat-women society that occupies it. The whole piece sounds like a synopsis for a much longer story. I don't know what the other pieces by "him" are like, (I suspect Glade is Palmer, but go and prove it), but the Ziff-Davis pulps that I have are often peppered with these micro-fictions. I wonder how many of your verifiers actually have read many of these pulps cover to cover, which I did, often to the detriment of the pulp itself. MLB 16:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask them, as I suggested. Perhaps Donald Day didn't read them either, as he didn't index them in his reference book. (He chose only to index the fiction in the SF magazines.) BTW, none of the other titles have a parenthetical subtitle, and neither does this one in the original listing. Is it titled "A City on Ganymede (Moon of Jupiter)" on its title page? In Miller/Contento, it's listed just as "A City on Ganymede" (where it's also listed as an article.) Mhhutchins 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's listed on the title page as "A City on Ganymede" with "(Moon of Jupiter)" directly underneath it. If the piece were "A City on Ganymede" then underneath it "A Story of a City on a Moon of Jupiter" it would have been included. It can be removed, but that's what it sez. MLB 19:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the editor added that bit of information because he felt that his reading audience wasn't aware of just exactly what or where Ganymede was. Whether that's actually part of the title is debatable. I leave it to you to decide how it should be entered. Mhhutchins 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I took your advice and I contacted the other editors about the Henry Glade titles. If any respond, I'll ask them about this, or they'll see this post and answer. I'll leave it as is for now. I can always remove the subtitle later. MLB 20:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Miller/Contento lists Henry Gade as a house pseudonym, so we probably can't determine the actual author absent additional documentation. They also list the items attributed to Gale as either vignettes, articles or miscellaneous. Looking at the titles, some of these could be essays (e.g. Cable Train of Tomorrow could be an essay speculating on future technology). Without reading the items, I'd defer to the classification of the secondary sources. The publications that I've verified containing ESSAYs by Gade have all been verified by other editors as well. If the other verifiers think these are more properly SHORTFICTION, I won't object to their being changed. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 13:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Gift and Scream

I accepted your modifications to The Gift, but I restored it to the Scream series based on the information from Locus1, and I added a note about that as the source of the series info. I'm not sure what's best, but Amazon also thinks it's part of Scream, so I'm thinking the publisher must have marketed it that way. Maybe you could embellish the notes with some of the details you had in your note to the moderator. Thanks. --MartyD 00:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

All I can say is that Locus is wrong. I based this entry on my copy of the book. Nowhere, anywhere does this book say it is part of the Scream line. It may have been meant to have been part of that line, but it was not published as such. I can only list what is in or on this book. I will put in a note stating this. MLB 00:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Check this out. I'm going to try to contact him and ask about it. Stay tuned. --MartyD 03:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I got back from Sidney Williams:

Hi,

Nice to hear from you. Happy to help. The original edition was definitely part of the Scream line. Each Scream title was a stand alone story under the Scream banner.

It's now available in e-book edition from Crossroad Press without Scream branding.

My best,

Sidney

I don't quite know how to reconcile that with what you see in the book you have, but at least we know Locus and Amazon are not making something up. I wonder if yours could be a re-issue of some sort. --MartyD 13:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it took a couple of days, but I got scans of everything. If you go here you will see what a Scream title by Michael August/Sidney Williams looks like. If you go here you will find a gallery of images from my copy of The Gift. There is a front cover, back cover, title page, and copyright page, in fact, the author has also downloaded a cover image. The copyright page states my copy is the first edition. The last page of the book advertises Somebody's Watching along with an excerpt. Neither mentions Scream. I have also wasted my time reviewing this book here. If anybody has a cover scan or proof that this book was officially a Scream title I would like to see it. Anyway, this is not something I want to fight about. Maybe there's a promo copy out there with a different cover, all I can do is present my evidence and move on. MLB 00:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm just trying to figure out if there should be two records or the one. I've asked for some help. --MartyD 00:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This is how I would do it. It's pretty obvious to me that "Scream" should be a publication series. The series data should be removed from the title records and added to the publication records. Then create a new publication record for The Gift based on data from Locus, Amazon, and the author. Leave MLB's record as it is, because it is obviously not part of the "Scream" publication series. The database will then contain two publication records for this title, one primary verified and the other verified only through secondary sources. Mhhutchins 01:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me. I was mistaken. "Scream" is already a publication series. I see no problem with having two publication records, one in the series and the other not. Mhhutchins 01:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have done as I suggested and created a new record, and then removed the publication series from MLB's record. Mhhutchins 01:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Henry Gade

I read through a couple of Gade's stories and since their main purpose is to describe the painting on the back cover, I'm reluctant to classify them as fiction. I'm more inclined to classify them as extended captions. It wouldn't hurt to bring up the issue on the Community Portal.--Rkihara 02:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic Novels Magazine, July 1948

Please confirm the credit given for this piece. Our records show only Lawrence did the cover art for that issue of Fantastic Novels Magazine. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 06:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I mistakenly used his real name instead of the canonical one, I'll correct. MLB 19:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The question remains: who is Mala Mastroberte? How is she credited in the reprint? Mhhutchins 21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidently she's a freelance photographer and model, I had never heard of her before I read this magazine, and she likes to insert herself old pulp covers by posing in exact replications of the women that are featured on the pulp's cover. The cover image found here shows an example. I don't count this as a variant as it has been substantially altered, but except for her imposing herself into the pulp cover, it is an exact reprinting of the original. I listed it as a original work, and it part of a portfolio of six of her works, the rest of them being altered pulp detective covers. MLB 22:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Lawrence credit, and then noted in the title record the source of the art. Mhhutchins 01:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you're curious, I managed to get a scan of this piece of artwork and I downloaded it here if you want to check it out. MLB 21:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I guess she'd have to have a certain kind of figure to pull off that stunt! Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

James Reasoner

James Reasoner has many more titles than James M. Reasoner, so I wonder why you want to make this review into a variant of the less-credited author. If you believe these are the same authors, then it would be more "reason"-able to leave James Reasoner as the canonical author, and variant the titles of the middle-initialed author to him. Mhhutchins 01:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, is this review the same one which appears in Blood 'n' Thunder? I don't see that it indicates anything speculative fictional about the story. Because it concerns "spiritualism" doesn't mean it's "supernatural". Mhhutchins 01:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In the review it is mentioned that the drum beats itself, and that there are many spooky things happening in the story. Maybe I'm reaching, Reasoner doesn't give a clue as to whether or not there are real ghosts involved. Thought I'd list it to be safe, but I can excise it if you prefer. No, as to switching the review to James M. Reasoner, leave as is, unless you want it gone. MLB 00:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't asking that you change the review, only to question why you're varianting it when it is credited to, what seems to me, the canonical author. I'm going to reject the submission and make "James M." into the pseudonym. Mhhutchins 01:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Beholder

Can you confirm that the Amazon cover image linked to this record is correct? It's the same one used for the Mills & Boon UK edition with their signature ampersand. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mine's in storage and it will take a couple of days to dig it out, but at that time I would not have verified anything with an alternate cover than what I have, and I have no Mills & Boon books in my collection. As you may have noticed, I'm always adding cover scans, and if mine were different, I would have changed it. MLB 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Amazon image may have matched your copy at the time you verified the record. Amazon is notorious for updating images to later printings, which is what I suspect in this case. Mhhutchins 01:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Secret Passage

Please confirm the publication series number of this record. The cover image gives it as 777. Mhhutchins 00:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And how is it different from this record you verified back in 2012? Mhhutchins 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm holding the submission to change the title and publication date of this record, even though it keeps the same ISBN, page count, price, etc. Not to mention that it's under the wrong title record (it would have to be unmerged if I accept the submission.) An explanation here would sure help. Mhhutchins 02:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't feeling all that great, and I was holding both of the books in this series in my hands when I created this entry and I think that I got information from the two confused. I'll cancel it and start all over. Sorry. MLB 18:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle Scars

I presume this is a print version, so the publication date would be 2014-02-00 as stated in your notes. Mhhutchins 00:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Series data incorrectly added to CHAPTERBOOK title record

I removed the series data that was added to this CHAPTERBOOK title record, and added it to the SHORTFICTION title record per ISFDB standards. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Asimov's June 2014

Can you confirm that the reviewer in this publication uses a non-canonical form of his name "Peter J. Heck"? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Y'know, you would think that I would have noticed something like that, but yes, his column is signed Peter J. Heck this time around. Spot checking a past issue, the February 2014 issue, which was signed as by Peter Heck, this was either an accident, or a new direction for him. Only the future will tell. Well, I guess some changing is due. MLB 19:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Julius Accused Rejection

My apologizes. I rejected your edit of adding the series by mistake. I fumbled my mouse and clicked the reject button when I wasn't intending to. I have gone back and made the edit on your behalf. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Life happens ;-). MLB 23:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking to image files on unapproved websites

I'm sure this is been brought to your attention before. We can not link to images on other websites without their permission. This includes author photos, and especially Wikipedia. That particular site is so adamant about deep-linking they could retaliate by removing all links from their articles to the ISFDB. I've removed the image linked to the author page for Paul Philippoteaux. Mhhutchins 17:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that Wiki was approved. Again, so sorry. This brings up another question that I've been meaning to ask. Is it allowed to post pictures of authors that have been scanned from the backs of their books? And, if so, how do you do this? If not, the question then becomes moot. MLB 17:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Shock Totem 6

Because all pages in a magazine are counted, even the covers, the page count of this record must be incorrect. Mhhutchins 21:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Same situation with Shock Totem 5. Mhhutchins 21:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I forgot to count the covers. However, by my handcounting #5 has nineteen pages that are blank, and/or contain full-page ads that are all at the end of this magazine. #6 has twenty-five of the same. I've been told several times not to count these unnumbered page, so I didn't. MLB 21:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am correcting the page count and adding a note to explain the odd page count. MLB 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an ISFDB standard to count ALL pages in a magazine. Naturally, we don't exclude advertising pages in the page count field of magazine records. (Who's gonna go through a magazine, count all the pages with ads and remove them from the page count?). If it were a book, we would not count the pages with ads. The only way to get around this is to change the type from MAGAZINE to ANTHOLOGY. But I don't think an anthology would contain that many pages of ads. It's up to you. (But you'd have to do the same for all "issues" of this publication.) Mhhutchins 22:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear and obey, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I'm working on issue seven, when I'm done I'll go back and re-corrected everything. MLB 22:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Cover scan for Apostle

What seems to be the problem with this file? You've uploaded it four times and each time the upload was as successful as the last. Perhaps you're forgetting to remove the previous file from you cache by hitting F5 on your keyboard? Mhhutchins 00:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's my computer (possible), but the image that I see is just the front cover, the one that tried to download was a wrap-around cover image showing the front, spine, and back cover artwork. Reminds me, again, why I miss Freas artwork. MLB 19:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're seeing the old file (just the front cover, and not the wraparound cover art that I'm seeing), then you need to clear your browser's cache. As has been explained before (the last time here), the ISFDB doesn't auto-refresh each time you visit the same page or call up the same image. It pulls the file(s) from your browser's cache. Each browser has a different way of clearing its cache. My browser (Google Chrome) clears by hitting the "F5" key. Yours may differ. Read this Wikipedia article about how to refresh your browser. I will delete the extra copies of the file that you uploaded. Mhhutchins 20:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have trouble in the future seeing a file that you uploaded, please post a message on the ISFDB:Help desk. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fangoria

Because this is a non-genre magazine, I removed all content but the fiction. I also removed the cover art credit and changed the editor credit, per ISFDB entry standards for non-genre magazines. If you have any questions about entering these please ask at the Help Desk before submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but I was only following the lead of this entry, which somebody else has approved. All this time and I'm still learning. MLB 20:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the moderator who accepted that wasn't up on the rules, and even worse, there's no way of knowing who created the file because it wasn't primary verified. I'll delete the record. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Mhhutchins 22:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Review for Stuff Out'a My Head or ...Mind

I created a publication record to link this review to the title, but discovered that the published book has a different title than given in the review record. Can you confirm that's the title given in the publication? If so, please update the review record to correct the book's title and note the review's error. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this book is listed as Stuff Out' A My Mind. Looking at the publishing particulars it seems that this is the same book. The mistake seems to be on the publisher's part. I'll create a note about how the book is reviewed under a different title. MLB 20:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding data to F&SF

I added the price to this and page count to this. -Doug/Vornoff 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Primary" verification vs. "Primary (Transient)" verification

The latter is used when you have the book in your hand and can verify the data in the record, but will not be keeping the publication in order to answer any future questions that another editor may have about it. (For example, you've borrowed it from a library, or you plan to sell it or give it away. The difference is explained on this help page.)

If your copy doesn't have a dustjacket, you can do a Primary verification of the record, but add this note "The PV1 copy is jacketless, so the _________ can not be verified." Just fill in the blank: price, cover art credit, etc, whatever field can not be confirmed. You can a source for those fields in the Note field, e.g. "Price from Tuck", or "Cover art credit from the artist's website".

A question about your submission to add records for introductory essays to this record: are these actual essays or just sectional headings? If the former, I'll accept the submission, but remove the disambiguation. As we've discussed before, disambiguation of titles is only necessary for generically titled works ("Introduction", "Afterword", etc.). If the introduction is titled anything other than "Introduction", then there's no need to disambiguate it. Mhhutchins 17:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that the same introductory essays are included in the record for the paperback reprint. I'll leave a note on the primary verifier's talk page about the disambiguation. In this case, instead of adding new content records which have to be merged, it would have been better to import them to the hardcover record. 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The PV editor of the paperback edition has asked that I approve the submission and he will merge the titles and remove the disambiguation. Please keep in mind that we now have the option to import individual titles without importing all of the contents from another publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Now I know. Still learning. MLB 18:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Writers of the Future #29

If you'd left the date field blank for the contents you added to this record they would have the same date as the publication record. That's why all of them show a date of "(2013)" which is usually an indication that the contents were published before the date of this publication. Mhhutchins 20:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, are you certain that the essay "The Manuscript Factory" isn't the same one published in Volume 12? Mhhutchins 20:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

About the dates, now I know. Besides, I'm obsessive compulsive, I guess I'm never sure if it's gonna be listed unless I actually do it myself. But thanx for the information.

About the "Manuscript Factory". Don't know. My copy of #12 is long into storage. I could type up the first and last paragraphs of my copy, and Viter, the primary verifier of #12, could check his copy. All I know is that on page 128 this article is listed as having been written in 1935, and is listed on the copyright page, as having been copyrighted in 2010. Although, considering it's something by Hubbard, the copyright date does not preclude it having been published pre-2010. #12 f'r instance was published in 1996. Your da boss, let me know how to proceed. MLB 20:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Gathered Dust

Submission to clone the hardcover edition for this "limitless" (whatever that means) edition accepted. It would have been better to just correct the content titles of the hardcover before cloning. That record wasn't verified, which means the contents are not verified. I can't imagine they'd be titled any differently. Now I'll go back and merge the new content records you added with those already in the database. Mhhutchins 23:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that some of these first appeared under a slightly different name. I've imported the contents from the trade paperback edition to the hardcover edition. And I'll make variants of those titles which are different. Mhhutchins 23:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Dark Regions puts out most of their books in numerous editions, leatherbound, limited hardcover, signed trade paperback, and regular trade paperback, etc. When one of their books states that it is limitless, I'm assuming that it's just an ordinary tp, not signed, numbered, or anything. I just record what is stated. I have a lot of them that state that they signed and limited to (fill in the blank) number of copies.

As I don't have the hardcover, I didn't think it correct of me to tinker with an entry that I haven't seen. Sorry. Now I know, I think. MLB 21:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Review for Last Dangerous Visions

Re the "review" on page 100 of this publication: It's not possible to review a book that doesn't exist. Perhaps it's an essay about the never-published anthology? Also, the "sidebars" of pages 93 and 100 are either part of the article or they have separate titles. If the former, they should be deleted. If the latter, they should be retitled. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to list the sidebars then. They are clearly separate, but, they are also part of the article, as all sidebars are, and they are untitled. Is there some protocol for this? You're right, the sidebar for Last Dangerous Visions isn't a review proper, although considering how many of the stories have been published by now, a decent speculative review could be done, but more of a listing and a commentary. The listing of the stories that would have appeared in this "lost" anthology are different in some cases than those listed here. I know that I'm being bothersome about this, but . . . MLB 18:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sidebars are part of an article. You can note them, but they shouldn't be a separate content unless they have their own title. If the piece on Last Dangerous Visions is not a sidebar (having its own title), it should be typed as an ESSAY, not a REVIEW. Yes, a review of the contents of what would have been Last Dangerous Visions could be done, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Mhhutchins 20:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Analog, July-August 2014

Re this record: I'm not sure why a magazine would have an LCCN, much less why it should be for a 1977 novel by John Christopher. Mhhutchins 05:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't either, except that I use a lot of templates, and it was some data that I had forgotten to erase. I will correct it, and add a cover image. MLB 22:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Highlight(s)

I changed "Highlight" to "Highlights" in this record. Mhhutchins 19:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OCLC

When entering an OCLC to a record's note field, use the standard "OCLC: 123456", adding a colon. This will help if we ever create a field dedicated to record numbers of other databases. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, if it's not been brought to your attention before, it's is unnecessary to give an OCLC record, or link it in a publication record which has a valid ISBN. The system automatically links these records under the "Other Sites" menu to the left of the record. Mhhutchins 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, have I been doing something wrong all of this time? And would the casual user of this site know this? MLB 03:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're not doing anything wrong. It's just unnecessary to link OCLC records on WorldCat to ISBN records for publications with valid ISBNs. When a publication doesn't have an ISBN then it's helpful (but not mandatory) to link it to OCLC manually (the system can only link using ISBNs). If you're doing a primary verification of a publication record, it seems to me to be useless to link to another database as a secondary source. The purpose of linking a source in the Note field of non-ISBNed books, and/or non-PVed records, originally, was to provide an easy way for users to know from where the data came. Somewhere along the line, some editors decided to give the OCLC record (and in some cases link to it) in all of their records. Newer editors come along and think this is the standard or even required of them. I personally feel it is a waste of time and effort. Still, it's up to the individual to decide how they spend their editing time.

To answer your second question: It's possible that a casual user may not notice the menu on the left side. I'm surprised someone who's an editor hasn't played around with the menu. But that's just me... Mhhutchins 04:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem variant submissions

I have three make-variant submissions on hold that have problems (I've left them to keep the details):

• Interiorart Galaxy Science Fiction, November 1955 to Cover: Galaxy Science Fiction, November 1954. I can't tell if this is a mismatch or a typo in the interiorart title.

• Interiorart The Book on the Edge of Forever to essay A Modern View of Science Fiction. Mismatch.

• Interiorart Space Adventures (Classics), Spring 1970 to shortfiction Scars. Mismatch.

You can cancel, or I'm happy to reject. If the first one's a typo in the interiorart title, let me know and I'll accept and fix. Thanks. --MartyD 01:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll cancel them and do them over again, let's hope that I get them right this time. MLB 02:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

They looked good. Thanks for fixing. --MartyD 02:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dark Valley

Did you intentionally mean to say "urban" fantasy elements? Sounds like a story set in the west would have "rural" fantasy elements if anything. :) Perhaps it should just say "fantasy elements"? Mhhutchins 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to add a colon after "OCLC" just as you do "LCCN". You should also mention that the OCLC record is for the May 1941 printing, not for the printing in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Advice taken. MLB 17:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about merges

You asked "For some reason the links for mergers that I've done for the anthology 100 Hilarious Little Howlers aren't working, am I doing something wrong?"

First, you shouldn't ask questions in the Note to Moderator field. They should be asked on the Help Desk page.

Second, did you clear your cache? Mhhutchins 05:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe I did so, and after typing up the content for this anthology I got this three times and I wasted several hours. I'm this close to just giving up on this book and the other thirty or forty stories. Life is too short. MLB 06:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking reviews

Review records should be linked to the title record of the work they review, not the publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, reviews of magazines can only be linked to the editor record (the publication's title reference), which, in most cases, has been combined into annual records. So 90% of the time, it's going to be impossible to link a magazine review to the specific issue which is being reviewed. Mhhutchins 19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Now I know, so I hope I got it right this time. MLB 20:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Chimeraworld #4

Should the publisher of Chimeraworld #4 be Chimericana Books as opposed to "Chimeramericana Books"? Thanks for checking. PeteYoung 23:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Pete: Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Over the last couple of weeks I, and my mother, have had nothing but doctor and physical therapist visits. Sometimes two on the same day. Plus I am working on getting a crown on one of my teeth, the THIRD in six months. I'm sure that doctors and therapists are all the salt of the earth, good to their families, kind to animals, and generous to strangers, but I am weary of waiting rooms.

PLUS, don't mess with the Queen Mum on her bingo day. So, I have finally found my copy of Chimeraworld #4 and yes, on the copyright page, no publisher is listed on the book's title page, Chimericana Books is listed twice as publisher, as it is listed on the back cover, and the on the book's spine. I don't know how I got that wrong. Will change. MLB 19:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Walking Dead

Sorry about your submission's going neglected for so long. I don't know why no one got to it. Anyway, a couple of questions for you: I see you entered an earlier issue as just The Walking Dead, November-December 2012, whereas on this submission you've included the "The Official Magazine" subtitle, plus issue number. Just judging by the covers, it seems these should be consistent. Which way do you prefer? (If you want a suggestion: I would exclude the subtitle and include the issue -- The Walking Dead, #1 November-December 2012 and The Walking Dead, #8 Spring 2014 -- since the issue number is prominent on the cover). Second, I see there's another Kirkman interview. Do you know, or recall, whether this is a different interview and seems to be a recurring feature? If so, we should include "(The Walking Dead #n)" or "(The Walking Dead, [DATE])" to disambiguate. If it's a re-run of the same interview, we'd of course merge them instead. Thanks. --MartyD 13:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The first interview was done from my copy of the magazine, the last one entered was done from a copy that I was giving to my brother as a gift, and I no longer have it, I was literally creating this entry just before I left my household before traveling to his house. It is a continuing feature however. I can correct every problem with the eighth issue if you release it. Although, your idea to eliminate the "The Official Magazine" subtitle for the eighth issue is a good one. I'll add the #1 to the first issue and disambiguate the Kirkman interview. MLB 02:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I accepted it. I did not change anything, leaving it to you. If you'd rather I did some of it to avoid waiting for the approval cycles, let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 10:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Don't forget to change the title records, too, unless you're planning to turn those into the "- YEAR" style. --MartyD 10:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to remove the "review" from the publication record, and then delete it from the database. (Two separate submissions are required.) Mhhutchins 23:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any real fiction in any of the previous issues, but I only own the first issue. Other than correcting all of my mistakes, which were done in haste, I'll leave any future changes to somebody who has a complete run of this magazine, and who can check out their contents. MLB 00:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Web of the City

If you want to take over the P1 slot for our verified pub, please go ahead! Thanks. PeteYoung 13:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Harcourt Brace

I changed the publisher back to "Harcourt Brace" in this record, which is the ISFDB designation for the publisher's output from 1992 until 2000. "Harcourt Brace & Company" would be confused with the publisher name from 1922 until 1961 before it merged with World Publishing to become "Harcourt, Brace & World" and then later, from 1970 until 1992 when it was known as "Harcourt Brace Jovanovich". After 2000, the company became simply "Harcourt" until it was purchased by Houghton Mifflin to form "Houghton Mifflin Harcourt". (I love keeping track of publisher's histories.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And around and around we go, everybody do the publisher's hokey-pokey. MLB 16:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Venom Business

Re this publication record: I'm not sure "HCC-MC5" is a publication series. It looks more like a catalog number. Publication series are usually more prominently placed on the cover of a publication. Mhhutchins 01:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It's also on the copyright page:

• A HARD CASE CRIME BOOK
• (HCC-MC5)
• First Hard Case Crime edition: November 2013

I'm assuming that these trade paperback Michael Crichton re-issues (including one that had already been reissued previously in a mass-market edition) are a sub-series of the other Hard Case Crime novels, and as such, are given a separate numbering. At present, I only have one of these Lange/Crichton reissues, so I can't confirm this, but when I can afford it, I plan on getting Drug of Choice, which sounds like it has sf elements, then I'll know for sure. Maybe there are some Crichton collectors out there that would know for sure. MLB 16:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll remove "HCC-MC5" as the name of a publication series until there is more convincing evidence. Mhhutchins 22:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet", #15

Based on your verification of issue #14, and the similar style of notes, I'm guessing that you added all of the detail in the notes to issue #15. However, if so, you did not do a verification of it. I encourage you to go back and do a primary verification of it. Chavey 21:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Cemetery Dance #71

Please confirm the title being reviewed in this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that the title was lifted right off of Amazon? But, yeah, the title seems to be The Haunted Mansion Project: Year Two by Rain Graves, edited by Loren Rhoads. Not by Rain Graves AND Loren Rhoads. I just listed what was there. Rain Graves is evidently a creator of the series, and a contributor, much like Harlan Ellison was for Medea: Harlan's World. Honestly, I am totally unfamiliar with this book and I know nothing more than what it says in the review. MLB 02:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Serial for The Hunting of the Unicorn

Re this publication: I changed the date of the serial to the date of the issue in which it is published, per standard ISFDB rules. A question: do the front and back covers illustrate a piece of speculative fiction? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to, I have yet to read the serial. I'll download it and leave it to you to okay. MLB 20:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have approved the other installments, changed the serials' dates to 1988 and set up variant titles. Everything else looks good, thanks! Ahasuerus 04:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Problems with uploading?

I'm wondering why there are 8 uploads of the same identical image? If you're having trouble, ask for help. It will save both us time and effort. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

My computer is a bit funky. I had to restart it and clean out my browser again. It still manages to mess up some images however, but everything seems fine now. Thanks. MLB 20:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If you've uploaded an image file and can't find it, please inquire at the Help Desk before making another attempt to upload it. Thanks. Mhhutchins

The Further Adventures of Solar Pons

I've made a few changes to Copper's The Further Adventures of Solar Pons: I've corrected the page count and added the Ellison essay. I've also added a note about the first printing and links to LOC and Worldcat. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 14:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to see that a book like this is still in somebody's library. Dublin? Cool. MLB 01:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ellison's Web of the City

I added a link to the Worldcat record to the notes for Ellison's Ellison's Web of the City. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 23:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hitchcock's, Sep 2014

Re this record: You note that "Sincerely, Mr. Hyde" is a Jekyl and Hyde story, but did not create a content record for it. Mhhutchins 03:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I work from templates, for some reason my computer copied the wrong notes. I'll change everything. Sorry. MLB 03:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reviews of graphic novels by non-qualifying authors

I changed the review of Battling Boy in this record to an ESSAY, per ISFDB standards. Mhhutchins 19:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed that. I was trying to catch up on the stuff that I normally list. Thanks for catching that. MLB 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Shock Totem

Are the holiday issues numbered as you propose in the submission to add a sub-series? Where did the 4.5 and 8.5 come from? Mhhutchins 03:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

From Amazon as far as I can tell, these numbers are not on my print copies. Somebody with an e-version of these books will have to see if 4.5 and 8.5 are in those books. Both of the print versions are numbered as I listed them. I checked Dwarzel answer to my query, and it seems that the Kindle version is different. If you go here you can see my Amazon images and see how the books are numbered. You can query him and ask if his kindle has the 4.5 and the 8.5, although they can still be individually listed as a sub-series. MLB 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

So if the kindle and the print versions are different then what? MLB 02:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've accepted the submissions to add a subseries. Please change the title field of the publication record to reflect how it is titled in your copy of the publication. Don't change the title field of the title record until we determine if the ebook has a different title. Mhhutchins 02:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncredited art

Re this publication: Do you see any value whatsoever for the creation of records for uncredited art works which are not used to illustrate an associated work? I ask this in all sincerity because I don't. They only wind up on an summary page with thousands of other "uncredited" work. They clutter the contents section of a publication record, making it difficult for the user to see the contents of substance. Look at the publication record which I linked to above and imagine what it would look like without all of those INTERIORART records. You could just add a note that there are X number of uncredited illustrations throughout the publication, even providing the page numbers if you want, in the Note field. If these works were actually credited to an artist I could see a reason for creating individual content records. Otherwise, I can't see it. Perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The only artist who has had a consistent presence in this magazine is Mikio Murakami, and I suspect that sooner or later they will be identified as works by him. I listed them to be complete, I'm so OCD, but if you want the credit changed then I can do that. MLB 03:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Publication format

Re this record: If a publication doesn't fall comfortably within any of the available choices, please choose the one at the very end labeled "other" and then describe it in the Note field (as you did here.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I disambiguated the second illustration by Kaye. Mhhutchins 01:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

For the first, now I know. For the second, thanks. MLB 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I misspelled Avon Camelot for Wayside School is Falling Down, I will correct it and add a cover image. MLB 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I corrected the publisher name, and also corrected the capitalization in the title. (All verbs are capitalized, regardless of their length.) Mhhutchins 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Silverstein: Janna vs Jenna

Hi, all instances of Jenna Silverstein have been verified/made by you, and I see a striking resemblance with Janna Silverstein (e.g. Black Ink). Could you please check your Jenna's again?--Dirk P Broer 11:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, searching now. It seems like I just had it around here. So disorganized. MLB 00:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Still looking, I'm pretty sure they are the same person, but I don't know if the misspelling is my hamfisted keyboard pounding, or the magazine's mistake. MLB 19:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to locate these issues right now, I will deverify until found. MLB 23:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Cemetery Dance, #71

There's an erraneous page count in Cemetery Dance #71. My copy has 108 pages including front and back covers. Can you confirm, thanks. --Jorssi 16:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where my head's been at lately, seeing way too many doctors lately, I guess. Correcting page count now. MLB 23:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Valigursky

Please see this discussion regarding covers by Edward Valigursky. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 01:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ekaterina Sedia's Timka

You have verified this pub which contains a Timka and this pub which contains another Timka. Did they repeat this story? If so, they should be merged. If not, then notes should be added to each indicating they are different. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I am so disorganized. I noticed this duplication just before you did, and started my search of Indiana Jonesian proportions and found both volumes three and four of Zombies vs Robots, and somewhere around here I have volumes one and five, but I digress. The story "Timka" in volume four seems to be a word-for-word reprinting of the story in volume three. Very odd to print a story as such in two consecutive original volumes of an original anthology series, but, there you go. Not a continuation, and not a serial. I will merge at once. Thanx for holding my feet to the fire. MLB 14:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange Tales of Mystery and Terror, March 1932

I noticed you omitted the essay entitled "The Wizard Merlin" on pg. 63 of this pub" but have entered the others. Was that intentional? Vornoff 05:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is another filler article. No matter how hard I try I seem to keep missing something. No I didn't intentionally exclude this essay. I'll add it immediately. I've picked up a number of facsimile pulp reprints over the years. Adventure House doesn't update their site very often, but you might try Pulp Tales Press. To quote an old Broadway song "If I were a rich man . . . " Again, thanks for the info. MLB 14:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Primeval Cover Art

Cover artist added to your verified Primeval based on artist's website. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Analog, January/February 2014

My ebook version shows the Turzillo piece titled "Product Recalls" to be a poem, not a short story. It is also listed as a poem on the analogsf.com website. <Funslinger 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)>