User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2014May-Aug

Flower for Algernon

According to the 53rd printing, this record was printed in Nov. 1972 TAWeiss 01:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll update the record and give a source for the publication date. Mhhutchins 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Dziemiamowicz

Found this while looking something else up. Is Stefan Dziemiamowicz a misspelling of Stefan Dziemianowicz? MLB 20:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a typo. Thanks for finding it. I'll make the corrections. Mhhutchins 22:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo of William Golding

Hello. I've uploaded a photograph of William Golding from Wikimedia Commons, but the base doesn't seem to have a template corresponding to the licence : {{CC BY-SA 3.0 NL}}. I'm not too sure how to go about this. Thanks for your help. Linguist 09:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

That template is not on the ISFDB, and will have to be created. I don't know how to write them, so it would be best to post such request on the ISFDB:Community_Portal. Mhhutchins 17:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

An equivalent template (Template:CC-by-sa-3.0-NL) has been created based on ISFDB's existing naming conventions for CC templates. It might make sense to make redirects matching the Wikicommon's names. You can always find the existing template names at Category:Image License Tags. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Linguist 09:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

Other Worlds 1 - Roy Torgeson

Check page 17 of Other Worlds 1. You'll find the cover artist credited.SFJuggler 05:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Found it. Thanks. I'll update the record, but provide the correct spelling of the artist's name, which Torgeson incorrectly gives as "Cortney" instead of "Courtney". Mhhutchins 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Flurb #10 Title

Hello, according to the Flurb website the title of Ernest Hogan's story in Issue #10 is "Doctora Xilbalba's Datura Enema" (the ISFDB entry has "Doctor [...]"). Fsfo 09:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the typo. I've corrected it. Mhhutchins 18:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Immortals of Science Fiction

I have some doubts about the length of this novel. A first rough word count of my copy comes to about 25000 words. Could you check this? Thanks, --Willem H. 20:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. As the note implies, it more of an artbook than a novel. I'll change it to a CHAPTERBOOK with a novella SHORTFICTION content. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 00:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ellison's I Robot

I was wondering if there is anything in this publication that would indicate it was serialized in these parts: [1] [2] and [3])? I suspect it to be so, since the Asimov introduction with the "novel" appears with the first installment in the magazine. I would ask the other verifier, who also has verified the magazines, but he won't respond to my inquiries. If they are the same, then the novel should be linked to this award. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 02:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an editor's note which states that Ellison completed the screenplay in 1978, and that "Ellison and Asimov agreed to serialize it in the pages of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. It ran in three issues in late 1987."

If we're going to be accurate here, it should not have been entered as a NOVEL. Screenplays are considered SHORTFICTION. When I verified the record back in 2007, I was new here and just accepted most records already in the database as is. If I were to enter it today, I'd make the publication a CHAPTERBOOK crediting Ellison and Asimov, with a SHORTFICTION record for the screenplay, crediting Ellison alone (just as it's credited in the serialization), and then variant the three SERIAL records to the SHORTFICTION record for the screenplay. I might go ahead and do it now, but I'll first discuss it with the other verifier. I'll link the award and variant the serial since that doesn't require a discussion. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

BTW, the editor's note mentions that the introduction of the serial is the same as reprinted here, and it's already merged in the db. Mhhutchins 03:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I spoke too soon. That award is for the 1987 serialization, not the 1994 book publication. It would not be right to link a 1988 award to a 1994 publication. Let me think it out to see how we can link the award to the serial. It may require that we make the changes that I suggested above about the book publication, creating a separate record for the content. Can you think of any other Hugo nominations for serials specifically that were not published as books within the same year? I recall at least one serial in the 60s that was nominated...maybe by Zelazny? Mhhutchins 03:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been going over the Hugos making corrections as a result of the recent discussion about linking to IMDB. I also intend to take a stab at fixing the help for the IMDB field for awards. In any case, I'm working backwards in time, I don't recall seeing another serial yet. If you do make the change to chapbook, I think it linking to the short fiction title would be less of an issue as the specific publication would be the chapbook. Actually would feel the same way if it stays a novel. The award links to the title, not the publication and the serializations will be listed in the bibliography of the title. The only real issue is that we assign a date to the title to the first complete publication. Come to think of it, the Retro Hugos have this same issue. Williamson's The Legion of Time is nominated for this years awards which are for works published in 1938. However, the first publication of the entire novel is 1952. The only problem with my example is that we have a 1938 date for the title record. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you as to whether you want to link this one. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who came up with the rule that novels published in magazines haven't really been published! That was decided long before I came here and I never questioned it, even though I've never understood the logic either. I guess someone came along later who felt the Williamson novel was actually published in 1938. And by god it was...only a little at a time! Mhhutchins 04:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I had not thought that rule was documented, but I checked this help page and there it is. I also realized that I've been handling dates for variant titles completely wrong by giving them the date that the variant title first appeared. This seemed the right thing to do, and it is how the Clute encyclopedias handle it. I shall have to mend my ways. Clute et al appear to give both the magazine and book publication dates, but of course they aren't constrained by database fields and can give a single title as many dates as they feel like. I'm going to update the Williams title to match the standard. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 11:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a shift in the way variant titles are handled a few years ago when the software was changed to give both dates when a record is displayed as a content. When that happened many people, including me, starting giving variant titles the dates of their first appearance. So before you revert to the documented standard (which obviously never was updated after the implementation of the software change) I would suggest that you start a discussion on the rules page. I will continue to give a variant in title its own date, but not a variant in author credit. Those variants are so precarious and arbitrary that changing the date would be unnecessary and perhaps confusing to a db user. Mhhutchins 17:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Credit for cover of Childhood's End

I think that the design (part of it, at least) on the cover of this pub, which you verified, can be credited to Richard Powers, considering these other covers. I don't know about the airship-like thing, though. Anyway, couldn't this be mentioned (as art credit, or just in the notes) on the record, and the covers merged ? Thanks for your opinion about this. Linguist 21:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

I'll add this to the notes, but it shouldn't be credited in the cover artist field. In these publications, the covers are created by various designers using various elements, none of which are credited in the books themselves. Mhhutchins 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Artwork conundrum

Hi, Michael. I've been [slowly] going through a semi-recent purchase of magazines. Started with IASFM. There's been virtually nothing to change [you and Hervé are very thorough]. However, the little artwork 'vignettes' are rarely credited, though some have been. In the March 1980 issue, in the letters section, George Scithers answers a query about such artwork with The one inch square ones were drawn by Don Simpson; the rest by Alex Schomburg. Great!!!!! ........ sort of ..... These little vignettes [which never illustrate a particular story] are repeated in multiple issues. How do we record them? Doing 'Untitled' with multiple Variants is quite repugnant to me. Solves nothing. After some considerable thought, I have a scenario which may work. Take any artist, for example Don Simpson [since he's one of the two credited by Scithers]. The artwork is owned by IASFM. The credit for each individual piece could be IASFM [1], [2], [3], etc. Thus each appearance of the vignette would have just the one title, and thus mergeable [not a word, but you know what I mean]. This scenario would require an actual scan accompany the artwork record, really no different than a cover art record. That would allow editors to match later usage of the artwork to a particular record. With IASFM that's not really an issue as all issues are verified, but I'm thinking in a broader sense for other multiple usage of the same artwork [book or magazines]. The actual numbering of the vignettes isn't really important, but the true anal-retentive types would likely want 'first appearance is "1" ' etc. I don't have every issue of the magazine, so can't deal with that. This would also work with artwork that is credited, but changes. I'm thinking particularly of the little caricatures of Asimov that accompany the Editorials. For most issues they are explicitly credited to Frank Kelly Freas, yet I've found none credited in the contents [they are now]. The thing is they are not all the same. There's a series of [I think] six, which rotate at strange intervals. With the scheme above, these could be titled IASFM Editorials [1], [2]. etc. and again be merged. These little vignettes do disappear by about 1990, and quite a few in the 80s are signed [the Schomburg ones always have a tiny 'S' on them, if you can find it, the Simpson ones don't] so we're not talking about a lot of editions, though maybe upwards of 20/30 individual pieces?? Without Scithers response, it would be a push to credit the work, but I think we should credit it with that source. The work is not inconsequential, at least at first to set up the records [with scans] but it could be a blueprint for the future??? Thoughts? --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't create content records for spot illustrations, especially if they're not explicitly credited and aren't attributed to a story. I think of them as just one more detail to clutter a publication record. Feel free to add them if you wish, but I'd rather they only be noted. I can see no value in recording them in the database. Mhhutchins 13:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To be frank, I think that we (myself included) have gone too far in the illustration business. We are at the point of listing and varianting all sketch ever drawn by Frazetta or blindly merging some magazine interior artwork. In this case, I'm against the listing of such fillers in each issue. Perhaps that a simple (sic) page (linked at the magazine title level) with all the recensed illustrations would be enough to do the job. Hauck 14:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. I've believed that for a long time. We've always left it up to the primary verifier to determine the extent of the detail in publication records, but never actually discussed when too much is just too much. Mhhutchins 15:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Good enough. That's why I brought it up first. I agree that artwork, which has always been deemed 'associational' has gotten out of control. The recent 'completist' BS with Frazetta, as mentioned above, is a perfect example. The same editor has also added Western short fiction [in series no less] which is strictly outside the boundaries of this DB, and yet there it is ..... Thanks gentlemen! --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bill Burkett

I wonder if it's possible to tell whether "Bill Burkett" in Locus, #443 December 1997 is William R. Burkett, Jr.? Would you happen to have #443 handy? Ahasuerus 04:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's very possible. Right now I'm away from home and my collection, so I'll check the issue when I return to see if there are any indications that they're the same person. Mhhutchins 15:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

TIA! Ahasuerus 16:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Same guy. He speaks of his novel Bloodsport whose publication was imminent. I've made a pseudonym and a variant. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 15:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! BTW, he is back in the game with a self-published novel based on a novella rejected by Campbell in 1967 (!). Similarly, Alex Dain has "revised and expanded" his 1969 novel The Bane of Kanthos and there is a possible sequel in the works. And earlier this year Robert Lory self-published "Ragnarok!", which was started in 1969 (!). Interesting times :) Ahasuerus 19:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Great Jones Coop

Replaced the amazon image for [this] and there is a signature on the cover which appears to be Hiizuno, with a stylized "T" slanting through the first letter [bottom right hand corner]. Thiizuno isn't really a Japanese name so the "T" may be an initial? I didn't change anything but did add a note as my later POD copy doesn't have the same last page as yours. --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm away from my collection right now, so please proceed to add a note about the visible artist's signature. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait until you have a chance to look at the cover. The signature may read differently to your eyes, and there's certainly no hurry! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Checking the signature, I couldn't make out any more than you could. It may actually be "Hrizuno". Googling brought by no results. I added a note about the signature, and about the inability to identify the artist. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Locus Looks at Books: Not-So-Reviews (Locus #470)", by Jonathan Strahan

Your verified copy of Locus #470 includes an essay titled "Not-So-Reviews". That seems an odd title. Since there were several essays around that time that were titled "Not-So-Short-Reviews", I wonder if this was a typo? Chavey 22:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm away from my collection right now, but I'm pretty certain that it should have been "Not-So-Short-Reviews", which was used by Strahan for longer reviews when he was writing the occasional "Locus Looks at Books: Short Reviews" column. I'll fix it. Mhhutchins 13:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Varianting coverart

You rejected my edits http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?836017 "Cover: Beyond the Gates of Dream", where I tried to make a coverart variant, with 'Wrong order'; but the final result was what I intended. I picked the oldest coverart title and made the newer ones as variant titles by changing the title, the year and the language. What was wrong? Peregrin 11:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The current states of those records are based on my making the correct variant after rejecting your submissions. Your submissions would have created a new parent title record. Here's the steps to make an existing record into a variant of another.

Go to the title record which you consider the (older, original, or parent) record. Copy the record number which is found in the upper right hand corner of the title record.
Go to the title record which you want to make into a variant of the (older, original, or parent) record.
Click on the function "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work" under the Editing Tools menu.
On the next screen, enter the record number of the (older, original, or parent) record into the field labeled "Parent #". You don't have to enter the title, year and language, because that's already part of the (older, original, or parent) record.

It appears you used the "Add a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work to This Title", which should only be used to add a title which is not currently in the database and is a variant of current title record. This function should be used sparingly because it creates a "dangling" or "publess" title record. Mhhutchins 14:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see I used the wrong function. Peregrin 11:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Best of Science Fiction Monthly", ed. by Janet Sacks

In this (very old) verification of yours, one of the stories is listed as "In the Hour of not Quite Rain or Five Views from Sodom". My copy of that book has only "In the Hour of not Quite Rain", both at the story page and in the ToC. Thus unless there is an oddity in two different versions of this book, the title should probably be corrected. Chavey 00:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems that after I verified the record for the story's appearance in this anthology, someone merged its title record with the one for the story's original appearance when they created a record for the magazine issue, assuming (incorrectly) that the reprint should have the same title. I'll fix it by creating the variant which should have been done instead of merging. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 15:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it! Chavey 16:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Anubus Gates question

In the notes of your verified [4] it says '"Cover art by Don Brautigan" stated on the copyright page. It's a misspelling of "Brautigam"'. My copy has the artist's name spelled correctly. Could you check yours, it may be a variant.Don Erikson 21:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The data given in the publication record matches my copy. If you are certain that your copy is different from the record I verified, please create another publication record. Thanks. BTW, for comparison, my copy has a single page of ads on the unnumbered page following 387, selling 7 Hugo and Nebula award titles with the code "SF-3" in the lower right corner. Mhhutchins 23:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Fred and Me by James E. Gunn

Hello, Michael! Is this essay possibly a reprint of this one, or is there any indication that it's perhaps an actualized version? Christian Stonecreek 19:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it's the same piece. The one in Locus is a two-paragraph reminiscence published at the time of Pohl's death. The 2010 piece looks to be at least 5 pages long. I'll make a note in the title record of the Locus piece to avoid accidental merging. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 20:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Valigursky

Please see this discussion regarding covers by Edward Valigursky. I haven't run across any pubs that you have verified, but you seem to have more than a passing interest in canonical names and variants, so I thought I'd call it to your attention. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 02:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've already posted by POV on the matter. Mhhutchins 02:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Asimov's, June 2008

According to asimovs.com, the Bruce Holland Rogers piece titled "War Gods" is a poem, not a short story.

Also, one of the reviews has a word missing from the title of the book: "Different Engines: How Science Fiction and Fiction Drives Science" should have the word "Drives" between "Science" and "Fiction". As in "Different Engines: How Science Drives Fiction and Fiction Drives Science". <Funslinger 17:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)>

"War Gods" is listed as poetry on the magazine's contents page, but it is not a poem. It's a one-page short story and was reprinted in the author's story collection. The table of contents should not be used as the source for typing the story. In this case, I bow to the author's designation. I will correct the title of the work under review. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 18:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand about the story typing, but to be technical, a one-page short story is probably more accurately typed as a vignette (under 1,000 words). <Funslinger 20:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)>

There is no such designation in the database, so the work is properly typed as short story. Mhhutchins 22:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Asimov's, September 2008

The review for the anthology The Future We Wish We Had lists the wrong Martin Greenberg as editor along with Rebecca Lickiss. It should be Martin H. Greenberg. <Funslinger 04:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)>

The review is credited to "Martin Greenberg". I changed the ISFDB record to reflect the book's actual editor. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 14:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Asimov's, October/November 2008

The TOC at asimovs.com shows the title of Mike Allen's poem to be "Return of Zombie Teen Angst", instead of "Return of the Zombie Teen Angst". My ebook also has it without the word "the". Could you please verify which is correct? Thanks. <Funslinger 15:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)>

The ISFDB record was wrong. I've corrected the title of the record to match the title of the work as published. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Soft and Others

Can you check your copy of Soft and Others? I think it should have a sub-title. Mine has "Soft and Others: 16 Stories of Wonder and Dread" on the title page.SFJuggler 19:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll add it to the publication title, although I personally feel that's more of a description than a subtitle. ("and Others" is the subtitle.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Asimov's, January 2009

Bruce McAllister's poem in this issue is titled "On Zurlygg Street: A Primer for Children of This Station" in my ebook. I have seen it referenced with the subtitle in several places online. Can you confirm the poem title? <Funslinger 05:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)>

The subtitle does appear on the poem itself. I'll correct the ISFDB listing. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

P. M. F. Johnson

There are two entries in ISFDB for this poet: P. M. F. Johnson & P M F Johnson. One should probably be listed as an alternate of the other. <Funslinger 23:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)>

Yes, it should. But we'll have to first determine if the records were entered correctly. I leave messages on the verifiers' pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Tides of God

Can you check your copy of The Tides of God? Mine has an Afterword on what would be page [247].SFJuggler 00:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my copy has the afterword, too. I'll add it to the record. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 02:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Asimov's, June 2009

In my ebook, the Sandra McDonald short story is titled "The Monsters of Morgan Island" instead of "The Monster on Morgan Island". Could you please confirm the title? <Funslinger 02:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)>

The record for the print copy is wrong, so I'll correct it. BTW, do you plan on adding publication records for the ebook editions of these issues of Asimov's? Mhhutchins 02:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If I ever get enough spare time, I might. We'll see. <Funslinger 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)>

Projections

See here for original image of cover for Projections.SFJuggler 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good find. I've updated the record, providing a link to the source. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

At your service.;)SFJuggler 00:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Luc Vigan

Hello, I've just discovered that, just behind me, you were varianting Vigan's titles to Ruellan even if I've left them deliberately unvarianted for the simple reason that Vigan is a collective (Dorémieux, Ruellan, Klein and Tronche -which to make matters worse is the the real name of Curval-)and variable pseudonym. For example, _La femme modèle_ is very likely by Dorémieux alone (it appears on two of his collections). I'd appreciate that you clear such matters with me beforehand. I'll let sort this mess. It's not the first time that some contributors or moderators tinker with french pseudonyms without precautions (e.g. for Pagery). I was thinking that I answering to queries quickly enough to be consulted (even if I'm not the sole french contributor), but it seems that not enough. Hauck 15:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I can easily remove the variants. In cases where a credited author is known to be a housename, the editor who creates the first pseudonym (to a real person), should create a wiki bio page indicating that it's a housename, and provide further information. Otherwise any editor coming behind them would have no idea that the pseudonym wasn't for the single author. I'll remove the variants and you can create the wiki page. You will then have to variant those titles to the persons who you have evidence wrote the piece. If no evidence is available, the titles should be varianted to "unknown". Thus no titles will be visible on the housename's summary page. Mhhutchins 16:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Forest of Forever

I'm in the process of varianting/merging the INTERIORART records from The Norwescon 8 Program Book, and the caption for The Minotaur and the Dryad's Children claims to be from this edition of The Forest of Forever for which you are a Primary Verifier. Since it doesn't match the COVERART, I'm assuming it is one of the INTERIORART illustrations.

In this case I could variant it to the generic INTERIORART record, but there is a pub note which indicates that there are 6 pieces of INTERIORART that are subsumed under that record, and while (to be honest) it doesn't much matter to me, I'm thinking to do it properly I should variant it to the specific illustration rather than to the group as a whole.

So if you have a chance, could you identify which of the illustrations from this Ace edition depicts the minotaur on its knees hugging a small child while a little girl in a dress looks on? I am also leaving this note on Willem H.'s talk page since he is the other primary verifier. Thanks, Albinoflea 04:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I normally wouldn't create separate content records for each illustration of a novel, I'll make an exception in this case. The work you're referring to is The Forest of Forever [6]. Mhhutchins 05:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it didn't seem like something you would typically do, so I appreciate the breakdown and the quick response. I've submitted a MakeVariant. Albinoflea 05:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

R. G. Jones

Dave Langford has pointed out that we have two author records for Robert Gibson Jones: Robert Gibson Jones and R. G. Jones. At first I thought that we simply needed to create a pseudonym, but then I took a closer look and I am no longer sure that they are the same person. For starters, Robert Gibson Jones died in 1969, but the two "R. G. Jones" illustrations were published in 1971 and 1972 respectively. Since you are the primary verifier of the two books where these illos appeared, I wonder if you may be able to shed some light on this issue? Could they be reprints/retitlings of Jones's earlier work? TIA! Ahasuerus 19:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The two works credited to "R. G. Jones" were very likely by the same artist. They are both b&w line drawings, with uses similar hashes to create texture. I seriously doubt that Robert Gibson Jones is the same person, and it's more likely that someone updating the author data for R. G. Jones saw the similarity in the names, they're both artists, and so we wind up with the current situation. The SFE may have even led to the confusion since it credits Robert Gibson Jones as "Jones, R G" in its entry. I will remove the author data for "R.G." Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Ahasuerus 20:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Art director for one of those pubs, New Worlds Quarterly #4 is Richard Glyn Jones... Horzel 11:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course! I should have noticed that. I'll make "R. G." a pseudonym of "Richard Glyn". Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Jay Russelll

In your verified Locus, #460 May 1999, is the triple 'l' in "Jay Russelll" (page 70) by chance a typo? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a typo, and I've corrected it. Thanks for finding it. Mhhutchins 00:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Fantasy Macabre, July 1983

I'd like to link to a cover scan and add a note about the UK price for the July 83 issue of Fantasy Macabre, which I wouldn't have bothered you about per your preferences. However, I'd also like to add the missing interior art records assuming that you're OK with that. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 01:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. You can add the interior art records, which are only "missing" because it wasn't common practice to add such non-essential data seven years ago. Mhhutchins 02:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Flies of Memory

Added exact publication date from a review slip to [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Rimrunners", by C.J. Cherryh

In doing a 2nd verification on your verified publication, I noticed that this book has on the spine of the dj the "Questar" name and logo, although it's nowhere on the rest of the book, e.g. not on the copyright page. Nevertheless, it seems it should be listed with publisher "Questar / Warner Books" instead of just "Warner Books", as it is now. Chavey 21:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a tough one. Since it's not stated anywhere inside the book itself, I didn't think it should be given as the publisher. As I have mentioned in the past, one day we need to determine which location on a publication should be considered the definitive publisher credit.

See here, here, here, here, here, and here, where the identical situation was mentioned in the Note field. Looking at the books which originally appeared under the Questar imprint, we can see that it was used exclusively for paperbacks published by Popular Library until January 1991. Starting in February, it was taken over by Warner Books (publications listed here) which continued using the Questar imprint for paperbacks. There is only one hardcover currently under that imprint, and I'd bet it's the same as the other hardcovers I've linked here. (Neither the OCLC record nor the LCCN record for that publication mentions Questar.)

If you disagree and believe we can use something other than the interior credit as the source for the publisher credit, please start a community discussion. At this point, I'm leaning toward keeping these records "as is", but I might be persuaded by a strong argument. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't really disagree. I mentioned that it only appeared on the DJ spine specifically because I'm not convinced that's enough to call it an imprint. Chavey 03:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-Stop

1.5 years ago you asked me on my talk page to check the printing number of this pub. It's been a long time, so I hope it's OK if I am pinging you back on your own page.

Anyway, I just had a look at the book in question: The numberline on the copyright page consists of only a single number "6", I would therefore say that the information on the pub record is correct. At first I had my doubts, by the way, as to whether the single number "6" actually constitutes a numberline. I doublechecked with a couple of other books I have from the SF Masterworks series, and in all those books I can positively identify a numberline at the same location on the copyright page. Patrick -- Herzbube ^Talk 19:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember why I asked that question. Maybe there was a mismatch of date or price with another printing, but I can't tell now. Maybe something changed in the past 20 months. I guess I should have gave the reason why I was asking. Thanks anyway. Mhhutchins 21:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Haunt of Horror June 1973

I'd like to add pipe characters to the page numbers for the book review column for Haunt of Horror June 1973 to put the column name ahead of the reviews. Also, I'd like to add the "Author's Page" (pg 125) to issue's contents. It's a 2 pg department that gives a good-sized paragraph of info on the iss's authors and is in the TOC. It is listed in the next issue. Doug/Vornoff 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead and make the changes. That record was created before we had the ability to sort using the pipe. And it wasn't a common practice to add such non-fiction pieces to magazine records. I still think it's overkill because it creates "clutter" for unessential contents. But I'll not object to your doing it if you also do a primary verification of the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You've used the pipe method incorrectly. It doesn't order things on the page, but the order of contents within the book. If you want to order things on a specific page, you'll have to use "121|121.1", "121|121.2", "121|121.3", "121|121.4", etc. I'm not sure that is explained on the help pages. Mhhutchins 19:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see what happens when you do it like I did. I've re-entered it. My note to the moderator was written before I read your note here but I managed to come up with the same result. Doug/Vornoff 20:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Becoming Alien

See this notice about Rebecca Ore's novel. I think user Horzel is right. The credit for the cover image to Doug Beekman was probably cloned from the hardcover edition, there's no credit mentioned in my copy of the book. I'd like to change the artist to Maren with a note about the source. Any objections? Thanks, --Willem H. 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the change. It just occurred to me, the alien in that painting looks too similar to Louis Gossett's character in the film of Enemy Mine. :-) Mhhutchins 17:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Change made. I agree about the movie. Could it be a coincidence? The Maren cover of the Tor double has a completely different alien. --Willem H. 07:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Speculative Horizons

In my copy of your verified Speculative Horizons, the story on page 59 is credited as "L. E. Modesitt" (no ", Jr.") on the title page. It does has the ", Jr." on the TOC and story page headers. Did you purposefully use the ", Jr." since it was likely not intentional for the publisher to credit it that way given the TOC and story page headers? If so, I'm fine with that, but I'd like to add a note to the publication notes to that effect. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I think we should follow ISFDB standards and credit as given on the title page. I probably just overlooked that the full name wasn't given. Please make the correction to the record. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 23:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Change made. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Earthseed

The second artist for [this] edition is likely a company, as 'Atelier' is another name for Studio [French/Italian ?]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I"m going to remove the studio's name entirely from the artist field, and leave the note to explain the copyright notice. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Two Michael Bishop reviews

Michael, 2 new reviews of Michael Bishop titles to add to MB's website, on pages 141 and 157 here. PeteYoung 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. And I really like the reviews. They quite insightful and very well written. I'll add them to my MB bibliography, and give him links to the reviews. I'm sure he'll get a kick out of reading them. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 23:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

PS. There's an expanded version of the Transfigurations review online here. Needless to say 'Joachim Boaz' is a pseudonym of the site owner/reviewer; he's someone who feels it's necessary to keep his life in academia untouched by his genre life, so I won't be adding his real name to the database. PeteYoung 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Does not that sort of mindset only widen the gulf? Oh, well, I shouldn't question a personal decision. Thanks for the link. Mhhutchins 03:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Different German translations of China Mountain Zhang

You merged the two publications of ABC-Zhang into one title. I had entered them as two different titles because they are not the same translation and the newer one is even based on a revised original text. I thought using different titles is the way to go for different translations (at least I was told so when I entered a translation of the Time Machine). Hitspacebar 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand the second publication is not a new translation, but a "revision" of the original translation. Under ISFDB rules, we create variants for new translations, but we do not create variant records when a work is revised, regardless of the language. You can add a Note in the title field to explain that the second is revised. If you believe this policy should be changed, start a discussion on the rules and standards discussion page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case, "revision" was probably the wrong word I chose in the note. The source says "vollständig überarbeitet", which rather means "reworked completely" (but still based on the previous translation). I think the help is missing a definition of "new translation" because I didn't find anything after an extensive search. There's only the Help:How_to_enter_foreign_language_editions page with no info about new translations. Do you by chance know the page that contains this rule? Otherwise I'll add that to my todo list for help page improvements/proposals. Thanks a lot. Hitspacebar 08:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The standard was very likely never documented. The entry of translated work is relatively recent (within the past five years) and was one of those processes which evolved over time, with standards slowly settling into place. When the addition of translated publications started, it was a basic assumption that there were most likely only one translation per language per title, and the fact that there would occasionally be a second or third translation wasn't discussed, thus no documented standard. When those other translations eventually popped up, everyone assumed that they were to have their own title records, since they were essentially new works.

As for revisions, we followed the same policy that has always been in effect in the ISFDB, that variant records should not be created based on text. Variant records were based only on a change in title or a change in author credit. Any change in text for a work which had the same title and the same author credit would have to be noted. (That's one of the reasons I've always been against the use of the variant function to handle translated titles, because a translation is basically a different work and should have been handled as such. A "relationship" function should have been created and such a function could also have been used for adaptations, revisions, and works which have been "reworked completely". But I was the lone voice calling for such a function. It would have taken much time to create it and the non-American editors were eager to start adding non-English publications to the database.) There are rare cases in the database, where an author totally rewrote a work but kept the same title. And in those cases, we will variant the new work. In the case of the work under discussion, it appears that the author had no involvement in the "reworked completely" publication. At least that would have been a factor in keeping the publications separate.

Because we don't variant for changes in text of English language publications, I believe that the same policy should be in place for changes in text of non-English language publications. The notes that were provided in the submissions for these two publications led me to believe that the latter one was a revision of the first translation. So I followed the de facto standards and merged the two titles. It's hard to understand how a work can be "reworked completely" and still be the same translation, but I'll take your word for it. The fact is, there will still be two publication records, and notes could be used to explain the difference, so having separate title references doesn't seem essential, at least to me.

Once you've read this explanation and still feel strongly enough that each should have their own title reference, let me know and I'll unmerge the publications. But I would ask that you add Notes to each title record in order to prevent future editors from merging them again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the extensive explanation. Sounds all reasonable. I'm with you regarding variants which should not be created just because of text changes, but if a rule says to do it for new (not revised, not reworked) translations that's fine by me. I leave the records as they are because they still are based on the first translation. Hitspacebar 18:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may jump in on the "revised text" issue, we have a long tradition of viewing "revised editions" as just another publication of the original title, with notes when appropriate. To do otherwise gets into tremendously difficult issues of "How much revision counts as a new variant?" Which would largely require an editor to read both versions. Which is impractical. An example is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The first two editions were heavily revised for the third edition. Yet we keep all of the Shelley editions under one title, with a note on the 1831 3rd edition as to the revisions. Thus non-English translations of "Frankenstein" would be lumped together if they shared the same title, regardless of the differences in content. This happens, for example, with the French Frankenstein ou le Prométhée moderne, where the first two French editions (1821 and 1922) are both translation of the "pre-revised" 1818 edition, and the third edition currently listed there, from 1945, is a translation of the third edition. Chavey 23:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's probably the biggest reason why we don't create new title records for revised versions and variant the records. I remember Harlan Ellison revised his stories almost every time they get reprinted. Can you imagine the headache if we recorded these revisions? But I'm not blaming the author for revising his work. Michael Bishop has been doing the same thing for the past decade or so. Almost every time a work is reprinted, he'll go through it to remove excess verbiage and to streamline the prose. Some stories will lose up to a thousand words, but is essentially the same work. (Can you imagine the pulp writers who would be clutching at their hearts to learn that an author is actually removing words, when they would get paid based on the number of words in the story?) Mhhutchins 23:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your image of the pulp writer :-) And I can't imagine the pain we would go through if we tried to keep track of all the revisions. Occasionally they're interesting changes, which a Ph.D. thesis on the author should discuss, but that's a level of detail we just can't expect to include here. One "revision" that I particularly like is Silverberg's essay at the beginning of "Warm Worlds and Otherwise" where, in the first printing, he discusses why he is convinced that the rumors that Tiptree was a woman were silly, and he was obviously a man. Then, in the second printing, he adds an "oops" paragraph to that. But I certainly wouldn't want people to think we were documenting everything to that level of detail. Chavey 02:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Can you imagine the headache if we recorded these revisions?" Ha... This is exactly the headache I'm working through while putting together the new KSR site. Things get crazy quite quickly at this level of detail. :) Albinoflea 05:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're recording the extent of revisions on the KSR website? That's a tough one. Are you going to add notes to the ISFDB records as well? (Please don't variant them!) When Michael Bishop revised almost every story in The Door Gunner all I did was just note it in the publication record. I didn't go into detail in the content records, but I could have, since I was the editor of the collection! Let me know when the Robinson website goes online, or is it up and running now? Mhhutchins 06:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the ultimate goal... I've been trying to create the data structure that will let me appropriately express all of the relationships in a more granular fashion than ISFDB permits, so I have text variants, and title variants, and translations, and excerpts and so on all as separate types of relationships that can be mapped. It has been slow going, because some of the assumptions I've made turned out to be incorrect or too restrictive, so I've had to go back start from scratch a few times... I'm 8 months in and just cracked 200 pubs in my database, but it is going a little smoother/faster as of late.

And no worries, when I am in ISFDB I will play by the ISFDB rules (as best I can), which is actually less problematic since I know I can always record it the way I really want to on my site. :) But the ISFDB has been such an amazing source of information I want to contribute as much back as I can, while keeping my changes relevant to the scope of what you're attempting to accomplish, so I've added some Title notes and Pub notes here and there when things seem to cross a certain threshold of importance... but honestly I'm still figuring a lot of the variation as I work through things.

The site itself will replace kimstanleyrobinson.info so I've been working with the guy who started that site to make sure I stay true to his vision of the site as well, but since we're interested in different things it has turned out to be a pretty complimentary relationship and we don't really step on each others toes very often. My hope is to have the site live before Stan's next novel comes out in May 2015, which doesn't mean I need to be done with everything but at least I should have the structure in place and have preserved the information that's already there, albeit in a more structured form. Fingers crossed and I will have a beta site up sometime this winter and will be sure to let you know. Albinoflea 07:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can get it up by May 22 2015, please let me know! KSR is a GoH at WisCon that weekend, and if your site is up, I'll want to let attendees know about it! Chavey 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be pretty amazing... I had better get busy! Thanks! Albinoflea 02:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Preference instructions

As I understand your instructions at the top of this page, you wish to be informed of any proposed changes to a Pub record (by this, I assume you refer to the Publication Metadata fields) before a submission is made, other than adding minor notes or image URLs which go on your other page. But what of changes to the content fields of the publication record? This for example has minor errors as to page location and sort order. Do you wish to be pre-notified before a submission is made on the changes, or submit and notify you here? Any clarification of this matter would be much appreciated. Thanks. Syzygy 19:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please notify me on this page of any proposed changes to a publication record which I have primary verified, including its contents, before making a submission to make the change. I don't consider adding links or notes to be a change in the record, just an addition to the record. What changes do you wish to make to the publication record you've linked here? The ability to sort the order of contents on a specific page was only added to the software within the last year, so that would not have been possible when this record was verified. Please proceed to make a submission to correct the sort order. If there are any changes in the page numbers, let me know before making the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

In the story 'The Bogart Revival', the second interior artwork should be changed from page 12 to page 13. Also, the bracketed sequence number for this should be 2, not 12. Syzygy 22:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the errors. I made the corrections. Mhhutchins 22:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)