User talk:Vornoff/Archive/2016

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Al borde de la nada

Hello, in such cases (a novel + a short story), there's no need to enter the NOVEL, it will be done automatically and you'll end with two identical NOVELs records. I've deleted one of them. Hauck 17:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I see that now. I just submitted a merge for the duped title records. I think that's right. Doug / Vornoff 17:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spanish cover for Starbridge

Hello, I was in the process of rejecting proposed merge. In fact the cover is not Valigursky but is a copy by an unknown artist, something that was quite frequent at the time and the place. See the original to spot the differences. I'm going to delete the credit to Valigursky. Hauck 16:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, Hervé. You're right - it was pretty close, though. Some of those artists were pretty good, but I guess it was easier to rip someone else off than do their own. Probably much quicker. I've caught these before but I just missed this one. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 16:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
IIRC it was more for tax problems as using the american cover probably meant the obligation to send money abroad which was unwise in those european periods of crisis (the 50s). That's why you'll find such tactics in most european countries. Hauck 16:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see - that makes sense. Doug / Vornoff 16:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Crediting cover art to "uncredited"

If the cover art is not credited, leave the Cover Art field blank. For further standards about the cover art field please read this section of the ISFDB help documentation. Please go back to those records which have been credited to "uncredited" and remove the coverart title from the publications, then delete them from the database. From what I've been able to determine, most of the publications are in this series, e.g. this publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 06:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

According to a search for "uncredited" and looking at the cover art section, I see only one record in the series you cite above, namely "Mundo sellado", the second link of those you entered above. There are a dozen or so "uncredited" cover art records in the db according to that search and only one from the above series. I've submitted a remove title for that one but, for the record, that was entered by a moderator after he correctly noted that the name I originally entered was not accurate, that the actual cover of the book was a copy of the original English cover done by an unknown/uncredited artist. To correct that he subsequently entered the uncredited credit in the coverart field and, I believe, added a note linking to the original cover. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 16:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
That was the first record I came upon, and incorrectly (and stupidly) assumed they were all from the same series. I'll correct the others. Thanks for pointing this out. Mhhutchins|talk 17:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

ERB-dom reissue

Unless the contents marked "Reissue" in this record aren't reprinted from the original edition, then the disambiguation isn't necessary. I've removed the disambiguation from the coverart title record. Mhhutchins|talk 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Somehow that sentence threw me :) Do you mean that if the contents marked "reissue" in this record were in the original, then the disambiguation isn't necessary? If that's true, then I can see the reasoning behind it. Only the items on page 9 and 10 were new to this reissue, everything else is the same. Vornoff 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I should have been more clear: Only the generically-titled contents which are original to this reprint should be disambiguated. From your response, they have been properly disambiguated. Mhhutchins|talk 05:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Got it. That's better. :) Doug / Vornoff 05:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
A question - There are other issues in both 1961 and 1966. If each has its own Title Reference, i.e.. "ERB-dom - 1961" and "ERB-dom - 1966", which one would the reissue fall into, and should I change it to that after your answer? I would guess the latter. Vornoff 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no standard, but it is my personal belief that reprints of periodicals should be placed into a separate EDITOR record. Otherwise, they clash with the original editions, and the grid display can become cluttered, and seemingly disorganized. You can try it either way, look at the results, and then determine if it should be changed. Mhhutchins|talk 05:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I've submitted a separate editor series for the reissues to see how that looks. I think that accomplishes the above. We'll see. Doug / Vornoff 05:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, imagine my surprise to accidentally come across a bunch of these fairly early ERB-doms in a box I didn't know I had! Doug / Vornoff 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I have the opposite problem. Knowing for sure that a certain periodical or book is in a specific location and discovering it's not, and then eventually finding it stored in the wrong place. Then forgetting why I was looking for it in the first place! Mhhutchins|talk 05:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes! That's also familiar - and happening with greater frequency as I slowly slide into senility. Doug / Vornoff 05:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Series data for translated titles

Re this title: Series data should not be given for works which have been translated. Look at the series list and you'll see why. Mhhutchins|talk 05:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I wondered about that. I saw that other foreign titles had the series info so I thought that after varianting it would sort itself out. But yeah, it does look pretty goofy there. So, never put series info into a translated title. Another lesson :) ISFDB has been great for me. It's probably the single greatest thing that staves off Alzheimers for me. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sardonicus and Other Stories

I've expanded the notes for Ray Russell's Sardonicus and Other Stories, listing secondary sources. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Good. I remember buying that one off the racks way back when. I was fascinated by the cover - saw the movie it's tied to at around the same time. I'll never forget that cover. Doug / Vornoff 18:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbering magazine editor records

We usually don't number the editor records for magazines. Even for magazines which prominently number their issues, such as Interzone. Is there any reason why an exception should be made for The Leading Edge? Mhhutchins|talk 01:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What will you do when an editor record is an annual merging of issues, like this one? Mhhutchins|talk 01:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding you here. Not sure what you mean by "numbering the editor records" and how I'm doing that. If you're referring to my latest 'File 770' submission, I think I've been doing the same thing I've been doing for previous issues of that mag and others. It's the same thing you do, I think, with Locus. I enter the title as File 770, #73 June 1988. I've been using the number since it frequently shows up in the title as, for example, File 770:73 and it clarifies the grid somewhat. I know you've said you can use the number and date this way before but if I've misinterpreted, I can change them to just the date. So, then, after approval, I do "Show all titles" on the editor's page to show the EDITOR titles and merge the current issue I've just added with the appropriate year range EDITOR title, leaving the latter title and dropping the individual title. In this case I would plan on merging the 'File 770, #73 June 1988' with the 'File 770 - 1988 (Fanzine)' EDITOR record.
As to 'The Leading Edge', (which I have nothing to do with) I see that Nihonjoe has put some of the issue numbers along with the title, e.g., 'The Leading Edge Magazine of Science Fiction & Fantasy 8' instead of putting the '8' after a comma as per usual, resulting with a number in the EDITOR record title. Is that what you mean? I can't recall ever doing that myself, but I suppose it's possible. Don't know if I've clarified my question - ??? Doug / Vornoff 02:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I posted this on the wrong page. It was intended for another editor. Mhhutchins|talk 02:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
For me, no doubt. :D ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fanzine disambiguation

At one point in the history of the ISFDB, fanzine weren't eligible for inclusion. When we started allowing certain ones, someone (before my time) decided that the titles should be disambiguated as "Title (fanzine)". (Don't ask me why. I never could figure it out.) Since we now allow allow all spec-fic fanzines into the database, there is no longer a reason to disambiguate. But some titles, like File 770 were never updated. If you continue to enter issues of this title, please remove the disambiguation when you're updating the editor records. Just as they arise. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Doug / Vornoff 03:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Pulptime

I'm holding your submissions to variant the cover art and the interior art for this publication. Your notes say that Stephen Fabian is credited, but that contradicts the credit you've given. Mhhutchins|talk 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I should have added another note. He's credited as "Fabian" on the actual title page of the book . If you agree, I'll add the note. Doug / Vornoff 23:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you should. If only to clear up what appears to be a discrepancy. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 00:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, title records crediting Stephen Fabian already exist. You should have varianted the "Fabian" records to those. By accepting the submissions, I'll have to merge them with the existing records. Keep this in mind when creating variants. They might actually already be in the database. Mhhutchins|talk 00:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Submitted the notes and a cover. Yes, I've got to watch that in the future. It still gets confusing for me sometimes, though. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 00:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Two more questions: your cover image shows the publisher as Weirdbook, but you give W. Paul Ganley as the publisher of this printing. I know he's the human behind the company, but is he credited as the publisher on the book's title page? Also, according to the verifier of the first printing, the first numbered page continues the numbering started with roman numbers. So technically, those roman numbered pages are already included in the page count and shouldn't be added again. Mhhutchins|talk 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I dithered over whether to call the publisher "Weirdbook Press" or "W. Paul Ganley" but finally chose what was on the title page "W. Paul Ganley: Publisher". I thought I left a note for the moderator but again, maybe I should have clarified that as well with a note. As to the Roman Numerals, I was not aware that the Roman Numerals were to be ignored if they are within the numbered range of the book, counting backwards from the first numbered page. What happens if, counting back from the first numbered page, it puts you in the middle of the Roman Numerals? Anyway, I see the logic, you don't want the book to seem longer than it is; the way it's shown in the other edition makes a clearer picture of what's going on and we want clarity, yes? I can change it to reflect the way the other edition does it, no problem, if that's the way to go. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 03:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, so you know, on the copyright page it states: "no part of this publication may be reprinted without the permission of W. PAUL GANLEY: PUBLISHER (WEIRDBOOK PRESS), (address here). I'm not vested in either answer, just which makes more sense. Doug / Vornoff 03:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We go by the title page if there's a conflict in how the publisher is presented. Obviously, the spine credit conflicts with the title page credit, so you could save yourself some time responding to other inquiries about the conflict by noting it in the record. As for the odd pagination, it would also be worth noting.
Also, the Note to Moderator field should only be used for data pertaining to the submission. Any data about the publication should be entered into the Note field. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I get that about the Note to Moderator. Sometimes I leave a note there to justify something I've done in the record so I don't get a message later but, on reflection, some of those comments would be better served as Notes in the record, which would explain the point as well, as long as the moderator is reading those. Good point. Doug / Vornoff 04:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ka-Zar

Re this publication: Are the editors exactly credited as you've given here? Also, an ANTHOLOGY with one work of fiction is very unusual, especially if it's a NOVEL-length work. Can you confirm that it's more than 40K word? Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 04:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake on the editor credit. I've seen some of the magazines credited that way when there's no editor given but since there's actually no explicit editor credit, I'm guessing I should have entered it as "uncredited". As to the word count, I did my counting method on the facsimile (I'll explain it to you if you want) and it came up 46,300 words. There's another edition of this title here which also claims it as a novel. I don't know whether to variant it or not as I have no idea if it's just the title I've been working on or a longer version.

As you note, this is a facsimile reprint of this periodical containing additional material. That would make it an ANTHOLOGY. Mhhutchins|talk 04:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you confirm the title of the novel? It's reversed from the original publication. Mhhutchins|talk 04:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The title info I got for the original magazine was from Galactic Central which lists the title the same as on the cover. HOWEVER...on the title page of the facsimile it's listed as "King of Claw and Fang". I'll bet you that that's how it's actually printed in the original but nobody's seen it and they're going by what Galactic Central says (I know I did). I'm not quite sure what to do here. Since it is a facsimile, I would be pretty sure the original is that way, too, and the publisher got it reversed on the cover, or vice versa. Doug / Vornoff 05:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to come up with a solution based on ISFDB standards. BTW, shouldn't the INTERIORART record be the same title as the work it illustrates, i.e. the novel? Also, "The Editors..." is normally used for non-genre magazines where the editor is credited, but we go with the generic credit to avoid creating authors who are not spec-fic. Mhhutchins|talk 05:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought about the INTERIORART credit. Yes, he illustrates that story but he also illustrates all the other stories in the book so you could say he's the artist for the main title. Should he be put in twice - once for the whole book and once for the story. I didn't want to put in individual INTERIORART records for stories that aren't indexed due to their being non-genre but I wanted to convey that he illustrated for the whole book. I'll take whatever advice you have on that. OK - I see what you mean by using "The Editors" that way - good point. Doug / Vornoff 05:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Since you've not entered the non-genre stories, you can mention his illustrations for those in the Note field. (In other words, why have a content record for illustrating stories that don't have content records?) I would suggest changing the title of the current interiorart record to that of the story. Mhhutchins|talk 15:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] I just realized that in the original publication record, the work was incorrectly entered as NOVEL. All "novels" (whether 40K or not) published in a periodical should be entered as SERIAL, and then varianted to the NOVEL title record. So I made the change, which also effects your record, and proceeded from there. Also, I noted the discrepancy in the cover title and the title page title. Mhhutchins|talk 17:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. Doug / Vornoff 17:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Tarzan the Terrible

Are you certain that the Grosset & Dunlap edition you want to add to the database has the correct publication date? It may have reprinted the date of the first edition, which was June, 1921. According to ERBzine the first G&D edition wasn't published until 1923. Also, what do you mean in the notes by "this contributor's copy"? Mhhutchins|talk 03:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The book I have states as I had put in the notes: "Published June, 1921". Check out abebooks here and see where this edition is "HC - early printing 1921". Also, later printings had 4 plates, not 3 as this one does (1 frontispiece and 2 plates). And it's the only date given in the book. I can't say why ERBzine doesn't list it. I can try to do some further research to see what's up. As I mentioned in the notes, the OCLC refers to one having 4 plates, not 3. To add some confusion, I just found this one which gives the date as "(1921)" where it states "N.Y.: Grosset and Dunlap, 1921 (actually Circa 1923 / 1924 ), 1st G&D Edition, Later Printing , 1923" and then says "b&w lettering on spine and front board" (mine is black only) and "b&w frontispiece by St John as well as 3 other illos" (mine is 2 other illos) so I take this to mean mine is not the 1923 edition. Maybe mine is a much later edition that only put the original printing date in it. Do you think it's possible it's this edition that's already in the database? Doug / Vornoff 04:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't say if another record is the same, especially if they've not been primary verified. I can say that Grosset & Dunlap published "cheap" editions, usually more than a year after the regular editions were published. That's why it's very likely the date stated here was a misprint, or their use of the McClurg's original plates without changing the publication date slug line. Mhhutchins|talk 05:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
By "this contributor's copy" I meant "my copy". What should I say to refer to the actual book that I have that is being entered? Doug / Vornoff 04:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"Contributor's copy" has a specific meaning in the publishing world: free copies of a book sent to the author and other contributors (cover artist, illustrator, editor, etc) to the publication. When I'm noting something about my copy of the publication, I use the term "verified copy" so that a user knows the note is referring to a copy-in-hand. Mhhutchins|talk 05:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, the map that has been entered has been titled "Tarzan the Terrible (map)" and credited to Burroughs. The title at the top of the map is "Map of Pal-Ul-Don" and is uncredited, though ERBzine (same link as you give above) does give Burroughs credit for both the map & glossary. Would you suggest merging all the other titles to "Map of Pal-Ul-Don" with "uncredited" as the author and then later varianting it to Burroughs. Or just leave well enough alone and I could change my entry to match the others? Looks like I've opened up yet another can of worms :) Doug / Vornoff 04:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Once we've established that an uncredited work of art has been confirmed to an artist, we don't use "uncredited" as the credit, even in records for publications in which they are uncredited. We just have to make sure that those uncredited publications have a note explaining where the credit comes from. That's how crediting art differs from crediting text. That's how we can give cover art credit in a publication which doesn't credit the cover artist, once we've established the actual credit. In this case, the varianting should be done because of the different titles. Because most art isn't titled, the ISFDB standards for titling records for illustrations isn't set in stone. One editor will use the standard: "If an illustration isn't titled, then it should be titled for the work it illustrates." while another editor looks at the map and sees a title on it and decides to use it. Both could be looking at the same exact work of art and title it differently. (That's why I absolutely hate how freaking over-obsessed many of the editors of this database have become over art. A great percentage of the submissions I handle are for art, and it's so frustrating to have to deal with them. The rules for entering everything but art is so straightforward and clear.) So in this case, variant the titles instead of merging them, but credit both of them to Burroughs. If the records have been primary verified, notify the verifiers of your source for the credit. Mhhutchins|talk 05:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to accept the submission. Now you can make any necessary changes we've discussed here. Mhhutchins|talk 05:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and make some of the changes. I've been trying to hold back on the art credits but on this one I was thinking that putting the titles on them would nail down which of the original nine plates were in this edition. If you think it would be better I could delete the INTERIORART individual content records and go with an overall art credit for the whole book (it would make merging with the others easier) and I could put which illustrations were there in the notes. I see I messed up on one of the page numbers - I'll submit a change for that but feel free to delete the individual records if you want, then I'll know your decision. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 06:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No, leave the art content records as they are. I'd hate for you to get blamed for starting a trend. :) One last thing, in the note you say "this editor". Well, users may misinterpret "editor", since that word also has a distinct meaning in the publishing world, that doesn't exactly match how we use it here. I would suggest "this record's verifier". Notes should try to be presented as objectively, and as impersonal as possible. I've had to change instances where editors use "I"s, "my"s, and "me"s. Mhhutchins|talk 06:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That's me - a trend setter - right. Yeah, I was struggling to find the right neutral way to refer to ME. Doug / Vornoff 06:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed this conversation after adding a note to call your attention to my response to the conversation you started on my page. After reading the above, I can help with the captions for all the original plates. The Heins bibliography has them all, and their location. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Darkness

This publication can not have been published in 2000, especially if it has an ISBN-13. It's very likely an undated 32nd printing. We already have a a record for the first printing of July 2000, priced at $12.95. What is the price given in your copy? (It's not recorded in the record you added.) Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 07:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I missed the price, it's $16.00. I'll submit it. I see the date has already been changed. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Prospero Regained

Hello, I've approved your edit for this pub, but can you confirm the artist's name (it's more likely Martiniere)? Thanks. Hauck 19:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Herve, I knew I was going to have trouble with that. Correction submitted, hopefully. Doug / Vornoff 19:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That Hideous Strength

You shouldn't create a new publication record just because Amazon's data doesn't match your copy. It's quite likely this record is the publication you have. A link to a cover image on Amazon doesn't mean that's the cover for the ISFDB record. Amazon will occasionally change the cover images to match later printings that carry the same ISBN, so that shouldn't be used as a basis for creating a new publication record. Look at the current record, and see if it matches your copy, without regard to Amazon's listing. If it does match, cancel the held submission and update the record already in the database. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it matches. I admit I shouldn't have used Amazon's cover image as a reason for creating a new pub, but what about its statement that the book they showcased was a "reprint edition" and the one I was adding was a "First Scribner paperback edition 2003". What could they be referring to? I thought it meant that there was a later (May 2003 as it states) edition that was not the first. I'm probably overthinking all this, I know. If you give me the go-ahead after what I just asked, I'll update the existing pub. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 02:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I see nothing in the present record that indicates it's a reprint edition. If that is stated in the Amazon listing, that should have no bearing in how you handle the book you have in your hand. Again, you should check your copy against the ISFDB record, not any secondary source's data about that edition. Thanks. (BTW, this actually is a "reprint edition", since Scribner acquired the title when it was merged with Macmillan, the original publisher, and subsequently since Scribner was purchased by Simon & Schuster. Don't you love the game of publisher musical chairs?) Mhhutchins|talk 02:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, you should use the transient primary verification slot for such books. This lets users know that the data is from the primary source, even though you no longer have access to it. Please go ahead and update the current record and cancel the submission. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 03:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Submitted. Yes, publishing data is quite confusing to me; I'm often a little doubtful about what book I'm looking at and what's already in the db. Good info from you here - thanks. Doug / Vornoff 03:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
On the plus side, I figured out how to do the archiving!! Doug / Vornoff 03:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Affinity Bridge

Are you certain that this 2009 publication doesn't have an ISBN-13? That's very unusual for a major publisher. If it doesn't, please add a note to avoid other editors from questioning it when it appears on the cleanup report which finds such anomalies. Thanks. Mhhutchins|talk 01:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll check it tomorrow and straighten it out. Thanks for the heads up on that. Doug / Vornoff 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Submitted the ISBN-13. Doug / Vornoff 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"OCLC record not found"

I'm not sure what purpose is served by adding this to publication records, especially for ebooks, which have only been added to OCLC relatively recently. How does this add the value of the record when weighed against the effort of looking for it? It seems to imply that the book doesn't exist, otherwise I can't think of a reason for adding it to a record. I'm sure there are many secondary sources that could be listed along with OCLC that don't have records for any number of titles. Negative sourcing seems to be a dead end venture, IMHO. Mhhutchins|talk 18:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought the Help for verifying said you should enter a N/A for the references which didn't contain the publication being checked, even if the pub was outside the parameters of the reference. I thought I was being thorough by leaving the note but I can see where it's probably overkill. I can remove the notes if you want. Doug / Vornoff 18:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That help section is referring to the verification system. If you do that, then it's not necessary to add a note. Don't bother removing the ones you've added. Just consider doing the negative verification without adding a note. I still think it's a waste of time to do negative verification for OCLC which is a dynamic source, unlike the other sources. Mhhutchins|talk 18:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. It's not much of a waste of time for me, actually. I've just been going through a recently acquired Reginald3, checking for verifications while I watch tv (of course, watching tv itself could be considered a waste of time) so at least I'm multi-tasking while I'm doing nothing. Besides, being retired, I've got time to waste, for once, after working what seems like every damn day of my life :) Doug / Vornoff 18:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Typo

Would you mind double checking this possible typos?

If they are truly misspelled in the pubs, please add a note stating that to the title records. Otherwise, please submit corrections. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Submitted. Doug / Vornoff 04:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Allen K's Inhuman Magazine, #4 Summer 2009

When you get a chance, could you please confirm that "I Known Why the Waters of the Sea Taste of Salt" is spelled that way, i.e. "Known" instead of "Know"? Ditto the INTERIORART title. TIA! Ahasuerus 21:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like there was a mixup between the TOC credit and the title page credit. TOC has "Known" by Steven Vernon and the title page has "Know" by Steve Vernon. I'm submitting a zeroed out change for the variant and I guess that "Known" title should be deleted. And I'm changing the title in the mag on both the story and the art to "Know" and adding a note covering it. Let me know if I should be doing something different. Doug Vornoff 02:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! Once I approved your submitted changes, the ex-parent and the ex-child became identical, so I merged them. The Note change looks good as well. Ahasuerus 04:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
On another note, I've been away from the db for a while due to health and other reasons but I'm planning on jumping back in but am probably a little rusty on things. Thanks, Doug Vornoff 02:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back and glad to hear thinks are looking up! No worries about being rusty -- practice makes perfect :-) Ahasuerus 04:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I also just submitted to break the variant on the artwork title, which I forgot to do. I'll figure out what to do with the spurious "Known" title if it gets accepted. Doug / Vornoff 05:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot about the artwork titles! It looks like your submissions have been approved and everything looks good now. Ahasuerus 16:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Doug / Vornoff 16:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Heroes

I placed on hold your edit to make "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Heroes" a variant to a new record with an author of "John S. Martin (I)". We don't have an author by that name so I'm not sure what you are attempting to do. Can you please explain? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is credited to "Sgt. John S. Martin" and the Help says for names with ranks in front of them you must use the rankless name as the canonic name. So I was going to create a variant record with a new name "John S. Martin" but noticed there was already one in the db. Not knowing if these were the same people, I disambiguated it to "John S. Martin (I)" and was then going to make a pseudonym of "Sgt. John S. Martin" to the other name. I have no idea if that was right but was the only way I could figure to do it. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to "These ranks should be included in the author names, and made into variant names for the relevant authors." If so, the key word there is "relevant". We only establish pseudonyms between existing author entries (with some exceptions). See examples. If you are referring to something else, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I see where there are examples of the "ranked" name as being the only version of the name. I guess I misinterpreted the rule. I'll cancel the submission and leave it as originally entered. Thanks for the help. Doug / Vornoff 13:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard: Fond Rememberance - with Warts

Your verified Science Fiction Chronicle, #79 April 1986 has the following essay:

That essay is varianted to:

I'm confused by the change in title. There are no publications with this title nor an explanation for the change. Did you change the variant title to match the publication and not correct the parent? Or is something else going on? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Somehow I used the title of a previous essay that was a remembrance of Hubbard by another author. That heading, upon further perusal, shouldn't have transferred over to the van Vogt article. I submitted a change on the title, hope that does it. Thanks for finding, Doug / Vornoff 14:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The Shadow v7 #1

Hi. The submission I have on hold would change the pub's date to September 1 (which seems ok, and it makes sense to me that the volume change would happen on the first issue of a month), but then it also would change the dates on the contents FROM the existing September 1 dates TO September 15, which would not be consistent. Should everything be September 1? --MartyD 10:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've submitted changes for the individual titles in that mag for Sept 1 and they've been accepted by another moderator (I should have done that all at one time on the pub but didn't). Here's the source. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 10:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing should be Sept 15 as I see it - all should be Sept 1. Doug / Vornoff 10:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I will take care of it. --MartyD 10:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Oops, I gave you the wrong source, it should be this. Doug / Vornoff 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Pulpster #25 cover art

If you look at the two covers side-by-side in the submission I have on hold, it seems they are not actually the same artwork. Minor details aside, there is much detail missing from the window in the 2016 version, and the rocket's position is different -- it's farther from the frame, with a longer flame trail. It looks like this is redrawn instead of reprinted. Is there an explicit McCauley credit for it? --MartyD 10:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The cover of Pulpster is from the original painting done by McCauley. The editors/art directors at Amazing modified it: it was flipped and extensively reworked (according to the article). I didn't know for sure if this was enough for a variant or whether it should be its own art title with perhaps a note. The Amazing cover in the ISFDB is credited to McCauley. Whichever way you want to go is ok by me. Doug / Vornoff 11:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Consensus among fellow moderators is that these are different works of art and should be treated that way. So no variant (variants are only between instances of the same work; with an exception/abuse case for translations). I think you should add some form of the information above into the Pulpster cover's title record and adjust the pub notes to be clearer that the cover is redone, not just flipped. I'd also be inclined to add a second artist credit to it, since McCauley did not do the rework. What to use for that credit, I don't know. I suppose the technically correct answer is "uncredited". But if you have some direct evidence that it's the staff at Amazing or the staff at Pulpster, maybe you could use Editors of XXX (which is a credit style we use for editorship of non-genre magazines, so it's at least not inventing a whole new form of credit). --MartyD 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that out. Just to make sure we're on the same page, the cover for Pulpster is the original art by McCauley and I'll leave a note on its title record that this was the original art that was reworked extensively for the cover of Amazing Stories, August 1942. On the cover title record for Amazing I should add an uncredited author to that record and leave a note on its title record that the cover was extensively reworked from the original painting, now used as the cover for Pulpster 25. I'll hold off on submitting until I get your okay here. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 20:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I had that backwards. --MartyD 12:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I submitted changes as you requested on Pulpster 25, Amazing Stories August 1942 and their respective cover art titles. Thanks for the help. Doug / Vornoff 18:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Lost ERB-dom

I am very sorry to inform and I don't have any idea how it happened but it seems that after approving your latest submission for a new issue the whole thing was eaten and is lost. There also doens't seem to be a way to restore your submission. This has happened only a few times before (even to myself) and I don't have an idea how to prevent it in the future. Sorry again, Stonecreek 03:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope whatever ate it gets a whopping-good bellyache! I'll try again. Doug / Vornoff 04:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Fan'Fare

Hello, when the editor is known, it's better to credit directly the author instead of making a variant. I've made the changes. Hauck 14:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't too sure about that. Doug / Vornoff 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Science Fiction Chronicle

You have verified some issues of Science Fiction Chronicle. FYI - I've created a wiki page for general information and entry (non-)standards. It's located under magazines or here

Doug H 20:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I responded on the above page. You might want to mention this to Pete Young, too. He's been involved in the mag. Doug / Vornoff 23:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I've let him know. Thanks Doug H 00:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I also added some cover images and issue #'s when I could find them. Doug / Vornoff 00:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Don[ald] Ramlow

I accepted your submission that made Don Ramlow a pseudonym for Donald Ramlow, but the submission I have on hold proposes to make a Donald Ramlow title a variant of a new Don Ramlow title. That's the opposite. I don't see any compelling evidence for Don vs. Donald, but if you think titles by Don should be the parents, then the pseudonym relationship should be the other way around. So either cancel and make the one Don title a variant of a new Donald title, or swap the pseudonym and I'll accept the current submission. Thanks. --MartyD 00:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling there was something hinky there. Doug / Vornoff 00:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Vendetta

Hello Vornoff. I have approved your submission, but please remember that a CHAPBOOK is a container, in which you have to enter the content, i.e. the SHORTFICTION named "Vendetta". I have done it for you. Linguist 08:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC).

Thank you. I must be losing my marbles because I used to know that.Doug / Vornoff 13:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Szokoli

I've cleaned this up. Who knew the man couldn't spell his own name? MLB 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. He probably thought it looked more "American" that way. He could have gone with "Joe S. Cool" Doug / Vornoff 03:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Blood 'n' Thunder

Do you mind if I add some content from my copy of this magazine? I'd like to list the James Bama Doc Savage covers. MLB 04:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Also page 190 is signed RZ who is Rudolph Zim compare the "R" and "Z" here. Do you think I'll be punished in Heaven for liking these covers?
In my mad attempt to waste what little time I have left on this planet in fruitless endeavors, if you go here and blow up the image you see a signature above the fourth skull in the picture that is reprinted on page 187. It doesn't show up in the black and white reproduction but it could either be Desoto or Zim. MLB 05:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The text of the essay states (p 167) that the illustration on page 180 is by Howitt. MLB 05:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Mark, please go ahead and make any changes you see fit, despite eventual otherworldly punishment. Doug / Vornoff 00:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
All done. MLB 03:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Doug /Vornoff 05:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact, November 2016

Added some notes to this magazine's page. MLB 22:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, Mark. Doug / Vornoff 01:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Preface" in A Dreamer's Tale

Hi. I think Preface (A Dreamer's Tales) in your verified A Dreamer's Tales should be ESSAY, not SHORTFICTION. What I see for the Look Inside of the other two publications is almost a dedication, and definitely not fiction. What do you think? Thanks. --MartyD 14:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. Thanks for catching that. Please feel free to correct. Doug / Vornoff 17:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. --MartyD 22:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Reign of the Black Pharoah

Two questions on Reign of the Black Pharoah & Reign of the Black Pharoah from Spicy Pulpster, #5 August 1995:

  1. Are these both artwork as is currently entered? Or is one a story/essay along with associated artwork?
No, the first is an essay - I goofed. Change submitted. Doug / Vornoff 18:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. Is Pharoah the spelling per the publication? Or is this a type in the database?
Yes, the author misspells it in the title and body of the piece. I submitted a note for this. Thanks for pointing these two items out for me. Doug / Vornoff 18:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A variant assistant editor ...

... is proposed for this: Mike Chomko shall be replaced by Peter Chomko. This is proposed by user Wlampkin, who seems to be the editor. The question remains if the assistant editor is in fact correctly credited. Can you take a look? Stonecreek 05:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wlampkin is correct. Somehow I missed that one. Apologies. I have submitted corrected note. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 05:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, everybody is bound to make a mistake (at least if his contributions exceed a minimal number). Thanks for the quick response! Stonecreek 09:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem, Christian. Doug / Vornoff 15:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Vornoff/Archive/2016&oldid=458664"