User talk:Willem H.

From ISFDB

Jump to: navigation, search

See User talk:Willem H./Archive for older discussions.


PLEASE NOTE:

If you're writing to inform me that you've either added a COVER IMAGE or NOTES to any of my VERIFIED PUBS, please click HERE and add it to the bottom of the list. A link to the pub record would be appreciated. Once the pub has been reviewed, I'll remove your note from the list. Thanks, Willem


Contents

The Black Star Passes - am I going blinder?

Morning! This. [1]. Just joking, but I can only find JR. on the copyright in my copy. Would you confirm? I have noticed the JR. is often not there for Campbell, and I admit it confuses me. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And I thought I could get away with that one. Yes, you're almost right (the introduction is also signed as by Jr.). I left it as it was to avoid confusion (I thought). According to the Rules and the recent discussion the existing stories should be removed from this publication, and replaced by variants. That would leave the question about how to credit the introduction, as it's signed as by Jr. I probably would have done it different now, but back in may I wasn't so sure about my edits, and decided to close my eyes and verify the thing. Do feel free to make the necessary changes if you like. Thanks, Willem H. 13:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Started process. Where I will end is always a question. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just checked the result. Looks perfect to me. Thanks, Willem H. 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Just inputted the unmerge this morning and deletes, so someone else figured it needed to go under the variant, which is great as I need looking after. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Night Gift

Approved [this]. Should the spelling be "Aladdin" as opposed to "Alladin"? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I typed the Dutch spelling without thinking. Submitted a correction. Well spotted. Thanks, Willem H. 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

date of "Children of the Moon" and interesting link

Something relevant to your recent edits: The Ghost Ship and Other Stories of 1912, although the book says 1913. (Also found this review, dated February 16, 1913).

I noticed you merged Children of the Moon to have no date (vs. the incorrect 1964). I'm thinking 1912 might be right. --MartyD 12:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice, it also gives dates for all 4 early printings (1912, 1912, 1913, 1923). Tuck only mentions the 1st and 4th. I merged Children of the Moon before adding the date (I could only choose between 0000 and 1964, had only a few minutes this morning. I'm also changing the dates for the other stories in the collection, and will import the contents to the 1st edition. The review is for a US edition? Can't find anything more about that one. Thanks, Willem H. 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I've come to love Google Books. I've found even for the limited previews, sometimes searching within the book will find snippets that are useful. The review does sound like it's for a US Edition. Perhaps it is coincident with that one I found the scan for (the 1913 Mitchell Kennerly). --MartyD 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Collected Stories of Roger Zelazny Volumes 5 and 6

Just in case you didn't know, volumes 5 & 6 (NINE BLACK DOVES and THE ROAD TO AMBER) came out a couple of weeks ago and are available through NESFA Press directly with Amazon etc to follow. Also, in response to your earlier concern that V's 1-4 didn't make clear that I had written the annotations and the "A Word from Zelazny" sections, I changed the acknowledgments section. It now begins "In order to write the 'A Word from Zelazny' sections, the annotations, and the literary biography, I relied on many individuals. Some aided in the extensive search..." Volumes 5 & 6 show this revised text, and the second editions of volumes 1 & 2 (which are also now available) show this as well. When volumes 3 & 4 come out in their second editions (likely next year) the change will be made to those two as well.

And, since I mentioned it, the second printings of V1 & 2 both say "SECOND EDITION" because more than just typos were changed in the text. Some annotations were revised and other additions were made to the literary biography.

Lastly, in February the companion book that I've compiled -- THE IDES OF OCTEMBER: A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ROGER ZELAZNY -- should also be released by NESFA Press. It contains many entries not in isfdb, plus thumbnail images of every Zelazny cover from English-language publishers. Ckovacs 22:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I haven't ordered volume 5 and 6 yet, wouldn't want them to be underway at Chrismas, but it will be the first thing for me to do in the new year. Also looking forward to "The Ides of Octember", this probably has a lot of stuff I don't know/own yet.
The acknowledgments look much clearer this way. I'll keep the credits as they are, and probably add something to the notes.
As for the second editions, they are easy to enter into the database. On the pub screen there is the "Clone this pub" option, that does exactly what it sais, make an exact copy with all connections and variants already there. On the next screen you can edit the notes to clarify the changes. Again thanks for all the work you put into this project. I'm enjoying the books greatly. Willem H. 06:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sojan

See [here] for the price of [this]. Likely source for the price, at least notable. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this site. Submitted a new note, and added the site to my (ever growing) list of favorites. Willem H. 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It's hit or miss, and it will not search using ISBNs with any dashes or breaks. Good source for prices at times. [This] is the start page.~Bill, --Bluesman 20:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
And it's the British Integrated Library. I've yet to shorten that to BIL as only Mr. Longley would get it! ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
We tend to say "BLIC" for "British Library Integrated Catalogue" - all though that does sound rather South African to me when said aloud. I still want the "BL.UK" domain for myself though... I guess I just have to outlive the institution! BLongley 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll change it. Blik is a tin can in Dutch, but then, South African was Dutch too long ago. Institutions tend to live very very long. You could go for "BILLO.UK", but that sounds French to me. Willem H. 21:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bradbury's A Medicine for Melancholy

Can you recheck the title of a story in your verified copy of this title? I believe "The Sunset Harp" should be "The Shore Line at Sunset" as it is titled in most editions of this title. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it is. I submitted the neccesary corrections. Thanks for the notice. Willem H. 09:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Early Del Rey - story title change

Morning! This. [2]. I changed the title from "The Wind Between the Worlds" to "Wind Between the Worlds" as on story title page. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to get rid of those spurious pen-name attributed title records. The easiest way is to remove all content and then import the records from this pub. You'd have to go back and add the page numbers, but it would save you so much time over removing the wrong titles, adding the new ones, then merging the new ones with the correct parent record. MHHutchins 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
When I verified the pub, I actually thought these should be left under the pen-names, as they are credited like this on the title pages of the stories. Careful re-reading of the help page however tells me this is only the rule for magazines and anthologies. Another lesson learned. For me however, adding new titles, romoving the old ones and merging is easier than adding the pagenumbers again. I'll start submitting in a moment. I'll also notify Scott Latham and Dragoondelight. Thanks, Willem H. 20:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh great, another rework then... not just here, but for Kuttner and others. :-( BLongley 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought "Title Page" trumps "Table of Contents" too and have volumes 1 and 2 entered that way. Is this definitely an agreed standard for Collections or is it hidden somewhere under the "X Writing as Y should be credited as X" rules? I've long since given up on "help" being the definitive answer to things, we never update it all when we agree to do something different. (Which is rare enough in itself) and Help often disagrees with itself. If I have to change them again, I'd like to know if we are at least recording "ToC" / "Title Page" / "Inferred Real Name based on Collection's Author" in notes. BLongley 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It sounded so logical when Michael suggested the change. The help screen sais: "For short stories that appear in magazines and anthologies, the author's name should be taken from the story heading, rather than from the table of contents, if there is one." There must be a reason collections are not included in this rule, and I thought it reasonable, since collections are normally written by one author, that the stories should be attributed that way too. I try to follow Help as much as I can. At least those rules should be something that was once agreed upon. If there is consensus to do things otherwise, I'll put the pseudonyms back just as cheerful. Willem H. 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've raised this topic on Rules and Standards - it'll be annoying for me if I have to rework the same publications yet again, and I think we might actually be losing some data if we go for "just credit it to the Collection Author" when content titles might actually reveal true authors. (Probably less so in this case than in the Kuttner/Moore stuff.) There is no right or wrong way really, when you're trying to fit it into what the database allows - that's why I go back to first principles in these cases and hope that we all still agree on "we must record what's stated" (somehow - but "notes" are less satisfactory to me as you can't do much with such in the database). As well, it's up for discussion and at worst I hope we make it clear to all what we should all be doing, even if it means doing something I don't really agree with. I can always ignore that part of the overall ISFDB project and find time for something else. BLongley 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It is logical that stories in a collection be credited to the author of the collection. I was correcting a situation where a story ("Carillon of Skulls") was credited to "Lester del Rey and Philip James", which was highly illogical because "Philip James" is a pseudonym for del Rey and James H. Beard. When I pulled out my copy of Early Del Rey I saw the story is credited parenthetically as "(by Philip James)". The use of the parentheses is synonymous with "X Writing As Y", in my opinion. It remains logical that the stories be credited to the collection's author, but how the stories in this collection are credited seems to me to be out of the norm. Sometimes exceptions should be made. (And I had no idea that the Help pages didn't include collections as part of the "rule".) Regardless, I can live with either solution. MHHutchins 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
[after edit conflict] Bill, I don't see how making this one exception will cause you to rework anything. This situation is relatively rare enough that each book can be handled individually. MHHutchins 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Rare for most people, agreed. I just own too many books, and I especially like Short Story Collections and Anthologies. :-/ But I've changed several collections to use Content Title page authors after guidance, and used the "X Writing as Y" rule for such too, and Help frankly just isn't clear enough. If it ends up as "Collection Author should be used throughout" I'm fine with that but would like the actual content title-page author data recorded in notes at least. I'm just a bit fed-up with changing them one way, then changing them back, and want to pin this down. "This one exception" could actually lead to me pulling out two books (when I'm fit to find such) as they were published in two volumes here. Apply one interpretation of the rules to Kuttner and I have to find both volumes of his "Best of", and the other printings, where one printing has no content-level title authors and so is credited to publication author alone, and the other gives it away which were really Kuttner and which were Kuttner/Moore and which were under a joint pseudonym... This is not one exception, it affects dozens of my books and potentially hundreds of content titles. BLongley 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] Again, I don't see how making an exception for Early Del Rey would effect other books. Isn't that what "exception" means? MHHutchins 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if "Early Del Rey" is to be an exception, wouldn't you want the same for The Early del Rey: Volume 1 and The Early del Rey: Volume 2 too? BLongley 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I was waiting for some kind of agreement on the question. It looks like there's a majority for having the pseudonyms reinstated, and as I said before, I'll happily put them back if there's something that looks like concensus. Of course both editions should be the same. Willem H. 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cover image for Dancers at the End of Time

I believe this image was linked before we cracked down on linking to cover images on other websites. If you have a chance, can you scan the cover of this book and replace the current link? If not, I'll try to find a better image and upload it to our wiki. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just found this image on Wikipedia. Will it work? If so, I'll copy it and upload to our server. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I scanned and added this image. If you think the other one is better, feel free to replace it.
One of my side projects is scanning covers for my entire collection, and uploading scans when there's none, or only a link, so you can be assured that any pub I have a primary verification for, will eventually have an uploaded scan. Thanks, Willem H. 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
That one's fine. Just wanted to get rid of the unauthorized link. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing SF

Are you certain the piece in this pub is titled "Marker Resources" and not "Market Resources"? Thanks. MHHutchins 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Slip of the finger. Submitted a correction. Thanks for noticing. Willem H. 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Beyond Thirty by Burroughs

This pub popped up on a data inconsistency listing (for short fiction/novel mismatches). I corrected the type to CHAPTERBOOK, and added a chapterbook title record. Let me know if you have any questions about the rationale behind the change. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem here. It should have been a chapterbook from the beginning. Thanks, Willem H. 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Frontispiece in Kill the Dead

I've changed the content record type for the frontispiece in this pub from SHORTFICTION to INTERIORART, with the assumption that it was a typo. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That must have been a typo, much better now. Thanks, Willem H. 18:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Early Del Rey

Holding your submission, just to check that these stories appear in the TOC and/or title pages with the original author/pseudonym credited. Very unusual for later collections to keep the pseudonym. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just read the thread above concerning this and will approve the change. An odd one indeed. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You missed an interesting discussion. Submitted the delete & merges. After that the pub should be back the way it was before this. Thanks, Willem H. 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Interpreter title reference

I changed your verified The Interpreter to use this title by "Brian Aldiss" instead of this title by "Brian W. Aldiss", matching the author credit on the publication. --MartyD 11:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Special delivery?

Did you get a package?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cought me entering new pubs did you. I did get a package, I'm eternally grateful, and mailed you about it. Unfortunately my mail bounced back. The message is, that your mail server (or mine) is blocked due to spam. I'll try again from work tomorrow. Willem H. 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Receives OK at this end (tried a test from a second address). ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Restarted my computer and tried again. Sending is ok at this end. I tried mailing someone els, worked fine. Could be temporary. Willem H. 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd printing of Under Heaven's Bridge

I didn't know there had been a second printing of this title. (I maintain Michael Bishop's website and bibliography, and thought I knew every printing of his work.) My first printing has a number line "2 4 6 8 0 9 7 5 3 1" but it has the same catalog number (84481) as yours. Normally Ace would change the catalog number, usually increasing the number by one for each printing. Can you tell me what the number line is on your copy? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprise. It really is a second printing. I scanned the copyright page here. I think the numberline is the only difference, or it must be the ads in the back. Mine has ads for Ace, Conan and Andre Norton, numbered A-05, A-04 and A-03. Need more info? Willem H. 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the scan of the copyright page. It's identical to mine except for the dropping of the "1" from the end of the number line. Mine has ads for Piper (S-10), Dickson (148), Leiber (130) and Le Guin (118). I wonder if we can narrow down the printing date of your copy by using the ad codes. I've never been able to figure those things out. I usually try to find the most recent book advertised based on the catalog number and price. (Wasn't there a paperback publisher who used to put expiration dates on their ads?) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Two of the three ads from the second printing, A-05 and A-04, are in Barry Malzberg's "The Cross of Fire", first printing May, 1982. If that helps? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Universe 2nd printing number line vs 2nd printing dated no number line

Afternoon! This. [3]. I have a second printing August 1982 w/o number line. I have a 3rd printing with number line and no date which should follow your second number line printing. So one with date, one without, but you could date to my printing. I will have to clone to show difference. Any other thoughts? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I printed the differences on Bluesman's wiki page. FYI Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Responded on Bluesman's wiki page. Thanks, Willem H. 14:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Return of the Time Machine

Was about to add a couple of notes to [this] when I thought MAYBE this was one of those early DAWs that had the spelled number lines. My copy is Canadian, which never used that scheme It simply says "First Printing, 1972". If yours is a US edition with the spelled number line then I'll create a new record. If not and the copyright pages are the same then I'll just write all over the existing record!!! :-)  :-) Nice scan, too! [which I will unceremoniously steal if I need to create a clone....] ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No number line in mine, just "First Printing, 1972". It does say "Printed in the U.S.A.", but no reason to clone I think. Just edit away. Willem H. 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Much thanks! Bending, stapling, folding, mutilating shall commence! But not to the scan, of course! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
And done, with no bleeding or evisceration. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land

I believe the "March, 1978" date mentioned in the notes of this record should be "March, 1968". Perhaps just a typo? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe my fingers are too big for the keyboard. I'll buy another computer. Correction submitted. Thanks, Willem H. 15:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

World Jones Made

Approved [this] and of course went looking for an image. [This] is what I found. Sort of Pepper-ish, though his style is more 'defined' [?]. ACE Image Library credits this to Kelly Freas, citable though I'm not all that convinced. FYI ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The credit to Freas is obviously wrong. Freas did the 2nd Ace printing (this one), which is totally different. I'll add a clear scan and a note about it in a few days. Willem H. 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Card's A Planet Called Treason

According to Locus #224 (August 1979), this edition was published in July 1979. Please feel free to use them as the source of the month. Mhhutchins 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Checked and submitted (some other notes too). Willem H. 15:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bova's Kinsman

According to Locus #225 (September 1979), this edition was published in August 1979. Mhhutchins 02:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Looks like your "Locus Books Received" project. Are you still missing #224-#253? I could scan them or make photocopies. Let me know. Thanks to the Gregg edition of #1-#204 I have a complete set. Willem H. 09:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I went back to a project that I set aside about a year ago. I'm not missing 224-253. Those are the issues that I've yet to check the listings against the ISFDB records. (Probably should have made that clearer.) The only issues I'm missing are 208-211 and 214. I was able to enter 1-204 through an inter-library loan of the Gregg edition, so they've already been checked. If you have 208-211 and 214, please feel free to update the stub records that I created (linked from the Locus wiki page) and reconcile the book listings in them. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I will, when I have time and after researching just what to add. Just thought you might want to have a physical copy yourself. Willem H. 09:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can scan those 5 issues, I'd appreciate it, and even enter them into the database if you'd like. If you choose to enter them yourself, here's the contents I've entered in the records I've created for issues of Locus: all bylined articles, longer important articles (even if not credited, a subjective choice), all interviews (most are entered as "uncredited" because there is no internal evidence who conducted the interview), all reviews in book-review columns (and only very selective reviews in the book listings), all letters, all obituaries, all regular columns: Editorial Matters, Locus Looks at..., Books Received (Magazines Received, etc.), Along Publishers Row. When I get a chance I'll add the entry standards on the Locus wiki page. Please feel free at make suggestions. Mhhutchins 21:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

cover artist for The World Jones Made

For your consideration: The ACE Image Library credits the cover for The World Jones Made (#90951) to Frank Kelly Freas. --MartyD 11:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. Forgot to add a note about this (did it now). Freas did the 2nd printing. This one has a totally different cover. Anyway, thanks for noticing. Willem H. 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Holland's Floating Worlds

This printing was published in October 1979, according to Locus #227 (November 1979). Mhhutchins 15:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Submitted the new data. Willem H. 15:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Puppets/Sargasso of Space

Have your submission on hold as it looks ...'unfinished'??

•The Cosmic Puppets is 127 pages

•ACE Image Library credits Valigursky with the cover

•Sargasso of Space is 192 pages

•Cover states "Complete & Unabridged"

•ACE Image Library credits Emshwiller with the cover. Emshwiller's signature is visible the lower right, hidden as a sign below a row of buttons.

•

OCLC 2916767, 2916774, 173818119 See here for the Norton cover.

That's what's there. Thought maybe you had hit 'enter' by accident which would submit the entry before you were done (I've done that way too many times). If it's complete as shown above I'll approve and just delete the lonesome 'bullet'. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a bit of an experiment with the bullets. Most Ace doubles seem to be done this way. The lonesome 'bullet' shouldn't be there, and can be erased. If the result is not as I meant it to be, I'll try again. Thanks, Willem H. 16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay! Will approve and unload hat one bullet! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

dates of "Prolog to Trumps of Doom" and "Warriors and Dreams"

Hi. If Prolog to Trumps of Doom is indeed just an alternate title of Prologue from the Trumps of Doom, it should be given the 1985 date of the parent instead of the 2009 date the variant title appeared. --MartyD 11:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The same comment applies to 2009's Warriors and Dreams, now a variant of 1995's Introduction (Warriors of Blood and Dream). --MartyD 11:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right of course. Submissions made. I lost the track a bit in all the Zelazny edits. "Nine Black Doves" should be complete now, I'll check "The Road to Amber again". Thanks, Willem H. 11:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The info about "Prolog" is incorrect. It first appeared as "Prolog" in the book Trumps of Doom (Underwood-Miller, 1985). Zelazny authorized its reprinting as "Prolog to Trumps of Doom" in Amberzine #4, 1993. I used that same title for its reprinting in The Road to Amber, NESFA Press, 2009. In between the book Manna from Heaven reprinted it with a doubly incorrect title: "Prologue from The Trumps of Doom." That's the wrong spelling of Prolog and the novel didn't have a "The" at the beginning. Depending how you look at this, either "Prolog" is the correct title or "Prolog from Trumps of Doom" is the correct title, but "Prologue from The Trumps of Doom" is certainly a variant/alternate and not the correct one for the listing. There are several things to be corrected and I don't know how to do it so I'll leave it for you to consider. I'm glad to see that you've entered the info for V5 & 6 of The Collected Stories, though. --Ckovacs 12:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Good to see you're following my progress, and thanks for the info, I was wondering about it. This makes things much clearer for me. Normally, the first appearance of a title is the canonical, in this case the appearance in the 1985 Underwood-Miller edition. I added the prolog to it's contents, and will make variants of the other prologs (or prologues).
I do have another question. I couldn't find any credit for A Zelazny Timeline in The Road to Amber, so I entered it as uncredited. Is this correct, or was it compiled by someone? Thanks, Willem H. 13:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The material was compiled and fact-checked by me and with contributions by Dave Grubbs but with most significant contributions by Alice Lewis who did the graphic layout/design. Dave does credit Alice in his acknowledgments of V6 for the timeline. I think at one point he was going to list authors for it but decided against it for some reason I do not recall. Alice definitely should be listed as a co-author because the timeline is, by its very nature, a graphic art design that would otherwise be plain, unexciting text. --Ckovacs 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I added the credits. Willem H. 14:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Just double-checking, based on the above, should this one be "Prologue TO..." (as it is now) or "Prologue FROM..."? If "TO" is right, don't mind me.! --MartyD 14:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I just added a note to Manna from Heaven about this. It's "TO" on the title page and "FROM" on the contents page. Willem H. 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
With "Prologue" I'd forgotten about the discrepancy between the table of contents ("from") and the actual start of the story ("to"); that book was badly copyedited in several respects. But strictly speaking they showed the title of the story in the book as "Prologue from/to The Trumps of Doom" and not "Prologue from/to the Trumps of Doom," even though the novel was Trumps of Doom and not The Trumps of Doom. So maybe "The" should be capitalized in the entry to match their mistake. --Ckovacs 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alice Lewis credit

I am assuming you will be interested in this discussion for this submission. If you cannot see the second link, the author's name is being changed to Alice N. S. Lewis which may not be as it is credited in the book.--swfritter 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I submitted a change to the name Alice Lewis because it should be Alice N. S. Lewis as stated on the copyright page. I gave Willem the sorter, more familiar version out of habit. --Ckovacs 16:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Issue resolved.--swfritter 17:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No harm done. She's credited as Alice N. S. Lewis on the copyright page, but referred to as Alice Lewis in the acknowledgments, where I looked. For now I'm ready with the series, awaiting the release of The Ides of Octember. Willem H. 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

dating Scholastic publications

You may want to see ISFDB:Help_desk/archives/archive_08#How_to_read_.22broken.22_number_line.3F with regard to dating your recently entered The Counterfeit Man. --MartyD 13:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! I was hoping for something like that to be hidden in the numbers, but it's not easy to understand. If I read it correctly, this makes my book a 1975 publication, I'll make a submission for this. Willem H. 13:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is hard to understand. But I agree with you -- I think the number means 1975. --MartyD 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe somebody can rewrite the explanation more clearly and put it in the help somewhere? (With 57 different "Scholastic" publisher variations at present, it seems pointless to suggest putting it on "Scholastic's wiki-page".) BLongley 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Of Alien Bondage by "Cleve"

I continued what you started with this title (figured it would be easier for a moderator as it took several steps to get it into shape.) What's strange is that both the Berkley and Playboy editions were printed in the same year. It's possible, but still strange. Let me do some research to figure out what's going on. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the series moved from Playboy to Berkley in March 1983 after the first nine books. I'm thinking Berkley reprinted the earlier books, but kept the copyright date. That may have been the reason those early titles have the same dates for both the Playboy and Berkley titles. What do you think? Mhhutchins 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed the date of this pub based on the Amazon.com listing. Ordinarily I wouldn't use an Amazon date, but seems to fit in the scheme of things. They give an October date for the Berkley printing of Of Alien Bondage, which would mean Berkley began reprinting the series before the last one published by Playboy. I think this was around the time that Berkley absorbed Playboy's publishing division. Mhhutchins 20:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems logical. I think one of the first Playboy books published by Berkley was Image of the Beast in september 1982. According to Amazon.com the Berkley edition of Of Alien Bondage was published in october 1982, which is not impossible. Thanks for the edits, saves me some waiting between the submissions. Willem H. 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've changed the date of the Berkley edition, giving Amazon as the source. Mhhutchins 21:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Beaumont's Magic Man collection

Can you re-check the title of this pub? I was doing a Reginald1 verification and noticed he titles it as The Magic Man and Other Science-Fantasy Stories. Does the book's title page drop the initial "The"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed this. Indeed, it's The Magic Man all over the book. Submitted the correction(s). Thanks, Willem H. 14:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Angela Carter's The Bloody Chamber

A couple of questions about your verified pub: Locus #230 (February 1980) gives the price at $9.95, so I suspect their listing must be incorrect. Also, does the title on the title page not match the cover (The Bloody Chamber and Other Adult Tales)? The Gollancz first edition was The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories according to OCLC. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

When I'm finished with my collection (next year?), I'll have to revisit my early verifications. This was a bad job (or maybe I did edit the pub and forgot to press submit). Checked Locus #230, they give the price as $8.95, which is also the price printed in the book. I submitted a correction for this. The title however is on the the title page as The Bloody Chamber. I also added notes , pagenumbers and artist. Can't imagine I missed all that. Thanks for the nod. Willem H. 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. That's one of the reasons for using secondary sources and doing additional primary verifications. I cringe to think of my early verifications and what I may have missed. If it were close I think there were things I just let pass. These days I don't hesitate at all to change things if I have the book in hand. Thanks for checking again. Mhhutchins 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuetzel[l]

Approved [this] and wonder if Ms Frank spells his name with one or two 'l's. There are many more credits with two but most of the personal data is under one 'l'? Just curious. The only publication I have with his art has two 'l's. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the website the extra "l" was used by Nuetzel to balance the "N" when signing a painting for covers. Jane Frank spells his name with one "l", which is logical, since he was Charles Nuetzel's father. If there had been a full signature I would have put it under one of the double "l" entries. I hesitate to make variants/pseudonyms of all other Nuetzel covers/artists. Search for Nuetzel and you get six different spellings for the artist, but "Albert Augustus Nuetzel" is the real one. Willem H. 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stolen Faces

Found Mr. Hickman's strange 'signature' on the cover of [this]. About an inch to the left of the chin of the 'mask' face. S.—-. with the 'S' sort of like a lightning bolt. Changed the notes to reflect this. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blank pic

The image you tried to upload for [this] did not come through. Couldn't see anything wrong with the URL. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Now I see why, for some reason there was a colon in the URL right in front of the tag, so the image is probably in the upload log but won't link with that in there. ~bill, --Bluesman 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably my finger that doesn't know wich key to touch. Tried again. Thanks, Willem H. 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2nd time okay. --Bluesman 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Same thing with [this one] ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll go to bed now and rest a while. Tried this one again too. Willem H. 20:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Second try still has the colon. I'll try and fix it. No go... ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the image, what you had done was use the URL from the picture displayed after the upload, this is the wrong URL. The correct one can be found in two ways. Either click on the picture and a new one will be displayed then copy the URL at the top of the page or right click the original picture and in "Properties" you will find the correct URL. You'll notice both URL's are the same. Hope this helps!Kraang 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I must have been really tired yesterday. It's something I can normally do with my eyes closed and one hand tied behind my back. Sorry for all the trouble. Willem H. 15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission of Gravity

Since [this] pub has a full ISBN on the spine and copyright page, I put that in the field and placed the catalogue# in the notes. The cover is definitely by Paul Lehr, even though not signed. Is this one credited in the Jane Frank book you have? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. You're right about Paul Lehr I think. No proof however, not in the Jane Frank book, not in the Weinberg, not online. I added a note. Willem H. 07:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crispin's Best SF

Can you recheck the date given for this publication? Tuck gives the first paperback edition as 1958 which is confirmed by the note in your record. I would suspect it to be the late sixties, considering that the fourth printing was in 1964. And it would have to be at least the fifth printing, as you mention it states previous printings in 1958, 1960, 1962, and 1964. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's definitely not 1955. I still think it's the 1964 4th trade paperback printing though. I submitted a correction. Thanks, Willem H. 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

capitalization change in Exiles to Glory

I downcased the "To" in your 2-verified Exiles to Glory. --MartyD 13:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Astoria" by Poe

Is this a review? If so, who is the author being reviewed. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Washington Irving. Submitted the edit to the review. I was still merging the Poe titles. Thanks, Willem H. 15:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Extra hyphen

In [Axiomatic] does the story "The Hundred-Light-Year Diary" have two hyphens or just one? I have the Millenium pb which uses two, but I don't want to create a variant if the absence of the second hyphen is just a typo. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. It's one hyphen all over (contents page, title page and copyright page). Locus1 and Egan's website both confirm this spelling, so I think yours is the variant. Thanks, Willem H. 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Type-set-ter-s.... sheesh!! :-) Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Earthman, Go Home [!]

Should [this] have an exclamation point at the end of the title? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The exclamation point is only on front cover and spine, not on the title page. Good spot by the way, I submitted a note for this. Thanks, Willem H. 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The World's Desire - confirm artist request

Morning! This. [4]. I have a reference in Broecker's "Fantasy of the 20th century" to this being by Mati Klarwein. I then went here [5] and found the image title to be "Astral Body Asleep". Would you check to confirm? All yours! Sent message to Rtrace also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Added the artist to pub and image, and adapted the notes. Beautiful book (the Broecker) by the way, and the companion volumes (SF and Horror) too. One day I'll get to the art/reference part of my collection. Thanks, Willem H. 17:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fix. I now appreciate the Broecker more than before. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dinner at Deviant's Palace

I assume you just forgot to change the binding/format on [this]? Since I don't know if it's a tp/pb..... ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sharp as always. tp of course. Submitted the correction. Thanks, Willem H. 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Leiber's The Ghost Light

This collection is part of the series "Masterworks of Science Fiction and Fantasy", which my first printing makes clear. Does it appear to be a subtitle on the title page of your reprint? Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Masterworks of Science Fiction and Fantasy" is on the title page, but I don't think it should be a subtitle. I removed it from the title and added it to the notes. Thanks for noticing. Willem H. 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
There were a few more books in this series (Herbert's Eye, Farmer's The Grand Adventure, Clarke's The Sentinel), and several editors had used the series as a subtitle because it is so prominent on the title page. I think we're right not to consider it a subtitle. Eventually I'll get the time to create a wiki page for the publication series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


And Then There Was One

[[6]] Certainly an odd situation! I'm thinking part of the original note about the invisible story being in the acknowledgements and introduction should stay in the notes. That validates putting it in the contents. Otherwise maybe the fifth story is just a stitched together version? Thoughts? ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make the notes as clear as possible. I checked the existence of the story with Ron Kihara. The two stories have nothing in common (I read the book some years ago). I suspect the printer? ran out of space and deleted Rocklynne's intro and the title of the 6th story. Page 208 is the last page of the book, and is completely filled. Perhaps I should add something like that to the notes. Any other ideas? Willem H. 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought the revised note fine, but in looking at the old note side-by-side it just seemed that the story's existence in this pub was reinforced by being mentioned in the acknowledgements, which the revised note doesn't mention. I've approved the edit. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Craft signature(s)

Hi. Moon-Flash says signature is "CY Craft", while The Moon and the Face says signature is "KY Craft". Is each correct, or might one be a typo? Thanks. --MartyD 11:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks stupid, probably is. Both should be KY, correction submitted. Thanks for noticing. Willem H. 12:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Linking LCCNs

You and I are the only editors that I'm aware of that links LCCNs to the LoC website record, and I was wondering how often you've experienced a problem with the number. It seems to me that maybe 1 or 2 out of 50 pubs have either the wrong number printed in the book itself or doesn't have a record in the LoC catalog. The biggest culprit seems to be Tor which has more problems than any other publisher. After updating a record I always check to see if the link works. I also check yours when I've moderated the submission, but I'm not sure if all moderators do the same. More often than you would think I've had to unlink a stated number with a missing record or enter the correct number for linking. Have you had any problems with a misstated LCCN or linking to a non-existing LoC record? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, lots of times. Sometimes the LCCN doesn't exist, or links to another book. I haven't noticed any publisher that has it more often than others. I always check the existence of the LoC record before adding it to the notes. If the link is wrong, I add a note about this (something like LCCN on the copyright page as … but this is unknown to the Library of Congress), and try to find the right record. Willem H. 16:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. That explains why I've never found one your submissions with a broken link! Having the ability to moderate my own submissions makes it easier to change any obvious errors immediately. The time it takes to change those 1 or 2 wrong LCCNs is shorter than it would take to check out the other 48 records. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 16:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
At least one other editor links LCCNs, thanks to a tip from DES last summer. In an odd coincidence, an edit to Mission to Moulokin had me reviewing the notes there, which included an un-linked LCCN. Attempting to link it, I found no such LCCN at LoC, but the title is in the catalogue under another number. That's a Del Rey, not Tor, FWIW. --MartyD 16:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SFBC edition of The Dispossessed

I've added a cover image and notes to this edition, which we both have verified. My copy has gutter code "H09" which I marked as verified in the notes. When you get a chance can you check to see what's the gutter code on your copy? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mine has "21Q" (already in the notes). Should I mark this as verified too? Willem H. 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
When entering or updating SFBC editions between 1959 and 1987, I try to always show the gutter code of the first printing, followed by any known ones. If I only have a later printing I will mark that one as verified just to let others know that the verification was for that later printing, not the first one. I guess if there are more primary verifications of the same record, it would help to mark any other printing as verified too. I'll go ahead and mark "21Q" as verified. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, I'll remember this next time. I still have some SFBC editions to verify. Willem H. 09:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Artist credit on A Torrent of Faces

Hi. Please see this question. Thanks. --MartyD 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered there. Willem H. 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Farmerphile"

Is this a magazine? Reason I ask is I seem to remember a discussion about 'electronic' publishing dates and not sure what the resolution was. I don't see any problem with an electronic date as first publication date, even if the story later sees real as opposed to online print. ~Bill, --Bluesman 18:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a magazine/fanzine. Read all about it here. Terribly expensive, so I only own one issue. I'm trying to push my friend Rias (webmaster of the PJF International Bibliography) to start editing the ISFDB, and adding things like that, but no luck sofar (claims he's too busy). I remember several discussions about 'electronic' publishing, wouldn't have changed the dates for that. Willem H. 19:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

McKillip's the Night Gift

According to Locus #233 (May 1980), the Aladdin reprint of this title was published in April 1980. The ISBN, price and catalog number all support this year. The 1976 copyright was for the Atheneum hardcover edition. The Locus listing also states this was the first paperback edition. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Submitted the change & note. Willem H. 19:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthony's Juxtaposition

You can take over the Primary 1 verification of this pub. My copy is actually a third printing. I'm going over my early verifications and have discovered several that are reprintings. Back then, printings on hardcover editions weren't something I considered. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I probably made the same mistake once or twice. Willem H. 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you check to see if the map of Phaze by Chris Barbieri is the same as that used in Split Infinity? I've added a record of it to the record of my printing of Juxtaposition and thought if it's the same, we should merge it with the other record. Also check to see if there's a map in Blue Adept. That record currently doesn't show it. Thanks in advance. Mhhutchins 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what a mess. The good news is, the map is in Blue Adept, the bad news is, they're all different, even though they're all by Chris Barbieri. I'll revisit the books, and add notes, maps and whatever else I forgot/didn't know then. Thanks, Willem H. 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you to merge the records or create new ones. I only have one book in the series. If they're all different I guess I should change the title of mine to the book title instead of simply "Phaze". Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

De Lint's Little (Grrl) Lost

Can you verify that the publisher stated in this pub record is correct? I'm trying to determine whether Viking has an imprint for young readers or if "Viking Juvenile" was used in marketing only. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably just marketing. It's Viking on spine, title page and copyright page. Willem H. 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yours was the only verified pub with this publisher. I've checked most of the rest on OCLC and they're all coming up as simply Viking as well. I'll go ahead and do a mass change for the publisher record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Berserker: Blue Death

With a price of $6.95 and the note, should the format of [this] be a TP? ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Eyes aren't what they used to be. Humbly submitted the tp change. Willem H. 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Three Hail Marys should suffice!!  ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Luckily I got blessings from the pope when he passed. Willem H. 20:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes in Dreadful Sanctuary

I notice you left the "[Currey]" attribution on the '"Published in Great Britain in 1972" on copyright page.' comment in Dreadful Sanctuary. Perhaps the verification copy lets you decide whether that is true? :-) --MartyD 10:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to delete Currey. Second submission is underway. Thanks, Willem H. 10:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Witches of Karres

About the note placed in this pub: should it be "Rill" or "Bill" Ronalds? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cought me again. Correction submitted. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yurth Burden

Is the cover for [this]really by Gaughan? It just doesn't look like his work. He died a month after the first DAW printing with this cover came out in '85. Of course he could have done it months before. Just curious. Thanks! ~BIll, --Bluesman 22:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Its credited to Gaughan on the copyright page, but that could be a leftover from the first three printings (with a different illustration) of course. There's no signature visible on the cover. What to do? --Willem 20:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Tell them to change their name to ACE???? Seen so many bogus art credits lately... those I have I just make a note that the image is most likely by someone else. A couple of times I've removed the credit and just put it in the notes. Not much we can do until all the old artists' work gets collected. There's always a few AHAs!!!! from those. Thanks for looking. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:Willem_H."
Personal tools