User talk:WimLewis


Jump to: navigation, search

This editor is no longer actively participating and is unlikely to respond to messages left here.

If this user is the sole verifier of a publication record, please:

  • post only notices on the user's talk page concerning the addition of images and notes
  • post inquiries regarding any other changes to the verified record at the Moderator noticeboard

Otherwise, please post notices and inquiries only on the talk pages of the other primary verifiers.


Treachery of the Demon King

I have entered the publisher (E-reads) and one of the 2 ISBNs given for the 4th volume. OCLC also lists the page count, but I am not sure whether it is strictly electronic pagination or whether E-reads do print on demand as well. There is more information at{2607CF7C-F0C7-4A44-A224-341BFCA1550D}&Format=50 and{2607CF7C-F0C7-4A44-A224-341BFCA1550D}&Format=900 Ahasuerus 21:13, 11 Mar 2007 (CST)

The Steerswoman's Road

Re: the conversion of "The Steerswoman's Road" from Novel to Omnibus, the submission looked fine with one exception. When changing a Publication Novel to an Omnibus, we need to change the main Title from Novel to Omnibus as well and then add the constituent Novel Titles. It's a very common mistake that everyone makes the first time around :) I approved the submission and added the missing Omnibus Title, so now everything is fine. Thanks for editing! Ahasuerus 21:24, 11 Mar 2007 (CST)


Keep in mind that "NONFICTION" is used for book length nonfiction pieces while "ESSAY" is used for articles. You used ESSAY twice and NONFICTION once in Starshore, so I assume you are familiar with the convention and it was just a slip of the mouse :) Ahasuerus 22:48, 13 Mar 2007 (CDT)


Unfortunately, our classification system is not very granular at the moment and the COLLECTION type is currently reserved for collections of fiction pieces. This forces us to enter collections of non-fiction articles as NONFICTION, which is admittedly suboptimal. However, we figured that if we had to pick just one primary characteristic, then it appeared likely that our users were primarily interested in the fiction/non-fiction divide and the "one work/many works" divide was not quite as important to them. Or so we hope :) Ahasuerus 23:13, 13 Mar 2007 (CDT)

That makes sense. I was trying to get rid of the way that "Making Book" is listed as a title contained by Making Book. The collection has that title but none of the works within it do, but ISFDb shows it on its own TOC listing. WimLewis 23:28, 13 Mar 2007 (CDT)
Oh, that! No, that was a different problem, the all too common Publication-Title mismatch. In this case, the Publication type was set to NOVEL and the Title type was set to NONFICTION, which I have since corrected. There is some special (and occasionally headache-inducing) logic that suppresses the display of the main Nonfiction, Collection, Anthology and Omnibus titles so that our users only see the stories/essays/novel Titles that comprise these Publication. If you check the Publication now, it should look better :) Ahasuerus 23:46, 13 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Eileen Gunn's "The Sock Story"

Are we sure it's a novelette? The Locus Index suggests that it is 2 pages long :) Ahasuerus 23:55, 15 Mar 2007 (CDT)

You're right, I just checked my copy of Stable Strategies and others and it's only 3pp there. Sorry about that! WimLewis 00:35, 16 Mar 2007 (CDT)
No worries, errors happen all the time! That's one of the reasons why we have a second pair of optical receptors review submissions :) I have approved the submission and changed the Title Type back to "ss", so we should be all set for now. Happy editing! Ahasuerus 00:40, 16 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Dates and LCCNs

A couple of things based on your recent submissions. When entering a later printing of a book, please keep in mind that we want to capture the date of the printing that you are entering:

For books, to identify the year, try to spot a statement (often on the verso of the title page) that says something like "Published in June 2001"; the copyright date is often misleading, since works can be reprinted. Look out for signs that this is a reprint; indications often include a series of numbers (e.g. "3 4 5 6 7 8 9") at the bottom of the verso of the title page; this particular string indicates that this is a third printing. If you know you are holding a reprint, and there is no way to date that particular publication, leave the year field as 0000-00-00. It is sometimes possible to find dates of reprints from subsequent printings which list all printings and their associated dates; if you enter a date from a source like this, include a note explaining your deduction. Note that we are interested in recording each different reprint of a publication, since there can be some significant differences between them, such as cover art, or price.

As far as capturing LCCNs goes, there is no standard way to enter them and we don't make a concerted effort to add them (or OCLC numbers and/or other third party identifiers), but there is no harm in adding them to the Note field :) Happy editing! Ahasuerus 17:20, 17 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. I haven't been being careful about the dates wrt reprints. I'll see if I can go back and re-check the dates I've entered. Re the LCCNs, I know it's not a piece of information the ISFDB is concentrating on, but I figure entering it doesn't hurt. WimLewis 19:34, 22 Mar 2007 (CDT)
Hi, I noticed that you have a lot of submissions today without publication dates (i.e. date set to 0000-00-00) and in many cases binding given as "unk". Most seem to be Berkley paperbacks, and you give prices on most of them. As my fellow moderator says above, we really want to try to capture dates of publication, in part because the page display logic uses the date to order the various publications of each title. Is there a specific reason why you left the dates and bindings as you did? (Scott Latham 20:04, 23 Mar 2007 (CDT))
In this case it's because I entered a bunch of books from "Other Science Fiction Titles From Foo Press!" lists. I can guess that the dates would be close to the date of the book I'm holding, but they could be a few years off. I don't have physical copies of those books. WimLewis 23 Mar 2007
I have checked some of the newly added Publication records against the OCLC catalog and and they apparently exist, so I added the missing ISBNs, page counts, years, etc. However, as a general observation, entering data from secondary sources can be treacherous since publisher's catalogs have been known to include vaporware. It is usually best to get an independent confirmation (from major online catalogs, if nothing else) that the advertised Publications actually exist and also fill in as many gaps as possible. On the plus side, the addition of ISBNs is always a good thing since it enables automated checking later on. Decisions, decisions :) Ahasuerus 00:03, 24 Mar 2007 (CDT)
I agree, sources like these are sometimes dodgy, but they're also a good way to recapture some otherwise ephemeral data. Maybe I should make a note as to the source of edits like that? OTOH, if the book isn't verified, and obvious properties like page count or binding/trimsize are missing, then it's a good indication that it came from some secondary source. I figure it's no less reliable than the automatic Amazon scraping, at least. (With both of the lists I entered, I noticed about a third of the list I was entering was already in ISFDB, which seemed like a good sign.)

"The Star Mouse"

Re: "Star Mouse" as a Variant Title of "The Star Mouse", do we know which Publication this form of the title appeared in? I can't seem to find anything in Contento or the Locus Index up to 1998. Ahasuerus 23:20, 23 Mar 2007 (CDT)

I have a copy of Space On My Hands (a 1980 printing, apparently) which uses the title "Star Mouse" on both the contents page and the individual story page. I was planning to update the Publication record, which I created as a clone, as soon as the variant title was accepted/integrated. WimLewis 23:50, 23 Mar 2007 (CDT)
Ah, I see! It took me some time to wade through the submission queue to the two related submissions, but now it all makes sense. I approved the Title removal/addition and then made the new Title record into a VT of the pre-existing one so that we wouldn't have to merge them. Please take a look at the results when you get a chance to make sure everything looks rigth. Thanks! Ahasuerus 23:59, 23 Mar 2007 (CDT)


Could you please check 75184? You had sent in an update to change the title to Storyteller, binding to pb, the artist to Tim O'Brian, and something in the contents. Ahasuerus and I were both reviewing submissions and must have hit [approve] on this one simultaneously. The updates went through in parallel but some things got blown up. I suspect the publication and title are what you wanted them to be and if that's the case one of us can delete the original request, which is now damaged, from the queue. Marc Kupper (talk) 03:11, 24 Mar 2007 (CDT)

I think I might have submitted a duplicate change, or one for the Title and one for the Pub (I'm still not 100% clear on what kinds of changes will cascade to other entries and what changes require more than one update). Anyway, go ahead and delete the pending change, and I'll re-check the publication tonight when I'm near the book again. WimLewis 16:30, 24 Mar 2007 (CDT)
Unfortunately, this submission can't be deleted by a moderator since it's rather badly broken at the moment and will require programmer intervention. On the plus side, I think I have finally figured out what causes this recurring error. You created a Merge Title submission and then a Publication Edit submission for a Publication record that included the Title-to-be-merged in the Contents section. Both submissions were valid at the time they were created, but once the first submission was approved, the second Title record was deleted and when you pull up the second submission in the moderator screen, it points to a non-existing Title and causes an error. I will leave Al a message and copy this explanation to the Bugs page, so hopefully the underlying error will be addressed soon. Thanks! Ahasuerus 17:57, 24 Mar 2007 (CDT)
That seems like a likely scenario. WimLewis 00:01, 25 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Scavenger's Newsletter, September 1999

I approved adding the magazine Scavenger's Newsletter, September 1999 but am wondering if there will me more stories added. {{Marc Kupper} 22:06, 25 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Unfortunately, no, that's all the information I have on that issue (I submitted it based on information about the story, rather than information about the magazine). I've fired off an email to the magazine's editor asking if there are TOCs on the web anywhere.

Howard's "Scarlet Citadel"

I have approved the submission of Wings in the Night and corrected the spelling of "Scarlet Citadel" (from "Citidel"), but I was wondering if you could double check that the title used in this collection is "Scarlet Citadel" and not "The Scarlet Citadel"? Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:23, 29 Mar 2007 (CDT)

I think that's an error in my source list, which had a couple of other obvious typos. I was cross-checking Wildside Press's website against another list, until I realized that the other list had clearly been copied-and-pasted from the website. I've submitted a merge of those two titles. --WimLewis 13:27, 29 Mar 2007 (CDT)
Ah, I see, thanks! That's exactly the reason why we try to be extra careful with secondary sources and double check them whenever possible :) Ahasuerus 15:34, 29 Mar 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I've been bitten by that a couple of times now. :( I wish there were a way to tag a submission with some indication of its reliability, in such a way that the indication stayed attached to the data in the db (until overwritten by a more-reliable verification)... IMHO, it's good to import this kind of data, but I don't want it to degrade the overall quality of the isfdb. --WimLewis 15:50, 29 Mar 2007 (CDT)
I have been adding "taggs" about source/reliability related things via the publication notes. It's not the best system and is an area I've thought about regularly but so far have that perfect idea has not come through. One thought would be that every edit page has a "source" field where you could enter your source. Thus and the editor name would get tracked for every field. Related to this is edit history logs which then allows resubmission of rejected edits and other wonderful things. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:58, 29 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Hand's "Generation Loss"

I am afraid that support for 13 digit ISBNs hasn't been added to the ISFDB code yet, although I know that Al is working on it. I have changed the value for this book to ISBN-10 and everything seems to look fine now. Ahasuerus 02:14, 29 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Malcolm Trowbridge

I approved your change from "PhD, C. Malcolm Trowbridge" to "C. Malcolm Trowbridge" as that's obviously a better version. I did dither over whether "PhD" should be included still - it shouldn't in legal name, but might in canonical name, it seems. But I'm new at this moderating business, so feel free to point at me if anyone moans! It's easily changeable again. ;-) BLongley 15:11, 30 Mar 2007 (CDT)

All right, I get to be the first one to moan! :) According to the Help pages:
Ranks, suffixes, prefixes. If an author is given as "Captain Robert L. Stone" then that should be entered in the database. Abbreviated versions of the rank should be entered as given, rather than expanded. For example, during World War II, on at least one occasion Amazing Stories printed an issue of stories from active service members, giving their ranks as part of the author attribution. These ranks should be included in the author names, and made into variant names for the relevant authors. Suffixes such as "Jr" should follow a comma and space, and be followed by a period if they are abbreviations. This should be regularized if they are not presented this way in the publication. E.g. "Sam Merwin Jr" should be entered as "Sam Merwin, Jr."; similarly, it's "Edward Elmer Smith, Ph. D."; or "Frederick C. Durant, III". Other prefixes and suffixes should follow analogous rules.
so we presumably want to add that "PhD" as a suffix.
Personally, I am not entirely happy with this rule since it leads to a multitude of VTs for people like S. P. Meek who wrote as "Captain S. P. Meek", "Major S. P. Meek", "Col. S. P. Meek" and "Colonel S. P. Meek" (not to mention "Sterner St. Paul"), but that's what we have in the Help pages at the moment. Ahasuerus 00:09, 31 Mar 2007 (CDT)
Darn it, you got in before I finished the research... :-/ I found myself wondering whether the "PhD" might actually have been for "Charlton Clayes", and went off researching him first. (Much more successfully, actually.) But yes, it's Trowbridge's doctorate and I'll add it. BLongley 10:54, 31 Mar 2007 (CDT)
In the end I made it a "Ph.D." suffix and corrected a few other Doctors AND the help text to match. No, I'm not changing the help to make ME right after all, but it seems the consensus is on "Ph.D." without a space. Strangely enough, the more I looked into the publication, the more I doubted not the "Ph.D." but Trowbridge's actual EXISTENCE... the closer you get to the real "Charlton Clayes" (and I had him narrowed down to two possible addresses and phone numbers at one point, I had to resist calling them both!) , the less you see of the other guy.... BLongley 14:19, 31 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Requiem for a Ruler of Worlds

I have checked the affected publication in my collection and the author was credited as "Brian Daley", not "Brian C. Daley". OCLC suggests that the Grafton reprint also used "Brian Daley". I have merged the two Title records and we will probably want to do the same thing with the rest of "Brian C. Daley" records once we confirm that the middle initial wasn't used. Ahasuerus 23:56, 30 Mar 2007 (CDT)

I checked the other Brian Daleys in my collection and none have the initial, but they're all Del Rey. (So how did the initial get into the database originally?) --WimLewis 15:21, 31 Mar 2007 (CDT)
Well, his full name was Brian Charles Daley, so there must have been some kind of confusion between his canonical name and his legal name. Amazon is a notorious offender, adding and dropping middle initials seemingly randomly, and our webbots mine Amazon data religiously. That's why we added support for "Verification flags" last year -- too much dirty data has been imported from questionable sources over the years :( Ahasuerus 15:51, 31 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Changing Title/Publication pairs

One thing that comes to mind after approving/massaging a few of your submissions is that we need to remember to change associated Publication records whenever we change Title records for Novels. Thus, if you are correcting the Author's name in a Title record, you will usually want to make sure that the Publication's data is updated accordingly :) Ahasuerus 00:03, 31 Mar 2007 (CDT)

Charles Saunders' "Ishigbi"

Re: Charles (R.) Saunders' "Ishigbi", are we sure that the "R.-less" form of the name has ever been used on this story? As far as I can tell, the two Title records both point to the same book that currently exists as two different Publications. Wouldn't we want to just delete the duplicate publication and make sure that Contents data is correct in the remaining one? Ahasuerus 21:41, 31 Mar 2007 (CDT)

I can verify that he's completely "R.-less" in my copy of Hecate's Cauldron. (On the story heading, the table of contents, the copyrights-and-previous-printings page, and several times in the little editor's introduction to the story. No hint of a middle initial anywhere.) The initial seems to have been commuted to the editor, who is Susan M. Shwartz (or "S.M.S.") everywhere, unlike the other Publication record. That's probably why I decided to create a new pub record rather than modifying the old; there were a couple of discrepancies I wasn't sure if I was looking at a bunch of errors or a real variation, odd though that would be. --WimLewis 23:12, 3 Apr 2007 (CDT)
Ah, I see! Thanks, I have approved the submission. Ahasuerus 02:46, 6 Apr 2007 (CDT)


You wanted to change a cover art title (476731) Michelangelo to Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio. Do you have a copy of BLCKGDSNDS2002 Black Gods and Scarlet Dreams? Locus credits [1] just "Michelangelo" and if that's who the book credits that's what we use in ISFDB. I suspect that Michelangelo qualifies as a canonical name but it not then you could use ISFDB's pseudonym mechanism to link Michelangelo to Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio.

If you have a copy of BLCKGDSNDS2002 and it credits Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio then I'll go ahead with approving the change but we should also add a note explaining that there's an error in Locus' record for the publication. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:00, 6 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Yes, my copy credits the artist as Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio on the back cover. It doesn't have any artist or cover credit on the inside front copyright page, so the back-cover credit is all I've got. My knowledge of Renaissance Italian art is weak, but Wikipedia says that da Caravaggio, painter of Medusa, is not the painter/sculptor usually meant when someone refers to "Michelangelo" --- that one is Michelangelo Buonarroti. The two were nearly contemporary. I see that ISFDb has no other credits to Caravaggio, but does have one credit to Buonarroti (141152).
Thank you! I approved the title update and then added a note to the publication. Marc Kupper (talk) 12:26, 6 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Brian Daley's death date

Wim, I approved the change to Brian Daley's Author data, but then I wondered about the change to the date of his death from 1996-02-18 to 1996-02-00. I did a little bit of googling and apparently the date was 1996-02-11, so that's what I have changed it to. Thanks! Ahasuerus 12:56, 6 Apr 2007 (CDT)


No missing "d" just a miss type on my part, thanks for catching it.:-)Kraang 20:13, 7 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Monte Cook's Iron Heroes: To Duel with Dragons

I have approved the correction of Monte Cook's name, but isn't this item a D&D Adventure and not a book, thus to be hunted down and exterminated with extreme prejudice? Ahasuerus 22:00, 7 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Could be. I was simply fixing the obvious error in the db. I thought it might be a D&D-based novel, but I didn't look into it too closely. --WimLewis 23:04, 7 Apr 2007 (CDT)
Ah, I see! Cook is a well known offender and on our usual RPG suspects list, so we will get to cleansing his bibliography in due course of time :) Ahasuerus 23:09, 7 Apr 2007 (CDT)
I googled a bit and confirmed it is a D&D adventure module, so I'll submit a couple of deletions. --WimLewis 01:18, 8 Apr 2007 (CDT)
Approved and deaded, thanks! Ahasuerus 02:02, 8 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Caradoc ap Cador

Re: the addition of "Caradoc ap Cador" as Caradoc A. Cador's legal name, wouldn't it be "ap Cador, Caradoc" since we use the "Last name, First name" format? Or am I getting confused by this "ap" business? Ahasuerus 22:29, 7 Apr 2007 (CDT)

I dithered over that, spent a while with google looking for bibliographic standards for Welsh names, then threw up my hands and decided to refer it to the Community Portal. (Which I then forgot to post to. Posting now.) --WimLewis 23:02, 7 Apr 2007 (CDT)

"Breaking Ball"

I have approved the "Breaking Ball" merge, but do you happen to know if it has ever been published as by Michael Dennis Skeet? My guess is that it's a bogus record, but you never know. Ahasuerus 23:26, 7 Apr 2007 (CDT)

I don't have any reason to believe it's ever been credited to Michael Dennis Skeet. I agree, it's probably a bogus record. --WimLewis 14:32, 8 Apr 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, I have zapped it. Ahasuerus 14:23, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

"At the Money" INTERIORART

Would you happen to remember what you meant to change in this record? The submission, as it came across, had no changes in it, so I was not sure what to do with it. Thanks! Ahasuerus 14:23, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

I think the title had a trailing space in the MySQL dump, but then it didn't appear to have one in the title editor. I wasn't sure what to make of that. --WimLewis 23:31, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)
Well, it's entirely possible that somebody was faster on the draw :) I have rejected the submission, so we are back to normal. Ahasuerus 00:39, 12 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Foreign language editions and anthological complications

Great job cleaning up the database, Wim! A couple of comments based on approving the last batch of submissions.

At this time our foreign language support is rather weak and not terribly consistent. If a book/story was originally published in another language, we use the foreign language title as the main title and the English language title (or titles if multiple titles have been used by translators) as Variant Titles. However, if a book was originally published in English and then translated into foreign languages, we don't create Variant Titles for each translated title. Imagine what Heinlein's bibliography page would look like if we did! Instead we sweep all translated Publications under the main English title and pretend that everything is OK.

The best long term solution that we have been able to come up with so far is to have a checkbox for each language on each ISFDB user's preferences page. Then we would have to assign a language code to each Title and only display the titles that the user is interested in. If a user is not registered, then s/he gets all (or perhaps only the English language) titles by default. It would take quite a bit of work to implement, though, and Al's time is at a premium, so it remains a feature request. Oh, and by the way, the Spanish language Hellboy title that you tried to make into a variant title of the original English language title was a comic book, so I zapped it and its parent with extreme prejudice :)

The second thing that I have noticed is that you have mastered the art of converting Novels to Collections in one submission. It's one of the most user-error-prone areas of the application and I have to say that I am impressed! One word of caution, though. There is a difference in software behavior when dealing with collections and anthologies vis a vis novels. When you pull up a collection or an anthology in Edit Publication, you don't see that collection/anthology's Title record in the Contents section. The reason Al that decided to hide it was that we had too many users who merrily converted Collection/Anthology Title records into the first story in the Publication when adding Contents data to previously content-less editions. On the flip side, it means that people like you, who understand our database structure, may pull up up a collection/anthology, see that it doesn't contain any Title records (or so it would seem) and add a new Collection/Anthology record. If the submission is approved, then you end up with a Collection/Anthology Publication with 2 identical Collection/Anthology Titles in it and things get pretty ugly since Remove Titles doesn't let you remove Collection/Anthology Titles from Collection/Anthology Publications. The other day I ended up deleting and rebuilding one of the books since there was no easy way to untangle that mess.

Other than that, you are doing great! Another week or two and you will likely master the rest of the software quirks and I will be the first one to nominate you for moderatorship! :) Ahasuerus 16:54, 11 Apr 2007 (CDT)

This Shape We're In

I have approved the merge of the two versions of This Shape We're In, but it looks like it's a novelette (55 pages in the standalone edition plus the Best Novelette nomination) and not a novel, so I have changed it accordingly. Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:54, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Man o’ Dreams

Sorry for holding this up for a few days. There's a make variant submission where the new parent title has identical fields to the original. I see there are two titles in the database, one by Will F. McMorrow and one by Will McMorrow, are those the ones you were trying to link? --Unapersson 16:09, 16 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Ah, I wondered why that sub was staying in the queue so long. Yes, those are the records I was intending to link (71575 and 521765). On the other hand, I see that both of those titles are published in (different editions of) the same book. Maybe that means a merge is the right action. I don't have a physical copy of either pub, so I can't be sure whether it should have the F. or not, but it seems like the no-F version is more common and so should presumably be the canonical name. --WimLewis 21:00, 16 Apr 2007 (CDT)
I've made it a variant for now, they can always been merged if they both use the canonical name when the titles have been verified. --Unapersson 12:19, 20 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Year's Best SF 8

I have approved Year's Best SF 8, but I was wondering if A Few Kind Words for A. E. Van Vogt should be a poem instead of short fiction? Ahasuerus 02:24, 20 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Heh. Yes, it should be. I noticed that as I was reading the collection this morning. :) (OTOH, Arnason's Knapsack Poems from that pub is a normal prose story, though with lots of verse fragments in it.) --WimLewis 16:51, 20 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Changing the cover art titles for the Mary Soon Lee collections

I'm not sure if changing the titles of the cover art will dis-associate the title from the publication. Maybe another moderator can help answer the question. I'll put your submissions on hold until I hear something definitive. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:38, 22 Apr 2007 (CDT)

I wouldn't think so, since COVERART is a distinct title type from INTERIORART, etc. ... but I thought I'd try it and see. --WimLewis 19:17, 22 Apr 2007 (CDT)
If I remember correctly, there may be some special logic for Cover Art records, e.g. extra checks to auto-delete them when the last associated Publication is deleted. Al would know the current status. Ahasuerus 19:24, 22 Apr 2007 (CDT)
Here's the results of a little experimentation. I accepted your submission for the first title "Merglenn's Robotics". If you go to the artist's page A. B. Word, you'll see that title, but there's no indication that it's the cover of Mary Soon Lee's collection Ebb Tides. With the other title, I created a variant title "Merglenn's Rooks". I personally feel this is the better of the options. What do you think? Mhhutchins 19:33, 22 Apr 2007 (CDT)
That seems reasonable, except I would make the piece's name ("Merglenn's Rooks") be the parent, and the various "Cover: Some Book" titles be variants. It's not unheard of for the same image to be used as cover art for multiple unrelated books. (It doesn't bother me that there isn't a specific indication of what book a piece is the coverart for, since it's listed under "Cover Art" anyway. Ideally, I think, the isfdb software would list all the uses of a piece of cover art without having to have a variant title for each one --- do you suppose it's worth adding that idea to the feature-requests page? OTOH, it's pretty rare to know the title of the cover painting, if it even has one.) --WimLewis 19:51, 22 Apr 2007 (CDT)
Because we rarely know if a work is directly commissioned as cover art, and whether or not the artist has given the work a title either before or after its first use as a cover, I don't see much demand for an additional feature. I've seen art used more than once for different books, and without the work itself having a title, we really can't track its use. But as you state above, if the work comes first, and is titled, than the cover art title should be the variant. I'll go ahead and make the changes as we discussed. Mhhutchins 20:08, 22 Apr 2007 (CDT)

John Brown's Body

You have submitted a change the author for title record 470071 John Brown's Body from Lucy Kemnizter to Lucy Kemnitzer. This record is part of a publication GLRFNGTRRR2007 that User:Scott Latham has verified and so I'd want to double check that the name is consistently spelled as Kemnitzer in Scott's publication before approving the change. Marc Kupper (talk) 15:57, 27 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Mark, he's doing the right thing: I garbled her name on initial entry. Should be Kemnitzer. Thanks! (Scott Latham 16:51, 27 Apr 2007 (CDT))
Thank you to both WimLewis and Scott - I approved the update. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:09, 27 Apr 2007 (CDT)
Whoops, I didn't notice that was a verified pub — thanks for catching that (even though it turned out to be an entry error after all :) ) --WimLewis 18:39, 27 Apr 2007 (CDT)

Tomoe Gozen

Re: your submission of a new pub of this novel. My research shows that this was a revised version and published as The Disfavored Hero. (You had previously submitted a variant of the title which was approved.) If you wish, I could approve the submission and then manually change the title. Mhhutchins 16:53, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

I just approved your subsequent submission of the collector's edition, which had the new title. Mhhutchins 16:57, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
Good, I see you submitted an update for the title of the first pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:12, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
Yep, I created the pub by cloning and just forgot to update the title field the first time around. :) --WimLewis 23:14, 12 May 2007 (CDT)


Wim, you have over 2,000 submissions under your belt, a solid understanding of the way the application/database works (plus a working copy of the app at home) and a history of very few data entry errors. You are also a reasonably good communicator, as far as I can tell. Would you consider becoming a moderator to help alleviate the load on other moderators? You get to approve your own submissions and (optionally) approve other editors' submissions, time permitting. No pressure, of course! <hides the blackjack> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahasuerus (talkcontribs) .

<eyes blackjack> Why, I'm honored to help paint your fence, Mr Sawyer! ;) Actually, yes, I would be. My time available for ISFDB comes and goes, but I would be happy to help keep the submissions queue under control. --WimLewis 18:43, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
Yay! Another mug^H^H^H volunteer! ;-) Ahasuerus (I presume it was you with the blackjack?), go post the Victim^H^H^H^H^H^H Moderator Nomination statement... I'm off to bed. BLongley 20:03, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
Excellent! Will go through the motions shortly. Ahasuerus 22:01, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
The deed is done. Ahasuerus 23:12, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, Wim, I disappeared right after making you a moderator and before I had a chance to inform/congratulate you :( I swear it had nothing to do with an irate husband trying to break through the door with a shotgun, though! Ahasuerus 01:08, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Laura J. Underwood's Wandering Lark

I have approved your changes to this publication and linked it to book 1 in the series, but it would appear that the new image is for Dragon's Tongue? Ahasuerus 22:00, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that was a complete thinko --- I don't have an image for Lark (the previous Amazon image was blank). --WimLewis 22:04, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, fixed! Ahasuerus 22:07, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

ISFDB installation instructions

One thing that comes to mind is that you have been able to get the ISFDB scripts to run at home, so I was wondering if you could update the ISFDB installation instructions that I started a while back while the experience is still fresh in your memory? Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:00, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Seconded! I still wonder what all the warnings my plain installation of the DB gave me mean, but as I've not found a major problem with that yet I'm tempted to move to the next stage. (Umpteenth stage is of course to show how much better it would be if we switched to whatever technology my company are selling at the moment, but I'll settle for learning something else that WORKS.) BLongley 17:35, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
I added to this thread on Talk:ISFDB_Downloads#ISFDB installation instructions Marc Kupper (talk) 22:53, 13 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Cup of Morning Shadows

It's minor but I updated the page count for your verified publication The Cup of Morning Shadows from 320 to 317 as that's where the story ends and the remaining pages are advertising. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:30, 14 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Jade Darcy and the Zen Pirates

I updated your verified pub with coverart, but also added the month of publication so it's probably especially worth double-checking. BLongley 14:19, 8 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm, my copy lists the pub date as "July 1990". Where did the June date come from? WimLewis 16:27, 30 Sep 2007 (CDT)
My typo (6 v 7). A perfect example of why it's good to ask! OK now? BLongley 16:46, 30 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Yup, it all matches my copy now! --WimLewis 16:11, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Correct image?

For The Witling? BLongley 16:32, 5 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Took me a while to get back from hiatus :) The image that's there right now (triangular-ish spaceship over a snowfield) matches the cover of my copy of that pub, yes. WimLewis 16:22, 30 Sep 2007 (CDT)
Added a local cover image and other prices. BLongley 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Moocock/Moorcock Author Merge on hold

Since there is only title listed under Moocock wouldn't it be easier just to change the author of that title to Moorcock rather than doing an author merge? Author merges are much more complicated and prone to creating data loss. The title in question appears only once in the database so no other titles will be affected. You can answer me on your page.--swfritter 14:37, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Oops. Noticed that you are a moderator although you are not on the moderator noticeboard. I will leave the held submission for you to approve. From the submission list I guess I'm not the only one who did not recognize that. I wonder if your name should be on the noticeboard even if you are only self-moderating? I am still kind of curious why you chose the author merge method. I have avoided using it because I had a bad experience with it.--swfritter 14:49, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)
I didn't know author merges were trouble-prone --- I've only used them in simple situations like this one, where they seem like the easiest way to deal with an author-name typo. Changing the title record would be fine too, of course. Do you know what situations might cause problems with author merges?
There are various discussions in the community Portal archives. an example. And there are others. There is more programming overhead involved in an author merge than in simply changing the author of a single title record and therefore more chance of something going wrong. It's a different case when multiple titles are involved because of the time it would take to type in the changes. I have made the change by changing the author name and will reject the merge just for my own sense of comfort. It probably would have worked fine.--swfritter 16:44, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)
Also, I've mostly not been approving my own subs; I think I'll bring this up on the moderator noticeboard page... --WimLewis 15:58, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)
I wondered why a moderator would have so many unapproved entries. I usually approve mine as soon as possible. I will try to keep this in mind when scanning the submission queue.--swfritter 16:44, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)
Author-Merges are one of the biggest risks, hence the warning on the Moderator Help page (which unfortunately is one of the pages not easily available due to the problems. :-( )
Self-moderating-only seems to be a comparatively new idea, possibly used as a way to get people to at least try Moderator-Level abilities: some take to Moderating all sorts of things immediately, some mess things up a bit and are glad they can quietly fix it when they know a bit more (that's me, for instance), some have advisers they can talk to, in private maybe. (I suspect - this Wiki-messaging system makes things a bit difficult to keep private. I'm happy for my "Help!" messages to stay public, people might learn from them) but there's nothing wrong with a shy Moderator so long as they still communicate when needed. We definitely need to keep the new moderator help updated so any comments on the process and expectations are welcome. And it's probably time for me to try an Editing-Only account again just so I can recall all the problems I had, and experience the new ones caused by the latest problems. I'm not sure how to get back to a "new moderator" status and experience THOSE problems though so I'm relying on you and the others to tell us about it. BLongley 17:00, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Approved a few of your submissions

Just to clear the queue a bit and also to get an idea of what sort of editing you are doing. All the ones I did were non-problematic. I will leave you to pick through then ones you are comfortable with approving.--swfritter 17:15, 15 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Verified your day old submissions

I noticed that you have some entries that are for books that have not been published. I scrounged around looking for information about updating such books but I think you might be more up to date this issue than I am. You can answer on your page.--swfritter 13:48, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)

To quote our Help pages:
8888-00-00 means that the book has been announced but not published and is reserved for well known examples like Last Dangerous Visions.
Naturally, one editor's "well known example" is another editor's "pinnacle of obscurity". And then there are stories that have been erroneously (or even on purpose) referred to in print as already published... Ahasuerus 14:11, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)
All of your submissions are modifications or merges for announced books that are already in the system and should not be there in the first place so I think the next logical step is probably reject the submissions and wait until the books are actually published. I will not do so until I hear from you.--swfritter 15:07, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)
Er - the current edits I see held should be allowed, I think. "Selected Upcoming Books" is actually a feature of our home page! And Al did make some effort into differentiating Forthcoming publications from existing ones on Author pages. The submissions I see held all look fine to me - it's not a problem if they preannounce the hardcover, trade paperback, mass-market paperback, plus all the foreign versions: we can title-merge them in advance still. I don't see the "8888-00-00" problem on those so I presume someone's fixed that? FUTURE publications are OK, the "well known example" of "Last Dangerous Visions" frankly ISN'T - it was a well-known example for 20 years before I heard about it, for instance. Can we come up with a better example? BLongley 15:29, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)
Bill, your comment about LDV makes me feel REALLY old. I was a teenager and remember reading Ellison's puffery, er introduction in A,DV and actually expected LDV to published within the next year. A better example of a non-published book? I don't think so. (The same answer would be given to the question will it ever be published. But, then again, who would have thought it would take almost 40 years for an official release of Brian Wilson's Smile?) Mhhutchins 15:59, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)
Just posting some comments about future pubs below (will return to discuss LDV) BLongley 16:04, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)
Ah, found it! We've used other examples of likely-to-be-never-published pubs. Nothing more internationally famous than LDV though, but maybe there was a pre-announcement of Wheel of Time 12 or something that might be more current at least? As to how old you feel - well, I don't feel YOUNG any more. But I'm Old enough to mention the "Golden Age" Authors I haven't finished yet when people tell me I should be reading "Dan Brown" or "J. K. Rowling" instead. But Young enough to try them. Occasionally. I'd prefer to read LDV though. :-/ BLongley 16:27, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)

(Unindent) Challenging ANY editor's submissions can cause embarrassment/quitting it seems. :-/ I went to check on what our current "Selected Upcoming Books" actually says, and saw This title. Which turns out to be the right date, and a useful set of publications, although I questioned the title here - I feel no satisfaction in turning out to be right if it discourages other editors (Jll hasn't been back, it seems), discouraging another Mod may be worse. I can spare "Jll", I'd like to keep Wim though. BLongley 16:04, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)

OK. Back on topic. Since there is display support for future releases that would seem to indicate that there was the intention that they should be supported. If so, Help should be updated appropriately. I presume the minimal standard should be that they have been assigned an ISBN number. --swfritter
I don't mind having other mods doublecheck my submissions, as long as it's done in a friendly manner of course ... in fact that's the main reason I don't always verify my own subs. (For example, Swfritter caught that I put someone's birthdate in their legalname field by mistake yesterday.) Re forthcoming books, for the most part I'd gone through some of ISFDB's forthcoming books list and cleaned up the data where I could. Perhaps it would be best to always make a note in such pubs saying that the book hasn't actually been published, and the note can be removed once the book comes out (whether on the predicted date or not). We've had cases where books became vapor as little as a month before publication, e.g. when Meisha Merlin folded. --WimLewis 17:50, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)
I didn't even know about the forthcoming books link. I am basically living in the past in Magazineland. Obviously we do support them and you are only modifying data that's already in the database. Mr. Dissembler, I presume, is primarily responsible for adding them. I will go ahead and approve the submissions. Sorry my learning experience caused a holdup.--swfritter 18:26, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, folks, I should have realized that the primary focus of this discussion was our "forthcoming books" earlier. We have had support for them from the beginning and, as Wim observed, they are potentially troublesome since some are never published and some are published months or years later, so at least the publication date (and often other data elements) may be incorrect. We never developed a consistent approach to addressing these issues, I am afraid. Something to discuss on the Community Portal or perhaps the Standards page? Ahasuerus 19:17, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Installing ISFDB locally

Wim, there is a new editor asking questions about installing ISFDB locally over on the ISFDB:Help desk page. Could you please stop by and share your experiences in this area when you get a chance? Thanks! Ahasuerus 11:22, 19 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Aha, thanks for the pointer. --WimLewis 03:57, 20 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Your submissions in the queue

I know when you became moderator you had some questions about whether to approve your own submissions. If you feel more comfortable having a second set of eyes to look them over, just let me know. I'd be happy to lend you a couple. Mhhutchins 16:35, 1 Nov 2007 (CDT)

I can spare at least one eyeball too, as I now feel I have no confidence in my ability to Moderate magazine submissions. And there seem to be fewer editors doing books now - so invite some friends along as well! BLongley 17:57, 1 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Responded to your questions re: Turn the Other Chick

I have responded to your questions concerning my edit on Turn the Other Chick at User talk:Animebill.

Soukup's The Arbitrary Placement of Walls

You note that the contents that you provided in your update were not complete. There's a complete listing in the Locus database if you'd like to complete the update. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:21, 5 Dec 2007 (CST)

Sorry, I've approved some of your submissions, forgetting that you were bumped up to moderator. I've been away awhile and it completely slipped my mind. Mhhutchins 00:23, 5 Dec 2007 (CST)
No, no, please approve my submissions even though I'm a moderator--- I appreciate the sanity check. Anyway, thanks for the reminder about the Locus database. WimLewis 00:06, 18 Dec 2007 (CST)

Strange Relations

Please have a look at this talk as it's relevant to your "Strange Relations" Novel to Collection change. BLongley 20:16, 12 Jan 2008 (CST)

Verified Pub Isaac Asimov's Magical Worlds of Fantasy # 2: Witches

I have changed the length of "Poor Little Saturday" to short story from novelette. It is only about 6000 words long.--swfritter 18:46, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)

Retro pulp tales

I was cleaning up the Submission queue and approved your Retro pulp tales. I then checked OCLC and found that (a) there was also a signed limited edition with another ISBN (1596060093) and (b) there may be an "Introduction" by Joe R. Lansdale in the book. Could you please double check? Thanks! Ahasuerus 13:26, 12 Feb 2008 (CST)

My library copy lists both ISBNs on the flyleaf --- I decided to get the contents sorted out and then dup it. :) WimLewis 02:05, 13 Feb 2008 (CST)
I see that the intro has been added and everything looks fine now - thanks! Also, I have set up variant titles for "Alex Irvine". Ahasuerus 11:53, 13 Feb 2008 (CST)
I'm done with that title now --- so hopefully it looks good now. WimLewis 16:10, 14 Feb 2008 (CST)

ISFDB Moderator e-mail

I don't have your e-mail handy but would like to add you to the isfdb.moderators followed by at mail distribution account. It's very low traffic and mainly gets used when ISFDB is down or when people get blocked out of ISFDB. If you don't mind being added to the distribution then please contact me via and I'll add you to the gmail account's forwarding rules. Thank you. Marc Kupper (talk) 04:23, 21 Feb 2008 (CST)

Thanks - responded via email. WimLewis 14:55, 21 Feb 2008 (CST)

"The City on Millington Moor"

You have my title merge submission for "The City on Millington Moor" on hold, and it has been on hold for several weeks now. Is there a problem that I can assist with? -DES Talk 07:34, 19 Mar 2008 (CDT)

Wim's availability varies a great deal, so I assume he is on hiatus at the moment. Ahasuerus 10:14, 25 Mar 2008 (CDT)
Yes, sorry about that. I didn't remember that I had something on hold in the moderator queue when I vanished. --WimLewis 06:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deep Wizardry by Duane

I added some notes and a map to your verified pub I trust there is no problem. -DES Talk 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is " Envirorns" a word? BLongley 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops should be "Environs", fixed. -DES Talk
I could probably go add "Map" entries to a lot of my pubs, but it's a low priority. (And is actually probably a sign of a book that I will never re-read - if it NEEDS a map, it's too "realistic" for me.) Having said that, I corrected some entries about "Alderley Edge" tonight as that actually exists... damn all this British/Irish folklore stuff that actually makes good reading at times... BLongley 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots of things that don't actually need a map have one, for any of various reasons. The Lord of the Rings famously has several, would you call that "too realistic"? I wouldn't go through my biooks doing nothing but looking for maps to enter, but If I am working on a book anyway, I am incliend to enter maps if they are there, particularly if there is a clear credit for them. In this case I was simply re-reading the book, and checked to see if my version was already listed and verified. it was, but... -DES Talk 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I recall any of the maps in the Lord of the Rings, I find them unnecessary and skip them. Whereas some books are so badly written or so dependent on maps that I find myself having to go refer to them to figure out if the characters are talking about a long quest ahead or a day-trip to the market in the next village... and ones with the entire journey of the main characters mapped out from start to finish with helpful comments like "here they encountered the Balrog", printed BEFORE the text, are the most annoying of all. Actually, the most annoying thing is when they print similar maps in every volume of a series and I have to go check if they're the same or not: that's almost certainly going to make me avoid the question. BLongley 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but thaen any fictional tool can be poorly used. I find the maps in LotR helpful, although not essential. According to several published accounts, Tolkien found them essential (although far from sufficent) when writing LotR, and a fair number of place-names are known only from the map. Most editiosn include a Map of the Shire, a map of pretty much eerything west of Mirkwood, and a larger scale map of Gondor and Rohan and nearby areas. I aslo see your point about repeated maps in a series being a bother to enter. (The Wheel of Time comes to mind, it has a wide-ranging map in the front of every volume, plus local maps is some books.) I agree that "Here event X took place" is a built-in spoiler. I did find the maps in the Earthsea books if not essential then very helpful. Many "extruded" fantasy books have maps in imitation of LotR (or of each other) and use them as poorly as they do the other concepts that they imitate. Ah well. On the othe hand some of the better MilSF books have maps of battles which are very helpful indeed. -DES Talk 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack London initial publications

I approved some of the submissions you'd left on the queue, and noticed you were clarifying first publication dates. You might want to read this discussion where we seem to have decided it's OK to create a stub entry for the initial magazine publications, even if they're usually non-genre. I've created such for the titles you adjusted, although in London's case there's obviously a LOT more that could be added. The only funny I discovered was that you had the first US publication of Goliah whereas I tracked down an earlier British edition: I've left both magazines in though, maybe we want all "first publication by country" entries or such. Or all publications. There's room for a LOT of scope-creep here, so feel free to join in the discussions! BLongley 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Verified Pub - Maureen Birnbaum

Your entry MRNBRMBS1993 has a publisher listed as 'Swan Press', unfortunately I've discovered there are several Swan Presses. Could you please confirm that you book is published by Swan Press of Austin Texas, or some other US Location? (There is also a Swan Press of Leeds (UK) (possibly defunct), Swann Press of Sussex (UK) (claims to be 40 years old), Swann Sonnenschein of London (UK), and some 'Swan' of London, but since your price is in Dollars, I'm betting it s a US Publisher). Thanks Kevin 06:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just re-found my copy --- the publisher is in fact "Swan Press, Austin, Texas". I'll update the pub. --WimLewis 06:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Space On My Hands

This. [2] . I added my cover image and notes to the data. If I am incorrect please msg me. I felt the printing history especially important to note as the data base does not show all the printings/editions. I will transient after acceptance. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 23:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the right cover image, at least. The book is packed right now, but see if I can confirm the rest of the info once I unpack it. Thanks for the notice. --WimLewis 06:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Atrocity Archives

Added $C price to THTRCTYRCH2004. My copy, a stated first edition, has the same ISBN on the copyright page and the cover...?--Bluesman 18:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Added a couple of notes and the month of publication (from LOCUS) to LUMINOUSUK1999. Notes about edition/artist/C$ price. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen Listen

Added a cover image and some notes to LSTNLSTN1984--Bluesman 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Clark Ashton Smith's Avowal

Thanks for catching that. You are indeed correct.--Rtrace 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Title fixed. Ahasuerus 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Moderator queue?

Now that you are back <cheers>, how do you want to handle your submissions that remain in the queue for a while? Does your old permission to have them approved by the other moderators (see above) still stand? Thanks! Ahasuerus 06:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely— in fact I prefer it (esp since I've probably forgotten some nuances of the ISFDb schema while away).
Will do! Ahasuerus 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it would be good to list this preference on the moderators-list page?
Sure, sounds like a good idea. Ahasuerus 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I usually consider approving anything that's been in the queue for a while, regardless of whether it was submitted by a moderator, but I don't want to step on toes.
If you do, please leave a note on the submitting moderator's page. Also, please be careful just in case the moderator was experimenting with Author Merge or something equally dangerous. Ahasuerus 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(It's good to have some time for ISFDb again!) --WimLewis 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed! :) Ahasuerus 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Atrocity Archives

Added a couple of notes to THTRCTYRCH2004. You had a note about differing ISBN numbers between copyright page and back cover. I have a first edition and they are the same. Later/different printing? --Bluesman 04:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One Step Beyond: Subatomic Anthology 01

I have approved the addition of One Step Beyond: Subatomic Anthology 01, merged it with the pre-existing version and added contents from Hampton Public Library (as you know, Bob, we live in the age of instantaneous electronic communications.) I also removed the geographic location from the Publisher field and moved it to Publisher page for Subatomic Books. Now that Publishers have their own records, we can document their history in Publisher-specific Notes. Some small presses have been known to move 3-4 times in just a few years! Ahasuerus 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why I didn't notice the existing entry? (I probably just forgot to search.) Thanks for the fixups. --WimLewis 03:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Koji Suzuki's Ring

I have approved the addition of the 2005 HarperCollins edition of Ring, but the submitted ISBN generated a bad checksum, so I changed it to 0007178859 as per OCLC. Could you please double check your copy to see if it matches? TIA! Ahasuerus 06:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The copyright page definitely has 0001718859, but the back cover has -717-. Must be a misprint. --WimLewis 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, I have expanded the Note text a bit to clarify the situation. Ahasuerus 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pasquale's Angel

Added a cover image to [[3]] --Bluesman 05:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fool Moon -- pub date?

Hi. I was going to do a transient verification on your verified FLMNXMTFFB2001 (and I have found a cover image, too), as I have the 14th printing, but I have a question about the date (2001-00-00). It looks like maybe this entry is using the original publication year? I don't think 2001 is right, judging by the price. I poked around a little on Locus1, and it seems Penguin/Roc didn't start charging $7.99 for issues until 2005-2006. Could that year be a mistake? --MartyD 00:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It could well be. I might have duplicated that entry from the first printing or something and neglected to clear out the year. I'll try and dig up my copy, but in the meantime consider that date unreliable, I guess. --WimLewis 04:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the date to unknown and modified the note to describe it as an undated 14th printing. I also added the above image. --MartyD 11:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Changed to 0000-00-00 approved. Ahasuerus 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror: Eleventh Annual Collection

I added a cover image for your verified pub. I also added the month of publication.--Rtrace 06:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Boucher, The Compleat Werewolf - Dates

I've put your submission to update the date on Ace pb of The Compleat Werewolf on hold. In addition to the copyright date, is there any further information (in the book or on the web) to indicate it was released at the same time or same year as the 1969 hardcover shown here? The Ace Cover Library site lists it as (1969, 1st ACE Printing) but they have at times also assumed the copyright date was the printing date. Without additional evidence, we have to assume that this pb could have been printed up to several years after the original hardcover release. - Thanks Kevin 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey - Someone just pointed out to me that you are a Moderator too. Woops! and my apologies (sometimes that when the clue stick hits you it smarts... sometimes it misses entirely). - I've unheld your submission. Cheers. Kevin 00:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The original Simon and Schuster edition of this collection was published in 1969 and paperback reprints tended to appear at least a year later during that era, but it wasn't a hard and fast rule. OCLC also says "1969", but their reprint dates are often suspect. MELVYL, which is usually careful with dates, simply says "c1969", which doesn't help much, and the Paperback Price Guide doesn't list Ace book after they switches to purely numeric Catalog IDs... Ahasuerus 00:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And Eternity

I added the author's note to this verified pub. Willem H. 11:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And added this cover scan. Thanks, Willem H. 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added date to verified

I added the month to the date of your verifies [4] and added Canadian price.Don Erikson 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Skeen's Search - added cover/notation

Afternoon! This. [5]. I added a cover image and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Skeen's Return - added cover image

Afternoon! This. [6]. I added a cover image match with my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Added date & note

I added the month to the date from the copyright page and a note of printing to your verified [7].Don Erikson 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicks in Chainmail -- added cover image

I added this image to your verified Chicks in Chainmail. --MartyD 10:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicks in Chainmail -added notation/changed title to introduction.

Afternoon! This. [8]. I added notation and changed the introduction title to "Chicks in Chainmail" as shown on essay title page after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies. I also changed Esther M. Friesner to Esther Friesner as used througout the book. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to accept the change of author credit as it matches the OCLC record. WimLewis, if your copy differs we'll create a variant. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
LOC agrees. I'm not sure you can rely on OCLC: it uses Esther M. Friesner for other books in the series, at least one of which I know for sure is credited to Esther Friesner. --MartyD 10:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Added month to date

I added the month to the date of your verified [9] and noted 1st printing.Don Erikson 17:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Wim's availability is sporadic, I have approved the submission to clear the queue. Ahasuerus 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Moonwise - Greer Ilene Gilman

Hi, I've added a cover image & Canadian price to your verified publication here ...clarkmci/--j_clark 09:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Farewell Horizontal

The image link for Farewell Horizontal was broken. An editor has added an image that you may want to re-check. I can make out the wording in the image it seems to match the publication record. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu

Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu apparently (see Wikipedia/ her homepage) uses the name Nnedi Okorafor now. I'll make the former a pseudonym if that's ok with you - You're the only verifier of one the titles under her former name ( Also, this publication seems to be duplicated with different page counts - could you check the page count? Thanks Fsfo 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wim has been MIA for a while, so please go ahead and make the change. Ahasuerus 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
All right, I'll do that. Thanks Fsfo 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Done but I'm not sure the result is quite right ... The awards information for her two novels should probably be listed under the main title, not under the variant title? Or would the award data itself have to be updated in order to achieve this? Fsfo 02:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That's right, all awards should be listed under the main (aka "canonical") title, but we don't have an award editor yet (or rather it has been stuck in limbo for some time.) The only way to get the award to the right title record at this time is via Merge Titles, but that would involve creating fake titles, breaking and recreating variant title relationships and other painful manipulations. We need to write a script to re-point all awards from variant titles to their parents and, more importantly, we need to finish the award editor. Unfortunately, our development resources are limited and my plate is already full, so I don't expect it to happen until some time early next year :( Ahasuerus 02:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Connoisseur's Science Fiction

My copy of your verified pub, Connoisseur's Science Fiction, does not include the "Jr." after the editor's name. Nor do the covers of the other printings of this title. I'm going to go ahead and make the edits to make this a variant title. I'll also be adding a cover scan. Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Devil on My Back - added cover/notation

Morning! This. [10]. I added a cover image, [11], and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Golden Vanity - add cover/other

Morning! This. [12]. I added a cover image, [13], start page number and some notation, plus changed page count to 225, after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Darkest Road

I added the cover artist, month of publication and notes to this verified pub to match my copy. Thanks, Willem H. 14:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also added this cover scan. Thanks, Willem H. 10:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hecate's Cauldron

I added a cover scan and notes to your verified pub. I will also be adding the bibliography (which I intended to do, but missed on the first edit) and will be changing the name on the title to "Susan M. Shwartz". I will then create the variant title (with the canonical name) so that it will show correctly. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Men from P.I.G. and R.O.B.O.T -- cover image

I added this image to your verified The Men from P.I.G. and R.O.B.O.T. --MartyD 14:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes me wonder about the artist. Is the cover really credited to Peter Jones? The same illustration is credited to Peter Edwards in my pub (or might Peter Edwards be a pseudonym of Peter Jones?) Willem H. 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I freely admit it could be the wrong cover.... Fantastic Fiction has this one, which looks a lot more like Jones' work. It's also a Puffin.... --MartyD 15:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems logical. I was wondering because my edition of The Men from P.I.G. and R.O.B.O.T was the only thing in the database credited to Peter Edwards. Willem H. 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Added the correct(?) image, this one. Willem H. 07:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was going to do the same. I was just waiting to see if Wim would confirm whether either is correct. :-) --MartyD 11:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


I added a cover scan to your verified pub Witches. I also shortened the title to remove the series title and added some notes. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Catfantastic II

This looks like it might be a later printing, judging by the price. Can you double-check please? BLongley 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A Matter of Oaths - added cover image/notation

Afternoon! This. [14]. I added a cover image, [15], and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


I added this cover scan to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 14:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sorceress and the Cygnet

I added the publication month and notes to this verified pub. Thanks, Willem H. 13:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Also added this cover scan. Willem H. 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


I replaced the amazon image by an ISFDB-based one, and added notes to your verified here. Hauck 17:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Search for Mavin Manyshaped - added cover image/notation

Morning! This. [16]. I added a cover image, [17], and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New Amsterdam

Replaced cover from amazon and added notes to your verified here. Hauck 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bohr Maker

Replaced cover from amazon and added notes to your verified here. Hauck 17:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Hidden Family

I corrected the number of pages and added notes to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 12:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Catfantastic II

The price of this printing would indicate that's it's not the first printing in 1991 (there's already a record for that one.) I've changed the date to 0000-00-00. Mhhutchins 17:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Threats and Other Promises

Added a cover for your verified here and for here. Hauck 13:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Added cover and notes for your verified here. Hauck 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Five-Twelfths of Heaven - added cover/notation

Afternoon! This. [18]. I added a cover image and notation after matching my copy with your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Silence in Solitude - added cover/notation

Afternoon! This. [19]. I added a cover and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Empress of Earth- added cover/notation

Afternoon! This. [20]. I added a cover and notation after matching my copy to your ver. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Starlight 1

Added cover to your verified here and vol 3 here. Hauck 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

cover for The Moon's Fire-Eating Daughter

Dsorgen has added a cover to your verified The Moon's Fire-Eating Daughter. --MartyD 10:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Best New Fantasy

I added a cover image and notes to Best New Fantasy. I also changed the page numbers from 240 to 237. While there are some trailing pages, the convention is to use the last numbered page so I updated it to be consistent. Thanks. --JLaTondre 15:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

True Names . . . and Other Dangers

I added the author's introductions to this verified pub. Also reworked the notes a bit. Thanks, --Willem H. 20:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to user rights

Just to let you know that at one point there was a discussion of the best way to handle inactive moderators over on ISFDB talk:Policy. The executive summary of the discussion is that a moderator who hasn't been active for a over a year will have a hard time keeping up with all the policy and software changes that we have been going through. ISFDB:Policy has been updated accordingly and, since you haven't been active since mid-2009, I have turned your "moderator" flag off, so when you come back, you won't be able to approve submissions. No need to panic, though :-) as we have a list of Moderator Qualifications and you can reclaim the ability to approve submissions once you go through the process. Hope to see you again when you have time for ISFDB! Ahasuerus 01:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you're back! Coincidentally, on a magazine that I'm frustrated by - do you intend to do Hub #68, or any other issues that won awards? BLongley 22:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

cover for Passing for Human

User:Dirk P Broer has added a cover to your verified Passing for Human. --MartyD 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And I've added a publication month as well (via, verfied on Locus1 to be sure). --Dirk P Broer 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes for So Long Been Dreaming

Chavey has added a note about Canadian price and the nature of the cover to your verified So Long Been Dreaming. --MartyD 10:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated Eileen Gunn's "Stable Strategies"

I made some updates to your verified publication. You listed the pages as "206+xvi", but that ordering usually implies extra pages after the main pages, so I corrected that to "xvi+206". We do not normally include "Acknowledgements" essays, unless "it contains material such as reminiscences, opinionation or anything else likely to interest a reader or researcher", which this one does not, so I deleted that content listing. I corrected the page number for "Hooray for Eileen!" (The table of contents had the wrong page number). I corrected the title for one content item from "a recipe for Ideologically Labile Fruit Crisp" to "Ideologically Labile Fruit Crisp". You have a good point that it's worth noting that this is a recipe, but we always list titles exactly as they are on the story's title page. So I've moved that comment about it being a recipe to the "Notes" field for that essay. Chavey 13:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hellspark by Janet Kagan

Can you see if the statement "Book Club Edition" is printed on the front flap of the dustjacket of this pub? Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Iain M. Banks "Matter"

I've added Mary Branscombe as the interviewer of Banks at the end of the book. Thanks.--Teddybear 20:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Miles, Mystery & Mayhem

I added some words to the notes for Miles, Mystery & Mayhem. I suggest you might want to add the map. Author's Afterword and timeline to the contents. Bob 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


I added some words to the notes for Beguilement, and also added the map to the contents. Bob 13:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cover for The Cup of Morning Shadows

User:Ofearna has added a cover image to your verified The Cup of Morning Shadows. --MartyD 11:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it said he wasn't active anymore so without a secondary verify-er I didn't notify him here. O'Fearna 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


I entered some words in the notes to Dragon by Steven Brust. I also added a cover scan. Bob 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


I also added words to the notes for Issola by Brust and corrected the page count from 256 to 255. Bob 15:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thuvia, Maid of Mars

I added a cover image to your copy of Burroughs' Thuvia, Maid of Mars. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

DAW Collectors publication series

I and a couple of other editors are trying to formalize the DAW Collectors Books publication series. The consensus is that we should include only those publications that explicitly list their DAW number, either on the cover, the spine, or the copyright page. This applies to, apparently, all first editions and to some reprint editions, but not to most of the reprints. You have verified several DAW reprint editions where the notes list the DAW number. However, I can't tell from the wording in the notes whether this number is listed because (i) it was actually stated on the book; or (ii) the number was inherited from other editions with the DAW number listed. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could check these reprints and when they have the number actually listed, update the notes to reflect that. For example, adding "(on cover)" or "(on copyright page)" to a phrase like "DAW Collectors No. 123". The publications you've verified that fall into this scenario are:

Thanks much, Chavey 18:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hellspark - Kagan

Uploaded new cover scan.SFJuggler 01:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Windsingers

User:Don Erikson has added a publication month and cover image to your verified The Windsingers. --MartyD 21:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bear's 'New Amsterdam'

If you ever check these messages, please drop by the discussion where I've proposed changing your Verified publication of New Amsterdam from a Novel to a Collection. Thanks Kevin 16:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

People of the Sky

Added a cover image to your verified pub. PeteYoung 06:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools