User talk:Kraang/Archives/Archive02

This is an archive of old discussions from User talk:Kraang. Please do not change it.

Moderatorship

Is this something you would be interested in? I figured you could start out at least being able to review/approve your own edits (of which you have nearly 2000 and 875 of those verified). Marc Kupper (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

(Kraang replied on Marc's page but I moved it back here ~Marc) - Marc, as i've mentioned before my computer knowledge(programming) is limited, but i learn quicky. My main interest is mostly novels & collections so thats where i spend most of my time, so review/approval would be very helpful. My knowledge of magazines is limited. That being said i'am willing to give it try. Thanks for the nomination.Kraang 21:11, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Kraang is catching my early poor edits/verifications, so is certainly worth looking at. BLongley 18:46, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

At this point I fully trust Kraang's ability to do novels/collections correctly, the inevitable typo/thinko aside. Kraang is also one of the more active editors in the novel/collection area, so letting him approve his own edits would help with the submission queue length even if he never approves anybody else's submission in his life :) And I am sure that multi-step submissions involving variant titles can be a real pain when you can't approve your work. Ahasuerus 22:26, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Can we sort out whether Mods play ping-pong on talk-pages or keep the conversation in one place first though? :-/ The more mods we have, the harder it will be to keep track of "important" discussions. BLongley 18:46, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Personally, I use the "Recent changes" pages in "smart mode". It takes a few minutes to review a day's worth of activity that way and I can be reasonably sure that I don't miss anything important. Ahasuerus 22:26, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I personally don't like ping-pong-talk as I get behind on things, do a fast check on ISFDB, and don't have the time to be chasing down if a thread gets ping-ponged. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree that a standard would be preferable, I just don't know what most ISFDB editors would prefer. Do we know what the current Wikipedia approach is? Ahasuerus 22:51, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I use "Recent Changes" too but I still prefer to keep stuff in one place. And I wouldn't worry what Wikipedia does, we can set our own guidance. Move to the Community portal and see if we can get something approaching a consensus? BLongley 14:02, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Walter M. Miller, Jr. edits

In your recent set of edits, you removed the variant title of "It Takes a Thief" ("Big Joe and the Nth Generation"). I have a collection which has a statement on the copyright page that the stories are the same. Locus1 agrees. Also, you changed the name of the story "Anybody Else Like Me?" to "Anyone Else Like Me?". Is that title only in edition you've been working on? Locus1 doesn't have that title. Mhhutchins 20:09, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

And the second I post this, I go back and you've changed them. As Gilda Radner used to say "Never mind!" (Am I dating myself?) Mhhutchins 20:12, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Retief: Diplomat at Arms

Answered on my Talk page. Ahasuerus 11:29, 3 Jun 2007 (CDT)

OK, I have found and verified the issue. Contento was right, it was published as "Clear as Mud". Now to see how much I can verify in the next 45 minutes... Ahasuerus 12:02, 3 Jun 2007 (CDT)

You're a moderator

Kraang, you're now a moderator. Congratulations. Mike Christie (talk) 05:28, 4 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Just adding my congratulations too - now get to work! ;-) Check in at the Moderator Noticeboard when you're free. BLongley 15:09, 4 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The Exterminator

The change of the date for title 59037 The Exterminator by Laumer tripped a wire. It looks like it was in Galaxy Feb-1964. It's my understanding these days that we use "first publication" in any form except serialized. In other words, if a story is printed in a magazine as a "Complete Novel" then we use the magazine date but if the story gets split into part 1, 2, 3, etc. then we use the date of the first publication as a whole, which is usually in book form. I believe I once spotted a story that was serialized in a magazine, and later reprinted as a "Complete Novel" in another magazine, and finally published as 1/2 of a dos-a-dos. In that case the "date" would be the magazine reprint as a "Complete Novel" Marc Kupper (talk) 22:05, 4 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Hi marc. Contento lists its first appearance in 1971. This is a variant title of A Bad Day for Vermin(Galaxy Feb 1964)Re: Contento. Have also found several web sellers who list the contents of this publication & there list agrees with Contento. :-)Kraang 22:13, 4 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Template:TitleFields:Date says "For works that have had variant titles, the date to enter is the first under any title and any pseudonym; variant titles do not have their own dates." and so in that case I'd guess we use the 1964-02-00 date unless the story was "heavily revised to the point that it is essentially a different story." Note - I personally think it's a rather odd rule and would rather have the date be the first time that particular title was used in which case 1971-00-00 seems right.

BTW - I guess that means ISFDB's listing for Galaxy is wrong and that GALFEB1964 should show A Bad Day for Vermin. Do you want me to fix that? Marc Kupper (talk) 22:52, 4 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Sorry about jumping in and approving your entries but I was in the middle of writing Rules_and_standards_discussions#Variant_title_dates and needed an example of what ISFDB's current display looks like. :-) BTW, you had added the story to Galaxy as by Jack Vance and I was sure confused when I could not see it on Laumer's page. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:59, 4 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Mad Empress of Callisto [1]

I found and added the cover-art image for this pub, but as you've verified it I thought I ought to check that Jim Gardner got it right. Or indeed, if you approve or disapprove of people adding cover-art to your verified pubs. BLongley 13:07, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

The cover looks fine and its no problom to add cover art. Do you know of anyway to get new editors to answer there talk pages? I've been fixing minor errors, if i could get through to them they could submit edits with less errors.Kraang 13:55, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Well, one method seems to be to REJECT a small but incorrect change, and put the link to the talk-page in the rejection message. That way people that only look at their ISFDB stuff get reminded the Wiki is there too. BLongley 15:08, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I'm trying that with Cdaar at this moment, for instance. It may work, may not. I should have remembered to try that with the Jll rejects too. :-/ BLongley 16:37, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

One difficulty I ran into this method is that rejects do not allow you to enter HTML meaning you can't construct a clickable link. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:43, 17 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Another to check. BLongley 13:42, 18 Jun 2007 (CDT)

And another. BLongley 13:46, 18 Jun 2007 (CDT)

These covers look fine to. Because of space i only keep new and unread books on my book shelves. The rest get put away in boxes(unnumbered & random). If you get anymore feel free to ask.Kraang 18:35, 25 Jun 2007 (CDT)

OK, Another then. BLongley 14:24, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

In mine the people are roasting marshmallows over the flames! :-)Kraang 15:00, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Nah, that's "The Burning Marshmallows" variant title, long-rumoured but never proven, so you have a definite rarity there, go find it! ;-) (Start numbering your boxes!) BLongley 16:27, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

I think those are the only recent clashes on verifications, but I'm wondering where my cover-art for Aldiss went... I can't have been that drunk Saturday, could I? I know I overworked the scanner on Sunday between showers, but Saturday was a complete washout and I was SURE I did more scanning. :-/ BLongley 16:56, 18 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Eternity's End

Is the cover artist for 12618 really credited as "Stephe`n Youll"? He's sometimes "Steve Youll" and once "Stephan Youll" but I had not seen "Stephe`n Youll." If the artist name really like that then I'll approve the update but also add a publication note that says something like "The cover artist is credited on the copyright page as Stephe`n Youll. This is most likely Stephen Youll.". Where is the artist credit in the publication? Marc Kupper (talk) 23:27, 18 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Oops - I see you rejected your own update. I'm sorry - I had also not realized it was you, a moderator, as I was just plowing through the queue dropping off notes, went back to the queue and wondered "did I hit approve by accident? where is that submission?" :-) Marc Kupper (talk) 23:33, 18 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I was playing around trying to recreat the stange apostrophe "`" and another that slants the other way when i hit the enter key by accident. I've run into the problem of this "`" apostrophe(?) and the other which i can't recreat, when searching & merging titles. They appear on the main page the same but in the edit screen there different.Kraang 23:49, 18 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I believe you are seeking a right single quote - ALT-0146 (ALT key and on the numeric keypad zero 1 4 6) or you can enter either ’ or ’ but I believe ALT-0146 is better for ISFDB.

• ALT-0145 is ‘ (left single quote, ‘ = ‘, ‘ = ‘)
• ALT-0146 is ’ (right single quote, ’ = ’, ’ = ’)
• ALT-0147 is “ (left double quote, “ = “, “ = “)
• ALT-0148 is ” (right double quote, ” = ”, ” = ”)

I'll have to look but I believe the ISFDB code has logic to convert the slanted single quotes into a standard apostrophe for titles, author names, etc. and a search for the slanted versions of the quotes finds nothing. Marc Kupper (talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I've realized the problem and been able to worked around it. One of the apostrophe's is the on the tildes key.:-)Kraang 21:35, 19 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Oops - I forgot about that one. Of course, ` (tilde key thing or ALT-96) is different than ‘ (ALT-0145) which is different than ' ("/' key or ALT-39)… Marc Kupper (talk) 00:21, 24 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Power Laz/org

There are some mighty strange pseudonyms out there, "Power Laz/org" is not even in the top 10 :)

I might be inclined to make it a pseudonym so that it would be easier for users to compare ISFDB data with what they have in their hands. On the other hand, a brief explanation in the Notes field would serve the same purpose, so I don't see it as a major issue. However, regardless of what we decide to do, we probably want to spell the results out in our Help pages so that similar situations with other artists could be handled uniformly in the future. Ahasuerus 00:14, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Platinum Pohl (Excerpt)

I see that's how you've entered it in The Boy Who Would Live Forever, but I believe it's a full short story? I've left it as a variant for now, but feel free to retitle the entry if you think it'd look better that way. I do think we want the fact that it's a sample of another title recorded somehow though. BLongley 12:42, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

It would appear that the whole short story has been printed. So what we have is one of the short stories excerpted from Platinum Pohl which is a collection. I don't think this would qualify as a variant now. Will put this in the things to do pile.Kraang 20:14, 21 Jun 2007 (CDT)

David Brin's The Practice Effect

Can you double check the page count for this verified pub? Other paperback editions show 277 pages against this one's 177. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:48, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

277 all fixed.Kraang 17:50, 23 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Laumer's "Mind Out of Time"

I have access to my collection for the next 36 hours, so I have checked the 1971 version of Laumer's Once There Was a Giant and it turns out that Contento was in error. There is no "the" in the title, it's just "Mind Out of Mind". I have corrected/merged the titles and send Bill an e-mail so that we would all be on the same page. I'll check the rest of the Laumer hardcovers in my collection shortly. Ahasuerus 23:38, 29 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I changed the titles according to Contento on the following magazines and they need to be verified.

1. IF Jan 1965, Aug 1967(DONE), Apr 1967(DONE) , Apr 1969 & Mar 1971
2. F & SF Nov 1960
3. Galaxy Feb 1964(DONE)
4. Galaxy Apr 1965(DONE) & Jan 1969(DONE)

Also one of Laumer & Ellisons ss Dunderbird (Ellison ending) (Galaxy Jan 1969)? was published as a variant Street Scene in Adam magazine with the alternate Laumer ending. Adam (Knights Publishing) (vol. 13 #3) I believe. If you have any questions let me know and I'll answer them in the morning before I go to work. Thanks! Kraang 00:30, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

Sure, I can try to check these magazines tomorrow if/when I have some free time. I thought I would be able to spend more time with my collection later this year, but things are in a state of flux at the moment and it looks like I will only have a couple of days per month in the foreseeable future. The curse of the Wandering Jew :-( Ahasuerus 00:42, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

P.S. I have just finished verifying my Laumer hardcovers. I could reconcile Laumer's publications with Tuck and the Reginalds next, but I don't think that would be the most efficient way of spending my precious "collection time". I'll probably do some obscure magazines next. Ahasuerus 02:30, 30 Jun 2007 (CDT)

I had very little ISFDB time over the weekend after all. I ended up verifying a stack of Leinster paperbacks and discovering that you had gotten to some of them first :) Back to other moderatorial duties for another month... Ahasuerus 23:14, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Green Eyes

The pub was indeed a second printing. Thanks for catching it. Missed it completely.
--Dsorgen 22:35, 1 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Ancient sub

Kraang, I'm sorry about the sub of yours I've had on hold forever. I have no memory of what I was going to ask you about; since you're a moderator now please pass it or reject as appropriate. I apologize for the long delay; I just haven't had much time for the ISFDB recently, but that's no excuse for this long a delay. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 08:31, 3 Jul 2007 (CDT)

If I understand Kraang's submission correctly, "NOTE: "The Rain of Fish" by Pete Bogg is not on p.175 or in this magazine. This essay is also mentioned on the back cover with a picture of fish falling on a village." means that there was an article by Pete Bogg listed in the table of contents and on the back cover, but it was not printed in the body of the magazine. If that is the case, then I would suggest that we may want to keep the comment in the Notes section, but not have a separate ESSAY Title for it. If we do decide to create a separate Title record for it, then we may want to make it "8888-00-00", which will be displayed as "unpublished". Ahasuerus 12:19, 3 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Expedition to Earth

There are not one, but two shorts missing and a page number is incorrect. I've submitted a correction on the page number and will submit on the two missing shorts after it takes (not sure exactly what would happen if both were done in the same change). I have the feeling of remembering typing both entries, but memory does play tricks. Thanks for catching this. I consider it a major screw-up and promise to do better... sheesh... --Dsorgen 20:08, 4 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Re: Hogfather

I was going to say that the only price I could find on the book was the Canadian $ listing inside the front cover. On a hunch (I literally stopped typing this), I scraped off the price tag and lo (in tiny, fine print), the UK price was/is listed as L5.99. For what it's worth, the US price tag was for $13.95 (not actually printed ON the book). I think I need a glass of cider (the fun kind, not the US stuff). Cheers - --Dsorgen 20:18, 4 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Greks Bring Gifts

I tried signing my additional note to your verified pub, after this thread but I'm not sure it's clear enough. :-/ Please double-check the date-change I made and see if the notes make sense. I think the main problem is that I didn't want to sign the EXISTING note as by you. BLongley 16:25, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Seems clear to me. I've reformated the notes to a newer look. I'am doing all my notes in this point form, it looks clearer.Kraang 19:00, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that looks better. I'm wondering about whether to make my name a hyperlink to my talk-page for pubs that I intend to keep, and just leave it plain text for ones that I don't want to be bothered about in future. What do you think? BLongley 15:20, 11 Jul 2007 (CDT)

That would probably be a good idea since the primary verification can only support one person at the moment.Kraang 20:19, 12 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Almuric

Heads up on a minor edit to your verified pub Almuric.

• I added the cover image
• The pub-note was changed from "Stated "First Book Publication" on cover." to
  • The printing date and number are not stated but the front cover has “First Book Publication” and the copyrights are “Copyright ©, 1964, by Ace Books, Inc. / Original magazine serialization copyright, 1939, by “Weird Tales.” This ISFDB record has been dated 1964-00-00 based on the Ace copyright and the “First Book Publication” statement.
  • The cover artist is not credited nor is a signature visible.
  • There is a small uncredited drawing on page 5 signed with Jack Gaughan's initials. Marc Kupper (talk) 01:08, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)

All new updates are great, feel free to add more. I ripped off some of your ideas for the notes section and have been using them lately. The Kraang knows no shame! :-)Kraang 22:51, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Earlier this evening I was on the queue, and opened up the pending queue items in a row of Firefox tabs. I saw one from you that looked like it had my notes. I'm thinking, I know I have CRS and I sure can't remember editing the notes for that title (I think it was an Ace double). I realized then that you must be using some of the same notes I do. I keep a stock collection of them in a notepad file and copy/paste them into ISFDB as needed. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:48, 17 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Sioux Spaceman

Heads up on a minor edit to your verified pub The Sioux Spaceman.

• I added a cover image
• I changed the pub-note from
  • Stated "First Book Publication". Cover artist is uncredited and signature is not visible on cover. Last 10 pages are unnumbered.
• to
  • The publication date and printing number are not stated and the publication contains no advertising or other material that states a printing date. The copyright page states “Copyright ©, 1960, by Ace Books, Inc.” However, the publication contains an essay, Andre Norton: A Profile by Lin Carter offers some clues such as “In fact, by the end of 1966 she had published over fifty-two books” indicating the essay was written either at the very end of 1966 or in 1967. Note that this ISFDB record was already dated 1966-00-00 and I've chosen to leave it at that.
  • Stated “First Book Publication”.
  • The story ends on page 133 and following this is 10 unnumbered pages containing the essay Andre Norton: A Profile by Lin Carter.
  • The cover artist is not credited nor is a signature visible. The cover image is the same one that was used on the earlier Ace D-437 dos-a-dos publication with And then the Town Took Off on the reverse side. Marc Kupper (talk) 02:14, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Pierre Benoit's L'Atlantide/Atlantida

As per the discussion on User talk:Don Erikson, I have added a note to the 1964 Ace edition of Pierre Benoit's Atlantida (which you Verified back in May) to the effect that the publication date is not stated in the book, so we had to use Tuck. Could you please check if this matches what you have in your copy? Thanks! Ahasuerus 15:46, 20 Jul 2007 (CDT)

The Four Day Weekend

You've verified the first Belmont paperback - does it look like this, but have "George Henry Smith" on the Title page? BLongley 14:25, 24 Jul 2007 (CDT)

No it looks like this [1], and the title page and copyright page list the author as George Henry Smith.Kraang 19:38, 24 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Thanks muchly! There's something distinctly WRONG about our current George Hrrmmph Smith classifications, I just want to check a few before doing a-merging or a-fixing or suchlike bibblygraphical thingummies. BLongley 20:35, 24 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Leinster's The Aliens

I am in the process of Verifying the September 1965 reprint of The Aliens and "The Skit-Tree Planet" is listed as "Skit-Tree Planet" in the table of contents and in the copyright section. However, the title page (p. 111) says "The Skit-Tree Planet". Could you please check if your March 1960 printing has the same problem? TIA! Ahasuerus

P.S. I have also expanded the "Notes" field in the Space Platform record based on what I see in my copy. Could you please check if it makes sense? The publication date section seems to suggest that the March 1953 edition was first printed in January 1953, which is similar to the language used on the copyright page of Space Tag. I think I have seen this issue discussed before, but I don't recall the resolution. Ahasuerus 21:07, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT)

There is no TOC in the Berkley(1960) but the copyright page and title page are the same as your 1965 reprint. The note looks fine on Space Platform. Pocket, Perma Star and one or two others used this type of publishing history on their early paperback's. There was no resolution as far as I recall. My preference is to use the printing date and put all the history into notes. This way if we need to change it in the future to the publishing date all the data is there.Kraang 21:38, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Works for me, thanks! :) Ahasuerus 21:49, 29 Jul 2007 (CDT)

Suicide, Inc.

I added coverart to your verified pub if you'd like to check it. BLongley 09:46, 4 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Looks great :-)Kraang 20:05, 4 Aug 2007 (CDT)

John Grimes: Lieutenant of the Survey Service

Hall3730 added a note about the ISBN to your verified pub if you'd like to check that/make him sign it. BLongley 10:13, 5 Aug 2007 (CDT)

This whole series has an ISBN# and a SFBC#, i need to go back and clean up my earlier entries.Kraang 14:55, 6 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Don't we all... :-/ Every time I feel confident I've done a good job on the pubs I own, someone raises the bar. Or Amazon go switch images on me or something... BLongley 16:14, 6 Aug 2007 (CDT)

After Doomsday

Added a cover image for After Doomsday. Let me know if that's the wrong one. Dana Carson 03:27, 8 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Thats the right cover. Thanks :-)Kraang 06:26, 8 Aug 2007 (CDT)

One Against the Legion

Sorry, but while sorting out the recursive "Novel contains Collection which contains the Novel which contains the Collection..." I may have lost the page number from your verified pub. Can you check it again please? BLongley 13:14, 9 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Also, do you have an opinion on whether the COLLECTION "One Against the Legion" is third in the "Legion of Space" series, or just the Novel? The Sphere Book isn't clear on that count, although it does indicate "Nowhere Near" is a Legion story too. BLongley 13:14, 9 Aug 2007 (CDT)

I'm leaning towards the COLLECTION being counted due to Mike's four story publication being called Three From the Legion. BLongley 13:21, 9 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Williamson was not an author that I had much interest in so I don't know much about how the series works. I did notice that the Nowhere Near is not part of the series and it should be included. As for the page count I'll have to dig out the book from my pile of boxes.Kraang 18:44, 9 Aug 2007 (CDT)

In His (or Man's) Image

I'm entering the page data for Terry Carr's "The Light at the End of the Universe" and note that the title of this one story "In His Image" appears as "In Man's Image" in the DB. I also see the title in your edition of "Alpha 4" matches the title in my volume. The variant title seems to come from an entry for Amazing Science Fiction, November 1971. Based on my errors to-date, I don't know that I can just change the title associated with this volume or not. I haven't been able to confirm that this one is actually in error but I haven't found absolute proof. You can look at this site http://www.tomfolio.com/bookdetailsgg.asp?b=P9.1558&m=46 which has an image of the cover of the magazine which says "His" but the associated verbage says "Man's". So do I just change the title in a second edit or what?TFRANK 00:05, 10 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Sometimes the cover says one thing and the contents page says another, or the DB just has it wrong. In this case we would need to check the magazine. As for your book with the title In His Image just go to the bottom of the page in edit and use the add title button. Add the correct title and author and page number. Add the page numbers to the other titles but leave the incorrect title blank. Submit and when its approved bring up the publication and click on "remove title" in the edit tools. Just check the box of the title to be removed and submit.Kraang 07:05, 10 Aug 2007 (CDT)

The Robot Brains

Art added to your verified pub - but it seems that this title DID actually get reprinted! Feel free to tell me if the art was better on your copy... BLongley 17:01, 12 Aug 2007 (CDT)

No better or worse, it looks just like my copy.Kraang 19:33, 12 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Dead Phone

You verified Dead Phone by Poul Anderson in Going for Infinity. There is also Dead Phone by Poul Anderson and Karen Anderson. Could you check if it has both names in Going for Infinity? Dana Carson 04:14, 14 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Riders of the Purple Wage

Kraang, can you verify a story in this collection? Does "Osiris on Crutches" give co-author credit to Leo Queequeg Tincrowder (as it does in the first publication)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:23, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

No mention of him in my 1992 pb, so it should be removed and made a variant.Kraang 20:17, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

It looks like he named his pet dog or cat as his co-author as a joke.Kraang 20:26, 16 Aug 2007 (CDT)

It's from PJF's "Fictional Author" phase - he's a character in "Stations of the Nightmare". By the way Mike, you might want to check the spelling closely - the name is supposed to come (mostly) from Wizard of Oz characters: Leo from the cowardly lion, and the TIN man, the scareCROW and DORothy - so the surname should be Tincrowdor. Of course there's no guarantee it got printed that way. BLongley 12:32, 17 Aug 2007 (CDT)

You're correct, Bill. The spelling (in New Dimensions 6, at least) is "Tincrowdor". And thanks for the insight on how Farmer created the name. I've changed the entry in Kraang's verified edition. Mhhutchins 12:49, 17 Aug 2007 (CDT)

You're welcome - I love these bits of trivia! PJF isn't the only culprit by any means though - see some of John Sladek's authors like "Hitler I. E. Bonner" and "Chipdip K. Kill". We seem a bit wary of introducing this sort of pseudonym here, but if it's explained straight away we shouldn't end up with a Kilgore Trout problem. BLongley 14:53, 17 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Critical Mass

You verified this pub with a page count of "xi+177". Shouldn't this be "xi+179", as the afterword is on page 179 and - at least in my copy - exactly one page long? Herzbube 10:32, 19 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Will look for the book tonight and see what there is to see.Kraang 17:11, 27 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Your right its 179. The last unnumbered page is the "About the Authors". Some mods include it and some don't. Since its unnumbered I treat it like the ads and ignore it.Kraang 21:02, 27 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Araminta Station

I added an image URL to your verified pub Araminta Station. I hope it's the correct image. Herzbube 18:51, 27 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Looks just like mine. Thanks!Kraang 18:58, 27 Aug 2007 (CDT)

And another image for Throy, but you probably already spotted this since you are approving the edits yourself :-) Herzbube 19:02, 27 Aug 2007 (CDT)

Thats the right cover.Kraang 21:10, 27 Aug 2007 (CDT)

The Light of Lilith / The Sun Saboteurs

I am verifying my Damon Knights and I am not sure if I am reading your Notes field correctly. Is "Ultimatum in 2050 A.D 120 pages" supposed to be "The Light of Lilith 123 pages" instead? Thanks! Ahasuerus 14:12, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

All fixed now. Thanks!Kraang 18:24, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! :) Ahasuerus 21:14, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

James Blish's The Star Dwellers

I'm verifying Blish's pubs against Tuck's listing, and came upon this discrepancy. You show this edition was published in 1961, but Tuck (and OCLC) state 1962. Is it possible there is no publication date in the paperback and that you used the 1961 copyright date (of the Putnam first edition)? Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:24, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I used the cat# to determine the publication date. Avon books can be a bit vague about this. If Tuck says it 1962 that works for me.Kraang 19:47, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I'll go ahead and change it to 1962. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:03, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Oops, you've done it already. Mhhutchins 20:07, 4 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Three for Tomorrow

You verified Three for Tomorrow with the comment "Stated 1st printing of 1970 Dell ed." My copy says

Reprinted by arrangement with

Meredith Press

(street address)

First Dell printing - August 1970

I suspect we have the same edition and have updated the comments plus linked to a cover image.

Also, the editor is uncredited and as a result there were three title records, one for uncredited, one for Arthur C. Clark who wrote the foreword and apparent was also (incorrectly) credited as the editor in the UK editions (Gollancz and Sphere), and one for Robert Silverberg who apparently is the editor. The uncredited and Arthur C. Clark title records were variants of Silverberg's. I decided to merge these into a single title record that lists all three editor suspects and updated the title notes. The main reason for the merge was so the title will show up in Clarke's bibliography but also because it seems the actual publication did not change from edition to edition. Marc Kupper (talk) 18:01, 8 Sep 2007 (CDT)

The update looks fine and the cover is right. At the time when i entered it there was confusion about who the editor was.Kraang 20:09, 8 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Chalker's Four Lords of the Diamond

I updated your verified edition of this pub, confirming the price and adding the month of publication, based on the SFBC announcement. Locus #268 (May 1983) also confirms that this was the first edition of Medusa. Mhhutchins 10:38, 9 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Robert Vardeman's Cenotaph Road

Can you double-check the date of your verified copy of this pub? Locus #267 (April 1983) has a listing with the same ISBN and price for which I've just created a new pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 13:36, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)

The date on mine was March 1983 so I change my verified copy. Do you want to delete the dup?Kraang 18:13, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I'll delete the dup. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:25, 12 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Rogue Powers

Added cover to Rogue Powers, please confirm. Dana Carson 03:15, 20 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Thats the correct cover.Kraang 08:39, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

On holidays

Will be on holidays Sept 26 to Oct 9.

Journey Behind the Wind

An accident. I do not purposely approve other moderators' holds. On some occasions I may question their holds but will still not approve without their permission. If one of my holds had been approved by another moderator my first assumption would be that it was an accident.--swfritter 14:29, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I think it has happened to almost all moderators at various points. Sometimes the problem can be caught immediately, while other times a little investigation is required. We have also been known to approve each other's submissions late at night :)

At one point I asked Al to color code moderators' submissions, but I don't think it has happened yet. Besides, it wouldn't help those of us who are color blind; perhaps "bold"ing would be better. Ahasuerus 14:45, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

And when we have a few more mods colour-coding won't help as I wouldn't be able to distinguish them, and we'd probably all want our own colours anyway. (Which book had the "No, you CAN'T be 'Black Squadron', we've got 23 of those already!"? I already know where "Why do I have to be Mr. Pink?" comes from.) I've received, and think made, a few apologies for such but it's no biggie to me. But an extra "Are you sure?" check on Held edits might be a useful feature request. BLongley 15:00, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I'm sure this was an accident, as swfritter is currently asking nicely about held edits that have been bugging several of us for MONTHS now. BLongley 15:00, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Wikimedia Links

I see you've approved a few Author Image updates from Alibrarian from WikiMedia - but the last I heard we didn't have permission for such yet. If we have permission now, can you show me where? I'm lousy at searching the Wiki side of this project. :-/ BLongley 16:15, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Just following Swfritter's lead. He approved Alan Dean Foster's image from there. It appears that we can't use them. Will delete images(the ones I approved)Kraang 16:33, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

We have to be particularly careful with direct links (aka "deep linking") to Wikipedia/Wikimedia images since they consider it "bandwidth theft" (ouch!) and can block our IP if they notice it. That would be a bad thing since we rely on Wikipedia for author biographies.

Let me run an SQL query on the Publications table, find all wikimedia URL and post them for review... Ahasuerus 16:27, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

OK, we appear to be in reasonably good shape since I couldn't find any wikimedia URLs in the August backup. I will post a note on the Moderator Noticeboard and Alibrarian's Talk page reminding folks that Wikimedia images are off limits for now. Ahasuerus 16:40, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Sorry. I didn't do the research or remember the discussions. I will try and find any that I may have approved.--swfritter 16:48, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I think we probably WOULD get approval if we asked, I just don't see anyone having asked. Any volunteers? I know we have some Wikipedia editors here, I've been saving that role for when I run out of interesting things to do here. Wikipedia Politics look like a lot of hard work compared to here though... :-/ BLongley 17:04, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Ahasuerus, did you check the Author Images as well as the Pubs? That was the main worry I had originally. BLongley 17:04, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Oops, I completely forgot about Author images, our primary concern in this case :( I have created a Python script that searches for problem records and posted the results on the Moderator Noticeboard. Thanks for the heads up! Ahasuerus 18:19, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

I'm going to help Kraang by approving his removals of these graphic links. Hope he doesn't mind the assistance. Mhhutchins 19:06, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

Don't mind at all on these large tedious edits. Thanks! :-)Kraang 19:20, 23 Sep 2007 (CDT)

The Tyrant of Hades

I added cover to this pub but have no idea why I own it. I'm probably drunk. Double-check please. BLongley 16:47, 1 Oct 2007 (CDT)

That's the right cover. Thanks! :-)Kraang 19:27, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

A Personal Demon

Added cover for A Personal Demon. Please check. Dana Carson 06:19, 2 Oct 2007 (CDT) Correct cover. Thanks!:-)Kraang 19:28, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

David Mason's The Deep Gods

I have added info to your verified copy of this pub based on William J. Denholm III's Lancer Checklist (Megavore #10, 1980). Source has been credited in the notes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:11, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Weren't we going to start signing post-verification edits just in case the verifier couldn't check? Or was that another discussion that petered out without conclusion? I can't remember, but I know I've been telling some people to ask the verifier whether such edits are OK, and now I'm thinking I should have been telling them to sign it as well: or did we conclude that was too much work? Oh, for a working memory, rather than this wobbly 16k Sinclair Ram-Pack! :-/ BLongley 15:30, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I don't think anything definitive was established. (That seems to be the current state of affairs here on the ISFDB: a lot of discussion but nothing truly definitively established as a standard.) My policy is to sign changes in verified copies if the original verifier is "no longer with us". Since Kraang is still an active editor, letting him know that I changed his verified pub seemed sufficient. (I've been notified by others about changes in my verified pubs as well.) If he feels the changes are neither correct nor warranted he is quite free to revert the pub to his original verified version. Until (or if ever) a "freeze" on verified copies is implemented... (or should that be " . . . "?) Mhhutchins 16:17, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

You're probably right - we need to approve a Moderator to get anything changed, nothing else seems sorted as fast! :-/ I think I mis-remembered Kraang's activity - two or three weeks with no Wiki activity isn't that unexpected at the moment, with the tamu.edu problems. I just don't recall any editing activity either, but some mods are so quick they'll approve their own edits before I see them anyway - I just got used to seeing almost every active editor last week when I was off work and unable to sleep much. (I shall sleep better tonight, my dad is out of hospital again.)

As for ". . . " - I hope we don't end up that way as a standard, but I'll use it for entries here if that's the consensus. As for the way I converse here, that's a different matter... ;-) BLongley 16:48, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

And now I notice "(on holidays Sept 26 to Oct 9)" - just ignore me tonight, I'll go work on http://www.readitswapit.co.uk/ for a bit! (So many books, so little space: conclusion: swap big books for little books!) BLongley 17:09, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the addition of the cover artist.Kraang 19:32, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Redbeard by Michael Resnick

Can you verify that the date of this pub's publication is 1969, instead of just the copyright date? I just added a 1969 publication by Lancer; Magnum usually reprinted earlier Lancer editions circa the early-mid seventies. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:25, 8 Oct 2007 (CDT)

The price and the date appeared wrong at the time so i've changed it to "0000-00-00" and added a note about the actual date. As we find more publications some of these mystery printings(undated) will start to fall into place.Kraang 19:40, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)

What's It Like Out There? and Other Stories

Just a heads up that I have approved the addition of cover art to What's It Like Out There? and Other Stories, which you verified last March. Looks right to me, but you never know! Ahasuerus 22:30, 10 Oct 2007 (CDT)

That's the correct cover.Kraang 21:16, 11 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Strange - I'd never heard of Edmond Hamilton till last week, now he's popping up everywhere! BLongley 12:36, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Hamilton was one of the top practitioners of superscientific scientifiction in the 1920s and 1930s, but he was left behind when Campbell and Astounding took off in a different direction. Instead he wrote a lot of YA copy for the pulps in the 1940s, notably the Captain Future yarns, and produced a lot of potboilers for Imagination and other second tier magazines in the 1950s. He had a minor revival in the early 1960s, when he wrote darker and more "adult" books, but even they are mostly forgotten now -- rather unfairly, IMO. His wife, Leigh Brackett, was a prominent scriptwriter and an excellent "science fantasy" writer. Ahasuerus 13:03, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

There you go again, mentioning someone else I only discovered here and something I never knew... I should have remembered Hamilton from this pub that I bought when her name got into my SF-detection grey-cells, but I seem to be reading less paper and more pixels nowadays. And not even those too closely it seems: I think I added both Wikipedia Author links as well, but never connected the two authors, so I obviously didn't read the articles too closely! I should go back to paper a bit more often, but the last "big find" turns out to be an awful read: oh damn, that's another A. E. van Vogt, with "doesn't appear in the bibliography right" problems. I entered mine HERE. :-( Which reminds me I promised I was going to go read the bibliography for "The Proxy Intelligence" in another thread... I think I'll get that over with now. BLongley 13:54, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Van Vogt is almost as bad as Kuttner/Moore due to the number of fixup permutations :( In this case, thankfully, the original novella was never expanded according to http://www.home.earthlink.net/~icshi/Storysource.html (download the PDF bibliography), although it was later used in The Beast, a fixup novel. I merged our Novel record with our Novella record and added a bunch of publications as per the PDF linked above. The only catch was that the standalone version of this novella has been published in a 96 page version (McFadden) as well as in a 128 page version (Manor), so it was tempting to enter the first one as a Chapterbook Publication and the second one as a Novel Publication. However, a Novel Publication record with a single Shortfiction Title record will not display correctly, so I had to change all affected Publication records to Chapterbooks even though a 128 page Chapterbook looks funky. Something to discuss on the Standards page, perhaps. Oh, and I had to fix The Beast fixup record, which had the original stories listed alongside the Novel Title. Ahasuerus 15:42, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Thank You! I shall consider this a followup to my plea where Mods and Editors ran to their respective cubby-holes/nuclear bunkers rather than tackle this, even after I posted a lot of research sites like Icshi: it's nice to have something you CAN do when separated from your collection, isn't it? (Say YES, Ahasuerus!) BLongley 17:04, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Well, yes (and I mean YES!), but I suspect that my "away from my collection" time may be better used writing data cleanup scripts: anybody can cut and paste data from online bibliographies, but not everybody can write even simple scripts. Decisions, decisions... Ahasuerus 17:14, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Data cleanup is fine - thanks for the pointers, but I'm sure you can already see where the overlaps are occurring. If we fix one title that seem to be wrong, we might introduce it into another category the next time. "Decisions, decisions" is actually what we need! Moving NOVELS that only contain one SHORTFICTION to CHAPBOOK category might solve stuff: is that the way we want to go? Discuss! We've had two almost-positive resolutions to Standards discussions this week, let's nail THOSE sort of things down and get on with work! BLongley 18:24, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Niven & Barnes: The Descent of Anansi

Could you check to see if the date of your verified copy of this title is correct? Bill Longley has verified an edition which matches the first edition listing in Locus #262 (November 1982). At that time Pinnacle was distributing Tor, thus the 0-523 ISBN. When it became independent (or distributed by St. Martin's) Tor had an ISBN of 0-812, so your copy may be a later printing. I found a dealer on abebooks.com giving a date of July 1985 with the same ISBN as your copy. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:11, 12 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Checked my copy[2] and its all correct. The difference between mine and Bill's is the ISBN and the extra Jim Baen Presents printed on the front cover.Kraang 20:10, 16 Oct 2007 (CDT)

What a puzzlement! Two different verified editions of the same novel showing the same publication date? Well, thanks for checking. BTW, does your edition show distribution info? Either Pinnacle or St. Martin's? Mhhutchins 21:47, 16 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Mine has a "Jim Baen Presents", the previous Cover-art URL was one of the (I now believe unstable) ZZZZZZZ ones, which isn't loading for me today: corrected now. I can confirm the 0-523-48542-5 ISBN and that it states it was Printed in the USA and distributed by Pinnacle. There's no number-line, just a "First Printing, September 1982" statement. I'll add that to notes too. BLongley 13:35, 17 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Verified Pub Fantastic Adventures, May 1948

In working on the Serial Date Data Consistency project for this magazine I noticed that the stories have not been set to the date of the magazine. Is it alright if I do so? Also, there is no page number for the Joseph Leidy entry and another entry for it has been entered. I am assuming you meant to remove the first entry and delete the orphan doing so would create?--swfritter 18:49, 19 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Magazines are not an area I have much knowledge in and I only own a half dozen or so. Feel free to make any and all changes that will bring them up to the current standard :-)Kraang 21:10, 20 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. I don't even know if you are responsible for the extraneous data. In any case, I think this pub was verified back in March before you were a moderator. Ah, the days of sticky notes.--swfritter 11:27, 21 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Mad Empress of Callisto

I added the glossary to Mad Empress of Callisto. I hadn't been listing the introductions separately for the others since they are fictional and part of the "found manuscript" meta story. Do you think I should? Dana Carson 19:06, 20 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I don't think adding them will hurt and an explanation in the note section would help. I've never read these novels and I was unaware they were "Fictional essays". I just assumed they were strait forward intro's :-o Kraang 21:22, 20 Oct 2007 (CDT)

"Fictional essays" have been a headache for decades. Early this year, when I was working on some pulps, I would sometimes spend over 5 minutes trying to determine whether a given thinly fictionalized article was an Essay or a Shortfiction :(

I don't think we have specific rules for "found manuscript" meta stories, but I one rule of thumb that I have found useful is to always list them if the text has been either reprinted separately or if they were omitted in a subsequent edition. I wonder if Betancourt kept the intros when he reprinted a couple of volumes in the series a few years ago? Ahasuerus 20:37, 20 Oct 2007 (CDT)

No idea about the reprints. Wouldn't think they'd be reprinted by themselves, they are mostly about manuscripts arriving from a archaeologist in Cambodia where they are found in a sacred well. Except for the one in Lankar of Callisto where Lin Carter goes to Cambodia, falls into the well and has his own adventures on Callisto. A rare nonfanfic self insert. Dana Carson 23:01, 20 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Verified Pub Amazing Stories, December 1947"

I have updated the dates of the appropriate entries in the pub with the date of the pub.--swfritter 19:24, 20 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Songs of the Dancing Gods

Added cover art for Songs of the Dancing Gods. Dana Carson 02:06, 22 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Thats the correct cover. Thanks :-)Kraang 18:19, 22 Oct 2007 (CDT)

And the Devil Will Drag You Under

Added cover art to And the Devil Will Drag You Under. Dana Carson 05:13, 22 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Thats the right cover but matched to the wrong pub. So I moved it to the 1984 ISBN 0-345-32334-3 priced at $4.95. Now it matches the image [3] Thanks for the image.Kraang 18:28, 22 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Added another cover, this one is for $1.95. I need to get reading glasses I guess. I just compared the picture not the small text. Should have noticed that the title was the wrong color. Dana Carson 00:37, 23 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Exiles at the Well of Souls

Added cover art for Exiles at the Well of Souls. Also put it on the 4th printing with a note that it's the wrong printing since its the only one I could find of that painting. Dana Carson 02:01, 23 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Future Sanctuary

Right Cover? (I'm pretty sure there was only one.) BLongley 13:09, 24 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Thats the correct one, it was easy to find since I hadn't put it away yet.Kraang 17:09, 24 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Fix Ace Doubles

I see you've got this on your things to do list, I recently came across them as part of my SQL examples. Did the "categorise them as OMNIBUS" question ever get decided? BLongley 13:12, 24 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I've been treating them as an Omnibus and the binding as "dos". When I'm done with the Data:Consistency's I'll get back to the Ace Doubles. I have about a hundred. The ones that are novel/novel are easy but the novel/collection have a less perfect solution. I'm leaving these to be done last.Kraang 17:25, 24 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I like the Omnibus solution too. I believe that Mike Christie didn't like it at one point, but he is not around at the moment to clarify his current position. We may want to re-post about dos-a-doses on the Standards page and see if we can get a consensus and then update the Help. Ahasuerus 18:23, 24 Oct 2007 (CDT)

The Help is quite clear on Omnibus for two novels, but one of the examples for anthologies obviously hasn't taken into account the recent "number one book in Arabic numerals, the other in Roman numerals" idea, and I'm sure a lot more questions came up. Still, if we're mostly agreed and the dissenters are away, now's a good time to sort the questions out! ;-) I'll see if I can sort out some numbers for the various problems, e.g. binding incorrect, authors specified, pub type wrong, under the title of one of its contents, etc. BLongley 13:24, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Preliminary investigations suggest there's a lot to do. I fixed this one somewhat but even the coverart can be a bit tricky to enter. And pagination is still unclear. BLongley 16:50, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Here's an example of one I did in July [4].I also create a title record for the omnibus. As for the authors my preference is to credit them instead of listing them as uncredited. We know who they are, why not credit them.Kraang 18:10, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Good point - I was thinking that the usual reasons for an Omnibus record don't apply for an Ace Double with two real novels in (nobody's trying to put them into their Series as far as I can see), but there may be some that get Wikipedia links at that level (there's a good list of them on Wikipedia already, but I can't yet see any with articles for the double, only for the component novels). I guess the decider is the ability to add notes at that level, and we can live with them appearing in the Omnibus section of the Author's page. (I don't really like them there as the Novel titles are visible already, but I can live with it: some of the doubles with mere Novella-length "Novels" need them to become more visible anyway.)

As to the Authors being credited, I can live with it either way I think. I'll have a more definite opinion after I've researched a few though, and found out how many I need to buy as they haven't been reprinted. :-/

And for the Two Cover Images problem - do we hope that people post both sides to Amazon in one picture, add help on how to reference the second in notes, or make a feature request for a second field on the publication? BLongley 13:56, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

It seems Jim Gardner has scanned a lot of the double pictures. Is this one right? And this one? And this one? And this? Also here, which I changed from Anthology. BLongley 08:37, 27 Oct 2007 (CDT)

The images are all correct. The nice thing about the Ace Double's is there are no reprints.Kraang 20:35, 27 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Well, except when they change the reference number. I've found a cover for one, but it's not clear enough to be sure WHICH edition is represented yet. BLongley 06:54, 28 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Well I guess I was wrong, some have been reprinted. As soon as I get off this rock I'm stuck on and get back into the control room that runs the universe I'll be able to correct this "ONE!" error.HA! HA! :-)Kraang 10:15, 28 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Do you have an opinion on the order of the titles? This pair has both variations. BLongley 09:05, 28 Oct 2007 (CDT)

For the Ace Doubles if one of the books is described "First Book Publication" I would put it first. In this case it would be "People of the Talisman". If the books are described as "Complete Novels" I would determine which was published first and go with that. In the case were the description is "First Book Publication", "Complete Novel" or no description for both and it a first publication for both then I would sort then alphabetically.Kraang 10:15, 28 Oct 2007 (CDT)

A messy one here - right art for your edition? There seem to be two later ones, but I don't think they're dos-a-dos. BLongley 14:45, 28 Oct 2007 (CDT)

"Music, When Soft Voices Die"

I wonder if we want to capitalize the last 4 words in John Keir Cross's "Music, when soft voices die", which can be found in your Verified publication. Is it one of those cases where we think that the author meant to keep the case, perhaps? Thanks! Ahasuerus 18:51, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I'll have a look at my copy , but it may take a day or two before I find it. Have to dig through some boxes.Kraang 20:06, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

No hurry, Cross is not going anywhere :) Ahasuerus 20:54, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

On a related note, all but two stories in Cross's Stories from The Other Passenger are dated 1961-00-00. Since this collection was an abridgment of the 1944 collection The Other Passenger, do we want to change them to 1944-00-00? Ahasuerus 15:08, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

In the TOC "Music, when soft voices die",the "M" is uppercase and the rest is lowercase. The rest of the TOC the titles are in upper and lowercase. Just for some extra fun the title on page 106 is "Music when soft voices die. . ." :-)Kraang 21:48, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

It sounds like it was intended that way, so we probably want to document the details in the Notes section and leave them be :) Ahasuerus 19:12, 3 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Novels in Magazines

I see that you have begun working on Data Consistency/Novel-Magazine Mismatches. If you haven't handled magazines in a while, you may not recall that we treat novels published in magazines as "serials":

Novel length works (40,000+ words) printed as a single installment in a magazine are treated as serials and given the date of the issue in which they appear; the Title Type is "Serial" and the text "(Complete Novel)", preceded by a space, is appended to the title. See "Beyond This Horizon (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2373)" for an example of a novel which was published as a multi-part serial, a book, and then as a single installment serial.

The current convention is admittedly a little awkward, but it helps us distinguish between magazine and novel appearances, which are a very big deal for first edition collectors. Gotta keep our core users happy :) Ahasuerus 21:16, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Made some changes, how does it look now?Kraang 21:45, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

Looks very nice, thanks! :) The only thing that I modified was the title type of the last pseudonymous Serial's parent Title, which was still set to Novel. Ahasuerus 23:56, 25 Oct 2007 (CDT)

I wondered who else was working on this project. Some of the serials I went to fix were already done. Thanks Kraang. That certainly is a nice of piece Help Ahasuerus quoted.--swfritter 13:12, 26 Oct 2007 (CDT)

George O. Smith's Hellflower

I am working on my George O. Smiths tonight and there is something unusual about the Pyramid edition of Hellflower. According to my stated second printing (1969-02-00), the first printing appeared in November 1957. Tuck and OCLC agree that 1957 is the right year, but your Verified copy says 1958. Also, the catalog ID in your copy is 567 while Tuck gives G-298. I wonder if your copy is a (Canadian?) 1.5th printing of some sort? Could you please double check? TIA! Ahasuerus 22:32, 1 Nov 2007 (CDT)

My copy is Canadian and its "Pyramid Books" #567. Copyright page has "Pyramid Books Edition 1958". Thats close to Nov.1957.Kraang 21:32, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! I have created a 1957-11-00 publication based on Tuck and the copyright page of the 1969 printing. Do you want to add a note to the 1958 publication explaining that it's Canadian? Ahasuerus 21:40, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Added the Canadian bit to notes [5].Kraang 21:58, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Excellent, thanks! Ahasuerus 22:40, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

I would suspect it is Canadian and I'll have a second look at it. I'll dig it and the Cross book out tonight. Heres an example of a Pyramid book by Theodore Sturgeon A Way Home[6] that illustrates this very thing. In this case I have both copies, I'll find them to. Looks like no data entry tonight :-(Kraang 06:28, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Checked both Sturgeon books and both are identical except for the printings(country) and the cat# (CDN #501) and (US #G184). Both state "Pyramid Books Edition 1956".Kraang 21:32, 2 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Saga of Lost Earths

Just a quick note that I have added Petaja's "Notes on Kalevala" to your verified first edition of Saga of Lost Earths and his "About "The Star Mill"" to The Star Mill. Ahasuerus 15:19, 3 Nov 2007 (CDT)

Those are early entries before I became perfect. :-)Kraang 21:12, 3 Nov 2007 (CDT)

It could make a decent motto: "Perfection is not optional!" ;_) Ahasuerus 21:47, 3 Nov 2007 (CDT)

90 Trillion Fausts

I know it's a silly question, but just to be on the safe side, was the introduction in 90 Trillion Fausts really called "Authur's Note" or was it a typo? :) Ahasuerus 19:46, 6 Nov 2007 (CST)

Just a typo all fixed. :-)Kraang 20:14, 6 Nov 2007 (CST)

Adventures in Time and Space pb edition

Can you check to see if this pub's title page states Selections from Adventures in Time and Space or merely Adventures in Time and Space? I've seen cover graphics that have the latter title, but several sources give the pub's actual title as the first. Thanks. Mhhutchins 09:24, 7 Nov 2007 (CST)

Another thing: a note gives the month of publication as April but the date field shows March. Mhhutchins 09:26, 7 Nov 2007 (CST)

Its just Adventures in Time and Space. I think the "selection" bit was picked up from the extra preamble on the cover. The printing date is stated in the book along with the publishing date. Pocket, Pennant and several others did this on there earlier publications copyright page.Kraang 21:11, 30 Nov 2007 (CST)

The Martian Sphinx

Correct Cover? (And do you have a spare for me? ;-) BLongley 15:17, 18 Nov 2007 (CST)

Yes(No) :-)Kraang 17:57, 18 Nov 2007 (CST)

Ta! (Pity.) :-( BLongley 17:49, 19 Nov 2007 (CST)

The Wilding

Minor update to your verified pub WLDNGTHVRN2005 to correct the date from 2005-07-05 to 2005-07-00 (the July 5th date is from Amazon.com and the pub only has July 2005). I also added a title entry for the glossary. Marc Kupper (talk) 11:49, 22 Nov 2007 (CST)

Beyond the Farthest Star

Could you please check whether there are page numbers associated with individual stories in your verified Beyond the Farthest Star? If there are no page numbers, we may want to add a note to the pub. TIA! Ahasuerus 15:13, 29 Nov 2007 (CST)

Haiblum's The Wilk Are Among Us

I added a note and the price to your verified edition of this novel. Mhhutchins 21:47, 3 Dec 2007 (CST)

Bradbury's Pillar of Fire and Other Plays

I have added cover art to your verified edition of this book. I would take exception that its contents listings indicate that these are the original stories (something which you're probably already aware.) Can you think of a better way of showing that these are play adaptations? Maybe changing the titles to "Pillar of Fire (play)", "Kaleidoscope (play), and "The Foghorn (play)" and changing them to the non-length designation of simply "shortfiction"? Ideally, one of these days the database might give us more than the current set of options when setting a record type. Mhhutchins 20:32, 8 Dec 2007 (CST)

I remember doing these and wondering how to describe them, and the only chose was poem or short fiction. I picked short fiction. The other one that's a problem is songs, fortunately very few sf books include these. I'll add the (play) part and delete the designation length.Kraang 20:42, 8 Dec 2007 (CST)

I see you changed the content records to the new title and, ahem, changed all other publications of the stories as well. If you need assistance in correcting this, just let me know. Mhhutchins 20:51, 8 Dec 2007 (CST)

I noticed after I changed it there were a lot of pubs associated with it. Easy to change back. I'll assume that the others are short fiction and that these have been rewritten as plays, will make them variants of the short fiction. Is that what you had in mind?Kraang 21:31, 8 Dec 2007 (CST)

I believe variants should only apply if the work is essentially the same, only retitled. That's why I prefer new records for revised works, regardless of whether or not they've been retitled. Most editors here on the ISFDB create variants because it's simpler to associate the two works. I don't know what the "official" stance is, but it may be somewhere in the Help section. Back to the Bradbury: if I were doing it, I'd create new records with the only association to the original work being in the notes of the play versions. Perhaps Ahasuerus has had more experience in this situation and can provide some guidance. Mhhutchins 10:29, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

This is a very tricky area that, AFAIK, is not well documented in our Help pages at this time. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a perfect solution given the state of our software at this time. Let me use George O. Smith's Highways in Hiding (1956) as an example that illustrates the options that we currently have. An abridged version of the novel was published by Avon as Space Plague in 1957.

Option #1 would be to enter these two Titles separately and document the relationship in the two records' Notes fields as Michael suggests above. Our data would be then complete, accurate and comprehensive, but the only way for our users to find this information would be to review the Notes fields for every Title record in George O. Smith's bibliography. That's quite a bit to ask and I doubt that most casual users will be in a position to do so in Smith's case, let alone Silverberg's case. I wouldn't be surprised if some excited George O. Smith fan eventually ordered Space Plague online, not realizing that he was getting an abridged version of something that he already owned.

Option #2 would be to link the two Title records the way they are currently linked in the database and explain the relationship in the Notes fields. The danger here is that a casual browser may not read the Notes and assume that the two texts are identical. He may then make decisions based on this incorrect assumption, e.g. "I have read Space Plague, so I don't have to bother with Highways in Hiding".

Option #3 would be to add a brief description to the abridged Title, e.g. "(abridged)" or "(revised)". A quick search reveals that we have used this technique over 50 times, but it's not common. The problem here is that we would be separating the title of the Title record from the title of the Publication record, which would take us further away from our "what you see is what you get" ideal.

After making the first ~10,000 database changes in the summer of 2006, I concluded that the best compromise way to handle revisions, abridgments, etc would be to add a new optional field to the Make Variant screen. That field would be a drop down box with a list of allowed "relationships" including "abridged", "expanded", "restored", and a general purpose "revised" (with "butchered" reserved for Keith Laumer's titles). We could then have this field appear next to the Variant Title on the author's Summary Bibliography page, thus addressing the concerns raised by Option 3 above. We will also want to modify our Title display logic so that Publication records would be grouped based on their respective Title record.

Unfortunately, the proposed approach will require software changes and we all know how much free time Al has. If we do decide to implement this feature, we may want to do it in conjunction with Feature:90075 Pseudonym and vt sourcing.

I have created Feature:90155 Add an optional "nature of the relationship" field to the Make Variant screen for further discussions. Ahasuerus 14:11, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

Since they appear to be a bit of an unknown I'll make them a stand alone title with a note that there may be a relationship to the short fiction titles. I'll also put a note in the short fiction titles about the plays of a similar name.Kraang 14:07, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

I like the idea of adding a field to the Make Variant screen. Where do I cast my vote? :) Mhhutchins 15:16, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

Well, the logical place to support/oppose the proposal would be on the feature request page, although we may want to move all votes, comments, etc over to the associated Talk page. Ahasuerus 15:41, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

Particle Theory by Edward Bryant

Added cover to your verified edition of this collection. Mhhutchins 11:55, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

That's the correct cover.Kraang 14:10, 9 Dec 2007 (CST)

Breakaway (Space: 1999)

I added coverart to your verified edition, but it's an assumption based on your notes and my same year/same price reprint, so please check. BLongley 13:47, 12 Dec 2007 (CST)

Your correct it's the same cover.Kraang 19:38, 12 Dec 2007 (CST)

Protectorate

Correct Cover? Should be, given your notes and Jim Gardner's reputation. BLongley 14:51, 13 Dec 2007 (CST)

Correct cover.Kraang 20:44, 22 Dec 2007 (CST)

The Forever War

Tinkleman or Tinkelman cover? BLongley 13:22, 22 Dec 2007 (CST)

Just a miss type, it should be Tinkelman. Thanks! :-)Kraang 20:48, 22 Dec 2007 (CST)