User talk:MLB/Archive/2014Jul-Dec

Review in Talebones #3

Can you provide any further information about the work by Lisa S. Silverthorne reviewed on page 39 of this publication? I'm trying to find something to link it to and was unable to find anything on the internet (other than our own listing) for this work. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, you caught me just as I found a bag of small-press items that I had stored someplace they shouldn't have been. Mist Opals by Lisa S. Silverthorne is a piece of fiction that appeared, so the review states, in the internet magazine Intermix Vol. 3, #1, 1996-01-01, as edited by Michael Hicks. And that is all I know about it. MLB 04:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dark Discoveries #27

Is the work on page 16 of this publication credited to "Yvonne Navarre" or Yvonne Navarro? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 06:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there two different pieces with the same name on page 94? Mhhutchins 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if it's an interview with persons who are not eligible for the database (game programmers, for example), then it should be entered as an ESSAY. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Corrections made, Navarro's name was corrected when I added her column to its series. MLB 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hot in December

I made changes in this record. A softcover book taller than 7 inches or 18 centimeters should be entered as "tp". (The Amazon listing gives it as 9 inches and OCLC gives it as 24 cm.) I also changed the page count. Amazon's page counts include non-printed pages, so you should try to find a second source. OCLC gives an exact page count of 109 pages. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This was also a non-genre mystery and I changed it to a non-genre book. MLB 03:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cloning

When you want to add a new edition of a NOVEL which is already in the database, it's better to use the "Add Publication to This Title" function, rather than using the "Clone" function. Using the latter function increases the chances of unwanted duplicated data being transferred to the new record, dates, prices, cover artist, etc. I suggest only using the "Clone" function when you're adding a record for a new edition of a COLLECTION or ANTHOLOGY, where you can transfer the contents within the same submission. Also, when you use the "Clone" function, the moderator isn't provided a set of links to the secondary sources of data (like OCLC, Amazon, etc.) (But that's no concern of the submitting editor.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Analog, March 2015

The reviews in this issue were dated 2015-01-10. Any specific reason for doing that? Ordinarily the date of the review is the date of the publication in which it first appears. Also, if you don't have time to create publication records for the two unlinked reviews, let me know and I can do it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a mistake that was lifted from the notes, I will correct, along with a misspelling of Mr. Sakers name, and add a cover image in a few minutes. MLB 03:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Twice in Time

You verified a facsimile copy of Startling Stories, May 1940, which contains the story "Twice in Time", illustrated by Virgil Finlay. I've been entering art books of Finlay's work, and they contains several of these illustrations. Can you please tell me what number the following illustrations correspond to: (a) Two men dueling with swords, (b) full face portrait of a woman, dark hair beneath a hood, (c) portrait of a man, looking to his right, balding with a small beard and (d) full face portrait of a young man with long light-colored hair, wearing a hat? Bob 20:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Here goes nothing.

•Illustration #1: Page 14: This is a redrawing of the cover, but instead of the Mona Lisa, there is a dark haired woman standing next to Guaracco.

•Illustration #2: Page 17: Portrait of a young dandy in a fancy cap. Subtitle: "Leo Thasher".

•Illustration #3: Page 19: Portrait of a young woman in a black (?) hood. Subtitle: "Mona Lisa".

•Illustration #4: Page 21: Portrait of a balding middle aged man with a goatee. Subtitle: "Guaracco".

•Illustration #5: Page 27: A one column illustration with Guaracco holding Thasher in stasis by holding something in his hand while emitting something that is portrayed by expanding circles. No subtitle.

•Illustration #6: Page 35: Two men dueling. Subtitle: "'Fight, you knave!' I taunted, as my blade pressed against him".

•Illustration #7: Page 41: Thasher flying over a village using a pair of wings. Subtitle: "I spread and beat the wings—the ground seemed a long way off."

•Illustration #8: Page 47: Thasher in chains in a dungeon melting his prison bars with some homemade acid. Subtitle: "I fashioned clay tubes for the acid."

•Illustration #9: Page 56: Full page illustration featuring Thasher using some kind of weapon to break down some castle walls. Subtitle: "'Allahuakbar!' thundered the enemy, as a row of heads shot into view."

And that’s about it. I know that I've given you way more information than you wanted, but better too much rather than too little. I believe that the illustrations that you are inquiring about are illustrations numbers 6, 3, 4, and 2 respectively. Maybe the other information will come in handy too. MLB 23:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you for your trouble. Bob 00:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Cubic City" illustration

The note you added to this record states "this site". Did you mean the ISFDB or did you intend to link the record to the site which makes the statement? Are you certain that the 1929 illustration is the same as the 1942 one? If they're different there's no need to point out that the 1929 printing is illustrated by another artist. Mhhutchins 03:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. The note was found on the story's page here. Sorry, I'll remove the note. MLB 04:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bob Dylan Troy Jonson and the Speed Queen

In your verified Dark Discoveries #22, would you please double check that Bob Dylan Troy Jonson and the Speed Queen does not have commas after Dylan & Jonson? The TOC on the publisher's website has the commas. Based on your answer, I will variant or merge (as appropriate) to the original Bob Dylan, Troy Jonson, and the Speed Queen. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Will correct. MLB 01:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Curse of Yig in The 2nd Avon Fantasy Reader

Please see this discussion regarding the variant of Zealia Bishop's name used for "The Curse of Yig" in this book. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 18:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comet (pulp magazine), May 1941

Re this publication record: it was entered as ANTHOLOGY, but the record you created for the December 1940 issue was entered as MAGAZINE. I know there's been a dispute in the past on how to enter facsimile reprints, but we should remain consistent within titles. If this is an exact facsimile, it should be typed as MAGAZINE, in my opinion. Again, I can't find any standards that directly answer this question, but a pulp magazine under any name would smell just as bad (metaphorically speaking).

Also I'm not sure what you mean by the first note: "This is a print-on-demand facsimile reprint of the first issue of the pulp magazine of the same time." Probably the last word should be "name", even though the last four words are redundant (a "facsimile reprint" implies it's the same), but this is a reprint of the fourth issue. Perhaps a case of mistaken copy and paste from the record of the first issue? Mhhutchins 18:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the letter on page 127 credited to "Olon" or "Olin"? If the former, it should be varianted to the latter. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, I'll correct the former to anthology. Like another editor Swfritter I list these now as anthologies because these are NOT magazines. They are reprints of magazines, and I have often found them to be altered. Missing ads, illustrations, stories, columns, letters, and the have had their contents, sometimes, shifted around, and they even sometimes have had new material added. I also tried listing them as pulps because of their size, but you corrected me on that, so I stopped.

"This is a print-on-demand facsimile reprint of the first issue of the pulp magazine of the same time." Yes, mistake, and redundant. Will correct.

Yes it's Orlon, I meant to variant, but I've been busy, will variant immediately. MLB 23:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If this issue is as you describe above, then it's not a facsimile reprint and that should be noted in the record. If they are facsimile reprints of the original magazine, they're no different than the magazines which they reprint and should be typed as MAGAZINE. I'll accept the submission to change this to an ANTHOLOGY, reluctantly, but I will also have to make several submissions as well to change the editor records and the series data. Mhhutchins 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You still need to correct the first note of the May issue. And is this actually SHORTFICTION? A non-fact essay is an ESSAY not SHORTFICTION, unless it's a fictional essay. (I suppose there's a fine distinction there. I'll leave it up to you.) Mhhutchins 23:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

All verbs in English language titles should be capitalized. Even two-letter verbs as in this title. Mhhutchins 23:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If the editor is only credited as "Orlin Tremaine", that's who should be credited in the ISFDB record. Mhhutchins 23:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not being a wealthy man, I don’t have many pulps , so I can’t compare the two directly, that’s why I find sites like this one and others so valuable. When I compare and find different page counts, and when I read and find blank pages and “continued on page xxx” only to find the continuation not existing, and even some new material. Rare, but it happens. I am not the only one who has come to the conclusion that these are to be listed as anthologies, Biomassbob and Swfritter have both listed these facsimile magazines as anthologies. With the new explosion of facsimile reprints, as magazines, pamphlets, anthologies, and chapterbooks are now appearing, perhaps some new regulations should be created, but that’s way above my pay grade. I’d like to point out that I’m a late comer to all of this, this was all happening long before I started editing here.

And wouldn’t a true facsimile reprint of a pulp magazine be reprinted on rough pulp paper with deckled edges and staples? MLB 23:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No. A facsimile is similar to a xerox copy, not an exact reproduction. It has nothing to do with the type of paper on which it's being reproduced. It's the content itself that matters.

Getting back to the issue at hand: if you have a modern reprint of a magazine (pulp or not) that reproduces photographically the pages of a magazine in exactly the same order, with the same contents, regardless of the format or the print quality of the paper, it should be entered as MAGAZINE, not ANTHOLOGY. Would you not type a facsimile reprint of a novel (from publishers like Gregg Press and Arno Press) as a NOVEL? Why should a magazine being any different? Mhhutchins 04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So here's the question: is there evidence in the publication you're holding that it reproduces all of the same contents as the May 1941 issue of Comet? If it doesn't, or includes additional material, then it can be typed as ANTHOLOGY. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I don't know if the contents are exact as whoever created both of the Comet's initial entries didn't do a thorough job. They are certainly better than nothing, and I won't criticize what is there. However, as somebody who is, due to health reasons, on an extremely short financial leash, I can't afford to buy the original and compare the facsimiles to the originals. So, I can't definitely say that the two are exact. However, there is a new indicia/acknowledgment page that states that this is a "...Replica reprint by Pulp Tales Press."

Again, this all started before I came on board on ISFDB, and going back to all the previous listings and change them, would mean asking all of the primary verifiers to guarantee that the facsimile reprints are EXCACTLY the same as the originals, and I wonder how many primary verifiers can do this. I'm on the side of better safe than sorry, but in the end, it's not my call. I can only do the best I can, and I can only stand behind what I own. All the verified Adventure House facsimile listings are mine, I think, and some, like the G-8s are definitely edited versions of the magazines. But as the contents of the G-8s are all, columns, novels, and stories, primarily written by Robert Hogan, I have listed them as collections. Also, many of the Adventure House facsimiles have new ads, title pages, and acknowledgment pages from the publisher. So far, none of the Planet Stories, Thrilling Wonder Stories, or Startling Stories that I own have been reprinted. Ditto for the Amazing Stories or Fantastic Adventures. I may be mistaken, but I think that you are asking me to make a policy decision that I am neither qualified or authorized to make.

To your other point, I think that a collection of stories, articles, artworks, ads, columns, etc. is much different than a novel. A collection of stories may be an anthology, a collection, a magazine, or an omnibus, however a novel forever remains the same. Unless two or more are collected together and then we get . . .

Again, as I've said before, maybe some new hard and fast rules need to be created. I'm very sorry if it seems like I'm waffling, but I am only a lowly editor, and I can only do so much. And by the way, neither of my Comet facsimiles state that this magazine was ever called Comet Stories. Contents page, indicia, and page headers all state that this magazine was never called anything but Comet. MLB 05:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No one expects you, or any other editor, or for that matter, any moderator as well, to make a policy decision single-handedly. My purpose in asking questions about the publication you hold in your hand, is to make a determination based on as much data as I can about a publication I've never seen. That determination is based on the current standards. We can only rely on hard and fast rules when we're able to apply them to those standards. Unfortunately, there are situations where no hard and fast rules can comfortably be applied. That's the point of my inquiry. Perhaps sometimes I can be persistent, even irritatingly so, but I would hope that a contributing editor will appreciate that the decision is based on their input. That input is very much appreciated, and I apologize if sometimes I haven't made that clear to those who contribute so much time and effort as you have in building the database.

The record for the original issue hasn't been primary verified, but looking at the page numbers of the contents, they exactly match your copy. I'm not going to ask you to change the type of the record you've created for this publication. But some day, there should be a discussion including the entire group about how facsimiles should be handled. Those editors you've pointed to who have entered facsimiles have done so without any discussion among their fellow editors. Or none that I'm aware of. Otherwise it would be documented in the standards.

Again, I appreciate your efforts and contributions to the database. Mhhutchins 05:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: I'll try to find out why the original issues were entered as Comet Stories. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. All I can see is that the records were created from secondary sources, so those sources are probably wrong. Mhhutchins 05:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost the first statement you will find in any definition of "magazine" is the statement that they are periodicals. Reprints of any kind, be they be photographic facsimiles or not, are rarely periodicals. In addition, entering them as magazines creates totally bogus magazine grids. This is is the way I did the non-facsimile ebook reprints of Astounding stories. Because of the two reasons I listed above it just seemed like the way to go.--swfritter 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Starting a discussion on the rules and standard page, forming a consensus, and then documenting it in the ISFDB help pages would have been "the way to go." I believe that a facsimile reprint should be typed the same as the work it reproduces. Should this photographic reproduction of a COLLECTION, this one of a CHAPTERBOOK, and this one of a NOVEL be typed as anything other than the type of the original publication? Should a British reprint of an American magazine be typed as ANTHOLOGY? What about hardcover reprints of issues of magazines like Cemetery Dance (as here) and Subterranean (as here)? What about 2nd and 3rd printings of issues of POD magazines (like here)? Should any of these have been entered as an ANTHOLOGY?

I'm not talking about "non-facsimile reprints" here. If an editor picks and chooses works from various sources, facsimile or not, then it would be an ANTHOLOGY. But if it wholly reproduces an issue of a MAGAZINE, I believe that should be how it's entered into the db. And that's what I would have argued if it had ever been brought before the group. I would have gone along with the group consensus even if it was contrary to my belief. Without a documented standard we get something like this series which is a mixture of magazines and anthologies. The problem you bring up about "bogus magazine grids" is easily solved by making sure that the editor records of the facsimile issues are entered into a separate series, as they have been for the Adventure House reprints (for the most part, although there are some in the database which mix the types, as here.) Any other problem could have been worked out with further discussion, even with a change in the software if necessary for these exceptional publications.

If you haven't read the reason for originating this post, do so. It was to bring to this editor's attention that he had created records for two issues of this facsimile series under two different types. If the group had formed a standard about which one was correct, it wouldn't have been an issue for discussion! I would have simply asked him to correct one. Mhhutchins 23:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes they should be consistent. Cemetery Dance appears to be a hard cover periodical. Unless Subterranean was published concurrently it is not a periodical. Lightspeed is primarily an emag. The print version is a one-off and should have probably been entered as an anthology which would resolve the issue of reprints. I have been entering Nightmare Magazine (an ezine) from the website but somebody inserted this one-off issue and I have been trying to figure out how to deal with it. The Weird Tales situation is nightmarish. The big question is what date to use. If you enter the original publication date of the magazine you lose the publication date of the reprint. Defining the magazine as an anthology resolves that problem.--swfritter 22:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Possessed by an Immortal

Are you certain you want to add another record for this title? It seems to be identical to this one already in the database. Mhhutchins 04:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Hutchins: I'm so embarrassed. It's been a long day and I missed this one. So sorry. I'll cancel my submission and update that one. MLB 04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Azarius", by Sidney Williams

I approved your clone pub submission, but changed the way the publisher is presented. You listed it as "Macabre Ink / Crossroad Press", which might be correct (if "Macabre Ink" is an imprint of "Crossroad Press"), but all previous submissions from this publisher have been listed as by "Crossroad Press & Macabre Ink Digital", so I changed it to that so those books will be collected together. (That's also how Amazon presents the name of this publisher.) Chavey 02:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. MLB 02:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Holmes

Hi. I changed the publisher to Penguin Books, since Penguin was unknown. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 08:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. MLB 00:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Slobbering Tongue that Ate the Frightfully Huge Woman

Your verified The Magazine of Bizarro Fiction, Issue #11, Winter 2013 contains The Slobbering Tongue that Ate the Frightfully Huge Woman which is sized as "shortstory". Previous publications of this title are sized as "novelette". Is your version truly a new, shorter version or a reprint of the novelette? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer your inquiry:

• First of all, I guess that I missed that it was reprint, I'm glad that you caught it.
• Second, it's listed as a short story on the contents page.
• Third, from the story's blurb "This is one of my favorite short stories by Robert Devereaux. It appears in his collection Baby's First Book of Seriously Fucked Up Shit". So I don't know if it is a shortened version, although I doubt it.
• Fourth, somewhere in storage, where I can't get it, I have this story's original printing in It Came from the Drive-In to compare.
• Fifth, The Magazine of Bizarro Fiction doesn't seem to do a lot of editing for content, but who knows?
• Sixth, did you ever think that you would be seriously discussing with somebody a story called The Slobbering Tongue that Ate the Frightfully Huge Woman? :-)

Personally, I would just merge both pages, do you want me to do it? MLB 00:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've merged them. Yeah, I think that's one of the weirder titles I've ever typed. ;-) Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Letters in Captain Future

Please contact Rtrace who verified the publication containing the letters you wish to variant in the facsimile edition which you added. It's possible that there's entry errors and the records could be merged. I'm holding three submissions that want to create variants for very minor differences. It's possible that there's entry errors and the records could be merged when reconciled. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please come participate in this discussion

Stonecreek is insisting that you sign off on this extremely minor correction. Discussion is here. Thanks. Nihonjoe 08:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope you're feeling better (I saw the note below). When you have a minute or two, please come over to the discussion linked above. Thanks! Nihonjoe 04:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Cemetery Dance #70

Can you confirm the artist credit for the work on page 38 of this issue? We also have a "Zach McCain" in the database. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have this issue around here, just saw it, but right now I'm suffering from some food poisoning, the details of which I'm sure you don't wanna know about. MLB 14:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Misspelling, sorry. Will correct. MLB 03:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Approved and welcome back to the land of the living! :) Ahasuerus 03:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. MLB 03:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Analog April 2015

Hello, I've uploaded a scan of the magazine and linked the review of Sci-Fi Chronicles. It's strange to notice that my issue arrived in my mailbox in France before yours. Hauck 13:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Totem Shock 5

Please confirm that the review for "Gaslight Arcanum" on page 63 of this publication is correctly given and not the same spelling given for other reviews in the same issue by "Nick Contor". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 02:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A mistype. Corrected. MLB 14:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Yith Cycle

In your verified The Yith Cycle, it has the following content:

• 198 • The Dreams of Yid • poem by Duane W. Rimel
• 199 • Dreams of Yith • (1934) • poem by Duane W. Rimel and H. P. Lovecraft [as by Duane W. Rimel ]

This looks a bit odd so just wanted to double check that the first poem was actually in the book. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

From the introduction to this poem (p 197): "Judging by a surviving stanza of a draft version of the original Dreams of Yid (which follows below)" and that below was the next page, and the page after that is the full Rimel and Lovecraft poem. The original surviving excerpt is nine lines long, and according to the credits (p 198) originally appeared in The Fantasy Fan July or September 1934. So what we have is two versions of the same poem. As Yoda would say "Odd it looks, but it is as it odd is." MLB 23:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I do see that I should probably leave a note and correct the date. MLB 23:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I take that back, another examination of the introduction shows that the excerpt may be printed here for the first time. Here it is if anybody can figure out where it originally appeared:

Black Sacrifice

On blasted hillside covered with foul mass

Of that dim spawning strange to our clean Earth,

Close by a ragged rampart dread hands toss

A nightmare shadow of arcaean birth

Upon an altar stretching damp across

A deamon-fane that echoes with mad mirth,

And that realm sane eyes may never see—

For black light streams from skies of ebony.

And there you go. More information than you probably even wanted. Maybe a publisher's note should be left. MLB 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Swenson or Swensen

Can you confirm the credit for the art on the back cover of this publication? Could it possibly be the same artist credited for the back cover of this publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 17:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been a week and I'm awaiting a response for this request. Please answer at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking all over for this publication only to just trip over it. The name is Swensen, and with my record of typos you now know why I never became a professional typist. Or a brain surgeon. Will correct NOW. Sorry. MLB 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Bentz's "Song of Fire"

FYI, there is a new revised edition of your verified Song of Fire out. I have updated the title record with information from the author's Web site. Ahasuerus 23:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. MLB 23:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Midnight Zoo #6

Re this publication: Reviews of issues of fanzines and magazines should be entered as ESSAY and not REVIEW. See the bullet point in the subsection titled "Reviews" on this help page. Mhhutchins 04:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you already have an ESSAY content record, it's not necessary to create individual records for each of the periodicals reviewed. You have the option to add them to the Note field of the essay's title record. Mhhutchins 04:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the REVIEW records and updated the title record of the ESSAY. Mhhutchins 06:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I still have a lot to learn. Thanx. MLB 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Review in Asimov's April-May 2015

In this issue, does Spinrad actually review Little Failure (a nonfiction memoir by a nongenre author) or just mention it in passing? Mhhutchins 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Kinda, sorta, maybe. This book is actually listed in the beginning of the review as being reviewed, and it is mentioned and discussed in the body of the review, but as I mentioned in the notes, Spinrad mentions the books listed and then wanders off the reservation to discuss this, that, and a number of other things, only then to wander back and tie up his observations. In fact, he mentions and discusses Little Failure for a couple of paragraphs, then reviews/discusses The Detainee. Quite frankly, I wouldn't have listed it if it hadn't been listed by the magazine itself in the beginning of the review. Somebody is going to see Spinrad's review and wonder why the book isn't listed. [And yes, I'm looking at you Funslinger ;-)]. I've never heard of the author, but Spinrad states that all of his novels, so far, have speculative elements. If you want me to delete the review of this memoir, then, that's fine with me. MLB 20:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it sounds sufficiently "reviewed" to allow the record. If you could create a pub record for it and Absurdistan by the same author, I'd appreciate it. If you don't have time (or the inclination), let me know and I'll do it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Hungering God

When you change the author credit of a publication record, you must also change it in the title record. I've done that for you this time. Please keep this in mind for future changes. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanx. MLB 05:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hive Invasion

Your note states that this is the 119th work in the series, while the ISFDB data indicates it is the 120th. Mhhutchins 00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I did list it as the 120th work in the series, but I must have screwed it up somehow. By-the-way, it has been mentioned that this series is ending at the end of this year. If so, this may be the longest running sf series in the English language. Anyway, I'll correct. MLB 01:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Interviews of pseudonyms

I corrected this record to give the canonical form of the interviewee's name, but you made another submission to change it back. (And a moderator accepted it.) Please be aware that the subject of an interview must be the canonical form of the person's name and not the pseudonym. I change it for the second time. Please don't change it back for a third time. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for approving it. I had the notion in my mind that Dean Koontz must be the canonical name. Stonecreek 07:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry on my side also. If I knew this, then I had forgotten it. Now I know. Looks like your job is still safe. MLB 21:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

New Ventures #4

Re this publication: Please check the page count, the title of the Simak work being reviewed on page 32, and the strangely ungrammatical title of the first work in the magazine. (At least "Off On a Comment" would be a pun.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Still need you to check the page count. Also, a couple of letters have odd disambiguation. Also, the untitled cartoons shouldn't have a description in the titles. You can add that to the Note field of their title records. Mhhutchins 06:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the cartoon: I saw others do it, but, I should have asked. I do see one letter wrong (didn't capitalize). Page count: Dang it, I corrected that, this is the second time that my computer has auto-corrected something. Will change. MLB 06:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There, I think all of the mistakes have been corrected. By-the-way, this magazine lists a book by Rhonda Booth, but Amazon lists her as Rhonda Boothe. Wonder who's correct? MLB 06:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Rhonda Boothe" is married to Jessica Amanda Salmonson, is FB friends with Nnedi Okorafor, Geoff Ryman, and Tad Williams. WorldCat and the "Rhonda+Boothe" US Copyright Office both say she is one of the editors of this book. Yup, that's her. Chavey 19:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"New Venture #4"

It seems very likely that the "Harry E. Bose" that wrote the letter on p. 54 is the same as the Harry Bose we have in our records. Chavey 04:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I'll create a pseudonym page for him. I think as more people retire and start listing their fanzine/semi-prozines in their collections, more authors like this will turn up. MLB 04:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This showed up on an error report, and I waited for you to create a pseudonym. After a while, I went ahead and did it myself. Mhhutchins 06:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, things have gotten rather hectic around here lately. MLB 07:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Championship B'tok in September 2014 Analog

Edward M. Lerner's story "Championship B'tok" in your verified coyp of the September 2014 issue of Analog was nominated in the Best Novelette category for a Hugo award. We have it listed as a novella. Since our definitions for story length are identical to those in the Hugo rules, you may want to consider changing the length to novelette. I'm leaving this same note on the other verifier's page. Thanks. --Ron ~ Rtrace^Talk 20:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's listed as a novella, but I can list a note stating that it was nominated as a novelette for the Hugo. Or I can change it to a novelette and post a note stating that it was listed on the table of contents as a novella. Tell me which is proper and which course of action this lowly editor should engage in. MLB 04:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rhys Davies

I accepted the submission to add links to this artist's data, but after looking at this one for a game creator I came to the conclusion that they're not the same artist who is in the database for his maps. Also, I disambiguated the records for the author who had stories published in the 1930s. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins

Okay. MLB 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Planet Stories, Summer 1940

Could you confirm the credit for the art on pages 69 and 82 of this publication? Could it possibly be Eron instead of "Enon"? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it's Eron. The art is so muddily reproduced that I initially misread the signiture. I will correct and add some notes. MLB 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the attempt to credit the work on page 28 to "Wm Founnof" (!) We don't use the signature as a source for the credit unless it identifies a known person. I left your note intact. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I know. Perhaps somebody will identify this artist sometime in the future. MLB 03:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Asimov's May or June 2015

You've dated this issue (and subsequently all of its contents) for May, but you titled it June. Please reconcile the difference. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Long night, will do. MLB 00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Cover credit for Analog, June 2015

Can you confirm that "Vincent DiFate" is credited and not Vincent Di Fate for the cover of this issue? If so, please make the record for the cover art into a variant crediting the canonical form of the artist's name. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, on the contents page it clearly states Vincent DiFate and not Vincent Di Fate. There is still some work to be done on this posting and I will variant it. MLB 00:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Jade Sky" in Dark Discoveries

When you updated this and the previous parts of the serial to give it a total of 4 parts, I assumed it had come to a conclusion in this issue. But your note states it is ongoing. Did it conclude in issue #30? Mhhutchins 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless something happens in the future, the Jade Sky serial seems to be over. While previous installments ended with a "continued in the next issue" note. This fourth episode states "end" in the last panel. Honestly, the art is so horribly crude, that I couldn't read it to find out if the whole thing actually ended. MLB 03:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the word "ongoing" from the description in the notes. This implies that it will appear in the next issue. Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"was" implies that it no longer exists. It "is" and always will be a serialized illustrated story. And the word "graphic" is redundant. Mhhutchins 06:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, will you be creating publication records for the two non-linked reviews in this issue? If you'd rather not, I could do it if you could supply any bibliographic data provided in the reviews. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Getting caught up, so okay. I wanted to get the Analog and Asimov's out of the way first. MLB 03:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why it's necessary to have two content records on page 102, one typed as ESSAY and the other as INTERVIEW. Is there actually two different works starting on this page? Mhhutchins 06:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We start off with a quarter page essay and biography of Jeff Conner and Scream/Press, and a half-page photo of Jeff Conner at an IDW convention table before the actual interview starts. All non-interview stuff. MLB 23:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't 90% of all interviews do the same thing? Unless there are two titles (one for the interview and one for the "essay") on the page, you should just give one content record. Also, please consider archiving all but the most recent messages on this page when you get a chance. The server is super-slow today and it took forever for this page to load. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Enter this URL in your browser's address window: "http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:MLB/Archive/". After the last slash create a unique address for the next set of archives. You'd previously used "2013Jan-Jun" (as seen here). I would suggest using the same format. Let's say you want to archive messages from July - December 2013, you'd create a page with this URL: http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:MLB/Archive/2013Jul-Dec

If you click on that you'll see a message that the page doesn't exist. Good, because you're going to create it by clicking on the "edit this page" link.

Now you have a blank page to work with. Open your talk page in a new tab. Click on the link to "edit this page". When the box opens, copy all of your messages from July 2013 to December 2013 (highlight the text by left clicking your mouse at the start and right clicking at the end, choose "Copy" from the menu, or you can use the CTRL C method of copying.)

Go back to the tab with the blank page. Now paste all of the text you copied from your talk page, and click "Save page".

Go back to the tab with your talk page and delete the text you just copied and pasted to the archive page.

Repeat this for as many archive pages as you need. If you want you can create pages with larger sections of text than six-months worth. You'll have to title each new page with the range you're saving on that page.

Once you've completed archiving the page(s), go to your archive index page and create links to each of the pages you created.

Ask if you need help. Mhhutchins 03:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope this came out all right. Believe it or not, our electricity went out as I first tried this. Ouch! MLB 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sternbach cover art credit

Re this cover art record: I've made the anthology's cover record into a variant of the magazine's. I also changed the original note in the anthology which was unable to give the source of the credit. Mhhutchins 00:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Asimov's, June 2015

I accepted another editor's submissions to change the title of "The Lady of the Open Road" to "Our Lady of the Open Road" in this issue, based on the title given on the cover. If the title is different on its title page, please change it back. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I flubbed it. Our Lady of the Open Road is the correct title. Sorry. MLB 03:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Subtitles in the stories of 13 Scary Ghost Stories

I rejected the submissions to change the titles of these stories to add a subtitle such as "An Indian Ghost Story". These subtitles (not really subtitles) were undoubtedly editorial and not authorial, and were probably added to give context to their place in this anthology. It's not likely that such "titles" would be retained if the stories were later reprinted (or how they may have been published earlier.) Feel free to give these appendages (I cringe to call them subtitles) in the publication's Note field. Mhhutchins 23:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I see another moderator felt differently and accepted other submissions to add the "subtitles". Oh well, different person, different views. C'est la vie. Mhhutchins 23:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I just listed what was on the title page. If it was wrong, I can correct. Sorry. MLB 23:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Scholastic et al

We usually don't include "Inc.", "Ltd." "Co." when giving publisher credit. (That's not to say they're not any in the db.) So I reverted your edit of a publication record changing "Scholastic" to "Scholastic, Inc." If you're not certain which format for any specific publisher is considered the standard, a simple search should give you the answer. Mhhutchins

Asimov June 2015

Hello, I've added the review for _Vance Space_ to this issue. Hauck 15:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. MLB 03:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thrilling Wonder cover variants

Do you really want to variant this record (titled January 1940, but dated February 1941) to this cover art record? Mhhutchins 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The back cover of the facsimile reprint of the January 1940 issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories reprints about three quarters of the front cover of the February 1941 issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories. This is why I listed it as a variant. I suspect that I'm listing it wrongly, if so, I'm willing to be corrected. Should I give the current reprinted date? MLB 04:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Depends. Is this record correctly titled or correctly dated? It can't be both. Does it look like this cover? Once you've answered those two questions, I can advise you what to do next. Mhhutchins 04:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that I've corrected the error. MLB 05:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and yes that's the cover that is reprinted on the back. MLB 05:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Then the title should be "Thrilling Wonder Stories, February 1941". I'll change the title and accept the submission to variant. Mhhutchins 06:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I should have known this. Thank you. MLB 06:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Shadow Heir by Richelle Mead

I'd like to add artist credit to Shadow Heir by Richelle Mead as cover by Paul Stinson see: http://www.artworksillustration.com/stinson_Shadow-Heir.htm Susan O'Fearna 05:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do so. MLB 03:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Link Heller or Hullar

Re this record: Can you confirm the author for the seven reviews in this publication currently credited to "Link Heller"? Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, mistake corrected. MLB 03:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Publication records for single comic book issues...

...are not eligible for inclusion in the database. If the Lansdale story is a prose story, I can create a record for it without the creation of a publication record. I'll hold your submission for your response. Mhhutchins 01:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the title record for The Heist. You can add more notes if you wish. Please cancel the submission for the comic book. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Did not know. Now I do. Does this also include the large black-and-white comic magazines? MLB 04:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Single-issue comic books are not eligible, regardless of their content. If issues are combined to create a graphic novel, and the author of the work is a speculative fiction author "above the threshold", then the graphic novel would be eligible, regardless of its contents. For example, the Sandman collections by Neil Gaiman are eligible, but not the individual issues. Mhhutchins 04:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, just something that I didn't know. Thanks. MLB 04:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of CHAPBOOKs

Re the reviews of Strange Fruit and Worms in this publication: They should have been linked to the contained SHORTFICTION record and not to the CHAPBOOK record. I've corrected the link. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. Thanks for the corrections. MLB 03:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Ship of Ishtar

I would suggest one thing about your entries for illustrations in The Ship of Ishtar from Paizo: instead of simply calling them "The Ship of Ishtar [x]", disambiguate them with something like "The Ship of Ishtar (Paizo) [x]". Otherwise they could easily become confused with the illustrations in the Borden version of the novel. And I would be glad to variant the appropriate illustrations to the Borden ones; I've probably done a hundred Finlay illustrations that way in his art books, using descriptions to identify original appearances in magazines with those who verified the zines and were kind enough to look them up for me. Bob 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

MLB, please describe for Bob each of these illustrations so that he can properly variant them to the original (first) publication. Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I did, go to his "My Messages" page, that's when he requested that I disambiguate them. MLB 02:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's why a discussion started on one page shouldn't hop back and forth between user talk pages. It's hard to keep up with the ping-pong game. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comet, July 1941

Re this publication: Are the pieces on page 1 and 10 by Forte the same work? If not, they need to be diambiguated. If so, one should be deleted and the duplication should be noted in the Note field. Also, is there a printed credit or is the credit based on a signature? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Same question about the other work credited to Forte. Mhhutchins 04:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I did this for a reason. First: All of the illustrations by Forte are different, not the same. Second: Davecat, who is no longer active on this site, has listed these illustrations as being on Gutenberg as Vortex Blaster, Vortex Blaster (2), and The Street That Wasn’t There (reprint). I didn’t want to merge these without consulting Davecat, but now, as I’ve said, Davecat has done his share on this site and has moved on, and I don’t do well with Gutenberg to compare. If you can find somebody to compare these illustrations, here are the descriptions:

• Illustration #1, page 1: Three men in the forefront. Spaceship/glider of some sort to the left, man holding an empty spaceship to one man’s right. Heap of clothes and Forte’s signature to the bottom right.
• Illustration #2, page 10: Two page illustration. Spaceship/glider shooting rockets into a smoking vortex of some kind, with something glowing in the middle of the vortex.
• Illustration #3, page 18: Sketch of a metropolis with a man’s face in the upper left-hand corner, and a man with a walking stick (?) and a bowler hat in the lower right- hand corner. Forte’s signature is in the lower left hand corner.
• The disambiguation can be removed if all of the variations can be determined. But, again, I thought it better be safe than sorry.

I'll go to Gutenberg to determine any necessary variants. Mhhutchins 01:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

All of Forte’s illustrations are signed by him as “Forte” and are credited to him on the table of contents as such. I may be wrong, but if the illustrations are officially credited to the illustrator as only by their last name then that’s how they should be listed.

You are correct. But if there is no stated credit, the signature should be used to determine the credit and thus given to the canonical form of the name. In this case if the stated credit is "Forte" than that's how the record should be credited. Mhhutchins 01:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Morey signs his illustrations with his full name and so they are credited to him as such. The only illustration not signed is “The Sky Trap” and it is probably by Frank R. Paul who is listed as “Paul” on the contents page. But not being signed, I didn’t want to credit it to him. I have no idea who Mirando is, but he has signed their work. MLB 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I will soon list the contents of the Comet, January 1941 facsimile. In this issue Forte has signed his work as John Forte and Mirando has signed his work as Michael Mirando. Ah-ha. Now we know. Also, going back and giving the illustration of The Sky Trap a minute examination there is a kinda/sorta P buried in the lower right-hand corner, so maybe Paul's name was cropped off. Still... MLB 00:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't doing artwork fun? :-) MLB 01:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And isn't it great to work on the Internet Speculative Art Database? Jeez. Mhhutchins 01:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

One last (I hope) question about this publication: Are you certain the story on page 117 is credited as "The Bell-Tone". There is no dash according to the Project Gutenberg edition. Mhhutchins 01:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, It's hyphenated. Does the Project Gurenberg reprint have the muddy Mirando illustration of a man looking into a microscope? After I posted the above I googled Mirando's name and found that did some brief comic book work and may have drifted into advertising illustration, Michael really was his first name. And I do like posting things here, it's a good thing there are people like you that keeps me honest. MLB 01:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The PG edition has the illustration but no credit. Click on the link above to see it. Mhhutchins 02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the pulp illustration by Mirando. MLB 02:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comet, January 1941

If the art credits are given as a group credit on the content page of this publication, why are two credited to "John Forte" and one credited to just "Forte"? Mhhutchins 06:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Because I messed up and I couldn't fix it until the listing was accepted. Which I will do now. MLB 02:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Iron Rage

We don't know who will be the author of the next Deathlands novel, so you can't assign credit yet to the excerpt. Also, when we do find out, you simply update the author credit of the parent record (the one currently credited to "unknown"). You don't variant titles credited to "unknown". Mhhutchins 05:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't credit the excerpt to unknown, somebody else did. I got the author's name from Jamesaxler.com. The excerpt is credited in the sources (the Deathland and Outlanders books) as from the upcoming Deathland novel so there shouldn't have been any problem putting the excerpt into the Deathland series. I'm sorry if treaded upon some protocol. MLB 06:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It was varianted to "unknown" because at the time it was entered into the database, a day or so ago, it was only credited to "James Axler". I did not know who wrote it and varianted it to "unknown" so that it wouldn't show up on an error report. ("James Axler" is a pseudonym so all title records have to be varianted to a true author.) We usually wait until the book is actually published and take the credit from the copyright page. And as I said above, once we know who wrote it, we update the parent record to give the actual credit, NOT variant it again. As for accepting a submission in which one field is wrong and the other one is right, we have to reject the whole thing. As for whether promotional "excerpts" should be considered part of a series, I'm against it. And there's nothing in the rules that say they should be entered into a series. Mhhutchins 06:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Dunno, it just seems that an excerpt is an excerpt. Ain't they all promotional in some way or another? Anyway, when I get the next novel in the Deathlands series I'll add the real author to the listing. MLB 07:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not all excerpts are promotional. Some are actually included as a content in a magazine or a book and not just added to the back of a novel to fill out the unprinted pages or to advertise other books in the series. There is a difference (one is content, the other is advertising) and I think we should treat them differently. Many editors like me don't even add content records for these advertisements, and nothing in the rules require that we do so. I'm taking a break for a few weeks from the db, but when I get back I'll start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page. Mhhutchins 17:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not being sarcastic when I say have a good time. My editing here has vastly improved under your editorialship. MLB 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Author credits for publication records and title records must match

You should have changed the author credit for this record when you changed it for this one. I did it for you. Also, when you submit a pseudonym, you should simultaneously variant all the title records under that pseudonym to the parent name. I'm pretty certain this has been brought to your attention a time or two. I've made variant of the "Joseph McCullough" titles to "Joseph A. McCullough". Mhhutchins 03:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Another incorrectly linked review

I'll ask that you fix this link, so that you'll get used to linking reviews to the SHORTFICTION content instead of the CHAPBOOK record. Mhhutchins 06:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pooka in My Pantry

I have approved the addition of this pub, but I wonder if we want to add page numbers since the Notes field says "Novel starts on page nine"? Ahasuerus 03:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't I only list the page number of the introduction (Dear Reader)? Should I put the page number of the Dear Reader featurette in the notes section? MLB 03:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I think I may be confused. The submission didn't have any page numbers in the Content section. If the Dear Reader featurette and the main novel start on numbered pages, wouldn't we want to enter these page numbers in the Content section? Ahasuerus 03:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, not on the novel, at least that's what I've been told, oh those many years ago. On the introduction, yes, I guess. I guess I made a flub. I'll correct. MLB 03:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think I know where the person who made that suggestion was coming from. The way the software currently works is as follows. If:

• a NOVEL publication contains only one title, and
• that title is a NOVEL, and
• there is no page number associated with the NOVEL title

then the software will not display the NOVEL title. The idea is that it would be pointless to display NOVEL titles for NOVEL pubs if there is no other content. The person who suggested that you shouldn't enter page numbers for novels presumably was trying to take advantage of the way the software works.

That said, I don't see anything in Help that requires it. And in this case we clearly want both page numbers to be entered because the presence of an ESSAY record forces the software to display the NOVEL title, which appears out of order without a page number. Ahasuerus 04:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, since it's not listed on the Amazon "Look Inside" feature, I'm not sure that the Dear Reader feature is on the Kindle version. MLB 03:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, it IS listed this time. MLB 03:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Ahasuerus 04:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So. . . now I'm confused. Should I go back and put the novel's starting page number in my listings? MLB 04:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's really only a non-trivial problem when there is an additional title record, usually an essay or an excerpt, with a page number associated with it. It results in the novel title appearing before the introduction and then the whole Content section looks messy. Ahasuerus 05:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Portrait of Jennie, Penguin Books

I have approved the addition of this pub, but I am curious about "Pub. Series #: 638" since there is no publication series. Is it a catalog number, by chance? If so, we will want to enter it as "#638" in the "Catalog ID/ISBN" field. Ahasuerus 02:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm still learning. Yes, this seems to be Penguin book #638, at least what I could see from the website and the paperback's cover. MLB 02:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation! I have moved "#638" to the Catalog ID field. Ahasuerus 02:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Second Lie

FYI, I have changed "pulp" to "pb" in this pub. Hopefully that's what you meant :-) Ahasuerus 03:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. MLB 02:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking Reviews

Hello, in this pub there are still some reviews that are either not linked to the corresponding title (perhaps this one for example) or that should be transformed into ESSAYs. As they appears on our cleanup report, can you fix them? Thanks. Hauck 14:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Same thing here. If the reviews are about unknown or non-allowed items, please change them to essays. Hauck 12:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Made as many corrections as possible as the non-linked books don't, as yet, exist on this site. MLB 01:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Done the rest. Hauck 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not above creating listings, but things, healthwise, for my mother, has gone south. I can still do some stuff, but only on a limited basis right now. I hope to enter another book tonight though. So thanks. MLB 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, take care of your family. Hauck 10:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, my entries may be more sporadic in the next few weeks. MLB 16:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Jury of One / Deadly Readings

Are you aware of any spec-fic elements in this novel? Nothing in the synopsis would indicate it. Mhhutchins 16:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I just read this. The psychic is able to tell which person will soon die in this murder mystery by telling their fortunes. While the mystery infers that the psychic may be the killer, she is not, and why the killings happen have something to do with her, the killer does not, and it is never explained as to why only those that she "sees" as dying die. **Spoiler** The killer is a member of the victim's church, and is killing them for blasphemy and sinning. The supernatural elements are borderline, but these people are strangers to the psychic, and again, it is never explained as to how she knows who will die next. Hope that this helps. MLB 16:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Stills seems less than borderline if the author doesn't at least hint that the psychic has true powers. Mhhutchins 17:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Fairies in My Fireplace

Hello, can you have a look at this pub that you submitted. The cover is perhaps not the correct one. Thanks. Hauck 17:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm doing things in a rush around here, my mistake, corrected now. Thanks. MLB 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)