User talk:MartyD/Archive - January 2012


< User talk:MartyD
Revision as of 02:15, 13 February 2012 by MartyD (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archived set of entries made to my talk page Aug 2010 - Jan 2012.


Red Thunder

New image [broken link] that seems to match the note for [this], which I didn't change in case the image doesn't match. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's it, thanks. I removed the note. --MartyD 10:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dimension 4 - story title variant

Morning! This. [1]. I have: Won't You Walk? Not what is listed. Could you check please? It already has two variants and Contento, OCLC and Tuck do not match me, nor each other. Big surprise? LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, one of my early "verifications". :-) You are right. I will update it. Thanks for catching it. --MartyD 00:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

J'ai Lu

Hi Hauck, hi MartyD. I post this message both on your pages regarding the name of the publisher "J'ai lu". As the SF series name "J'ai Lu - Science Fiction" has been adopted, shouldn't we change the publisher entry from "J'ai lu" to "J'ai Lu" as a matter of consistence ? Benario

Responded to on Hauck's talk page. --MartyD 10:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Robot Brains

User:Dsorgen has uploaded a new cover image for your verified pub of The Robot Brains . I am about to approve the pub edit. -DES Talk 06:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --MartyD 10:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

problems with merging titles

Hi MartyD. I saw your careful review of my merging work. I started to answer you but, to be sure, i need to have the books under the eyes. I'll complete tomorow. thanks again. Benario

Lazarus come forth

Hello, I've done a bit of research about this novel by Bradbury. Indeed, the planet stories publication is names "Lazarus come forth. The entry I made is about a french translation in the "Meilleurs recits de Planet Stories" and is still the only publication of this shortstory in french. In the anthology, the original title is "Lazarus, come forth" and I think they made a mistake by introducing a comma in the title. As it is still the only publication you'll find in french, every websites dedicated to SF or ray Bradbury which take this anthology as the source of the shortstory (i.e. french speaking websites or european except UK) and mention the original title WITH the comma. Should we make a variant title ? BTW Thanks again for reviewing my work. Benario

Answered on your talk page. I agree the comma should be omitted. --MartyD 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Persons League follow-up

You left a note on my page. My apologies in advance, but this is the first time I tried to use this system, and I find it baffling. I'm not exactly sure where this comment will end up, but I'm hopeful that you will be able to read it. If this is not in the right place, or otherwise not useful, please just delete the whole thing.

You left a question asking if the "date of printing" of "The Missing Persons League" was really 1976.

I don't know, the book says: "Copyright (C) 1976 by Frank Bonham" and I assumed that was what I was supposed to fill into the spot where I put it.

The number line looks like this:

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 8 9/7 0 1 2 3/8

Below that is

 Printed in the U. S. A.                     06

Hope this is helpful. If you have another question for me, please just send an e-mail: sjmathis (at) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjmathis (talkcontribs) .

No problem. I quite understand your confusion! I will answer this on your talk page (copying some of the above info) and separately send you email. --MartyD 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Splinter of the Mind's Eye

There is a submission in the queue which [except for the designation "First Printing"] seems to be the same as [this]. I think the note should probably say "First US Edition" instead. My Canadian one has no printing statement, just the "First Paperback Edition" statement, which editor Rhschu seems to have cloned for the submission. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. My copy matches the submission's notes exactly. I think the note in the existing entry came from Mgpb, and this was among my first few verifications -- back then I mostly didn't change anything that wasn't outright wrong. Now, of course, I'm a human wrecking ball. :-) Anyway, I wouldn't get to this until tomorrow morning (+23 hours), so if you want to, just copy the notes from that submission into the existing entry. Or, if you'd rather not do that, leave it on hold and I'll do it; I think I can reject a submission you have on hold. Of course, you could also encourage the submittor to do it. Thanks for catching it. --MartyD 11:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Since I don't have the edition in question I'll just leave it to you and Willem. Feel free to hard-reject the submission. Thanks for checking! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
My copy is the same as Marty's. One of my "right after the surgery" verifications. I don't think I can reject the submission. Thanks for the catch! --Willem H. 10:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In the URL line, replace "pv_update" with "hardreject". I've had to do that to a couple of my own submissions when linking to OCLC or elsewhere but not getting the html coding quite right. Some errors block the bottom of the submission so you can't even get to the accept/reject 'buttons'. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the notes and am looking up the syntax for hard rejection.... --MartyD 10:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hard rejection isn't the most elegant of ways to do things, it turns out (see recent rejects -- no way to explain, no record of who did it). Doing it over, I would ask Bill to do a normal rejection. --MartyD 11:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In retrospect, knowing I wouldn't be here much in the coming months, I probably should have accepted the edit and then all the data would still be there, for transfer or whatever ended up happening with the record. Don't get this situation that often to think through all the 'angles'. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't look very nice. The note on the submitters talkpage explains a lot though. Thanks! --Willem H. 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken Amazon Covers

I've found some links to "" that don't seem to work anymore (if they ever did). Can you check your verified pubs 282448, 282296, 282373, 282376 and 282399 please? BLongley 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

They must have worked somehow. It does seem strange. Anyway, I've fixed them all. Thanks for catching the problem. --MartyD 10:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

MySQL help

Hey Marty, thanks for the reply and sorry for the tardy response. Do you mind if we move this convo to e-mail (slickhenry at gmail dot com)? Davimre 23:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I will send you mail. --MartyD 11:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. looking forward to it. Davimre 03:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thiemeyer on Eschbach's Quest

Hello, Marty. Yes, Thiemeyer is also the cover artist on Eschbach's novel, but I will change the comment into a content item. Thank you very much for this suggestion. --Stonecreek 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gutter code on SFBC edition of The Martian Chronicles

I saw that you'd added a gutter code to the notes for this record. I'm pretty certain that's not the code for the first SFBC printing which was a selection in the March 1978 catalog. It would have a gutter code no later than I10 or T10. I believe we should change the listing on the SFBC publisher page to indicate that gutter code "T51" is a reprint. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It was Don Erikson's note. I will move the gutter code on the SFBC page. Thanks for noticing it. --MartyD 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi, there! Both dates are correct:) Pub date is 2003 but stated as 2002. P-Brane 04:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded to on your talk page. --MartyD 11:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to Authors with odd punctuation

On User talk:Roddenii you've added a link to Robert E. Rodden, II which doesn't seem to work. I know we can get round that with a link like this, but I suspect we both ought to learn how to do this better? BLongley 01:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the template is butchering the comma. Looks like the right way to do it is {{A|altName=Robert_E._Rodden,_II|Robert E. Rodden, II}} to get Robert E. Rodden, II. Thanks for catching it; I was rushing and forgot to try the link. I will fix it on his page. --MartyD 11:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

XML Parse Error

There's a submission in the queue with the above in the right column. I was going to reject it and have asked the editor to re-submit. Then thought there might be a bug showing up so just put it on hold until you or someone with better programming skills than I have [even the cat knows more.... ;-) ] can look at it. Thanks! --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's a bug all right - answered on the user's Talk page. Ahasuerus 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll reject the submission? Or do you want to re-do it and then hard-reject? --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Done and done! The submission added "The Borders of Infinity" to Miles Errant, which we missed the first time around. Locus 1 concurs. Ahasuerus 18:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It's great to be able to provide help without lifting a finger.... ;-) --MartyD 21:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It's IPv9 - IP over telepathy! :-) (Bug 3114846 has been created.) Ahasuerus 22:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Extension:ConfirmEdit configuration?

Ahasuerus said you were one of the "resident Wiki experts". I was hoping to understand more about how the captcha, Extension:ConfirmEdit, is configured, and why it's apparently difficult to allow autoconfirmed users to bypass it. JesseW 19:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond to this over on Ahasuerus' page. --MartyD 11:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes to css and the build process

As you have probably noticed by now, Jesse has submitted a number of changes to the makefiles and the css. Since you are much more experienced in this area, could you please review the affected files as posted on the Development page? I will be testing and installing Jesse's other, unrelated, changes tomorrow, so you don't have to worry about them. TIA! Ahasuerus 07:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, happy to. I probably won't get to it until Friday or Saturday. Happy Thanksgiving! --MartyD 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and the same to you! :) Ahasuerus 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Slave Planet

Scanned in an image for [this], then noticed the author's name on the title page lacks the middle initial! [present on cover and spine only]. Did the unmerge/change/re-merge etc. --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mission to the Stars

Two printings, that seem identical. [1] and [2]. Distinctions are in the notes. Not sure which one you have, just an FYI! Santé! --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will double-check. --MartyD 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Mine, in fact, matched your description for the 2nd printing, so I moved the verification. Very nice catch. --MartyD 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Castle Roogna

Could I get you to double check this printing of Castle Roogna. I've got a copy that says "Tenth Printing: June 1983". We also have this copy in the database. I'm starting to think that the Del Rey printing counter got stuck on 10! Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It does seem strange, doesn't it? I will check on it. I may not have time until Sunday, though. --MartyD 12:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The information in the entry matches my book. LCCN over ISBN-10 over Manufactured in the United States of America over First Edition: July 1979 over Tenth Printing: February 1983 over Cover art by Darrell K. Sweet. The badge in the top right of the cover has A DEL REY BOOK above the logo and Ballantine over 30283 / $2.75 below it. Spine has 345-30283-1-275. There is one ad in the back (would be p. 330) for Piers Anthony's Magic of Xanth above a coupon/book list (all Piers Anthony): A Spell for Chameleon/30422/2.75, The Source of Magic/30074/2.50, Castle Roogna/30283/2.75, Centaur Aisle/29770/2.75. The ad isn't dated; it has "09" in the bottom left and "NE-2" in the bottom right. --MartyD 20:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It's precisely the same as my copy with the exception of the date and the spine number (mine reads 345-30283-4-275). I've cloned your copy here with a note explaining that we have 3 tenth printings. Thanks for checking. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, typo (actually, read-o -- I wasn't wearing my glasses and apparently didn't squint enough): It's "-4-" on the spine, not "-1-". --MartyD 01:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Sturgeon's The Scars

You verified the Jun 1965 printing of E Pluribus Unicorn which contains The Scars. The other verified versions of this book list it as Scars. Would you mind double checking that one version did indeeed have a "The" before I make a variant record? Thanks. --JLaTondre 23:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I will check. I may not get to it until Sunday, though. Sorry about the delay. --MartyD 12:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It is just "Scars". I will correct it. Thanks for catching the error. --MartyD 20:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Unicode fixes

When you get a chance, could you please review my last post on Talk:Development? It's about Unicode, our perennial favorite. TIA! Ahasuerus 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Raven's Shadow

New image [broken link] for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cursor's Fury

Two identical records [at least now they are] [yours] and [Sandman's]. The latter had the Amazon date so looked like a separate edition. Transferred over the notes and contents, but can't do that with your verifications. Since he/she is inactive... Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, nice catch. I added the verifications and deleted the one I had verified. --MartyD 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The War Machine (Crisis of Empire #3)

I replaced the default Amazon UK cover with an actual cover scan for The War Machine. AndonSage 11:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Friday cover image

I replaced the default Amazon UK cover image with an actual cover scan for your verified Friday. AndonSage 17:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

At the Earth's Core

Scanned in an image [broken link], added the interior art and changed the artist [was credited to Roy G. Krenkel but the book has Roy Krenkel, Jr.] and added a couple of notes for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 17:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


Added an artist credit, with note [PB art is the same as the HC and it's credited] for [this]. Question on the page count, as both Locus and OCLC have 514/513 but the record has 528. Excerpt or leftover from Amazon? --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic verification? Must be an Amazon leftover. The book has 528 physical pages. Last # is 513, "appendix" on unnumbered 514, 2 ad pages. I will fix. Thanks for catching it. --MartyD 11:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Crossed Genre's cover art variants

I noticed looking over your entries for this title (after laughing at the fact that the editors don't know the definition of the word "genre", thinking it's a synonym for "theme") that you're making the cover art records into variants of the names of the artwork. This was discussed a couple of years back and I'm not sure if we ever arrived at a concrete solution to the issue. The de facto conclusion was that cover art records should be titled the name and date of the magazine issue or the book title, regardless of whether or not the artist titled the work of art, with the knowledge that the work of art and its use as cover art are separate entities. (After all, they're listing under "Cover Art" on the artist's summary page, not "Artwork".) An editor can choose to record the name of the work in the note field of either the cover art record or in the magazine's pub record. Creating variants, in the case of these works, would give the false impression that the work was previously published as a cover of a different book or magazine. I readily accept the fact that a work of art can be used as the cover art of two or more different books, and the variant function works well in these cases. Whether or not this is in the help pages or a stated standard, I can't say. And the subject is always open to debate. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I cleverly already recorded the titles in the pub notes. I was thinking the same works might show up on the anthologies, in which case having the parent would be useful, but I haven't seen that happen. I'll get rid of the parents -- easy enough to recreate them if we find we want them for something. Thanks for looking over the entries. It actually seems to be an interesting little magazine. --MartyD 11:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Author's Note (Reliquary)"

A few minutes ago I changed the spelling of Douglas Preston's first name from "Douglass" to "Douglas" in "Author's Note (Reliquary), but then I noticed that it is included in a verified pub. According to pub notes:

"The "Author's Note" is unsigned and written in the third person ("The authors feel...", "The authors are indebted..."); assumed to be by the authors

so presumably it was just a data entry error, but I figured I should let you know just in case. Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just a typo and didn't see it.... --MartyD 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A Glass of Stars

Hi Marty, Thanks so much for fixing the italics. Yes, that was a typo in my notes. It should read: "The table of contents incorrectly lists the "The Pyramid Project" as beginning on pg. 209." I'll correct it as soon as I finish this note to you. Good spotting! I really appreciate your careful reading. I didn't think they had ISBN numbers back in 1968 but on the copyright page I found something called "SBN" which matched the ISBN-10 that someone had listed (except they'd added a "0-" at the beginning which I think is the international code for USA). This, along with the page count, price, etc. all matching, led me to believe that I was holding the same book, not another printing. My concern now is where did the intro. by Avram Davidson come from? [[2]] It's not in this book. If someone can verify that it does exist, it must appear in another printing or, as I suspect, it doesn't exist. Hopefully someone can come to the rescue on that one. Thanks again, Rob Rob 01:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to answer your questions on your talk page to keep the discussion about this pub all in one place. --MartyD 00:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bradbury's I Sing the Body Electric!

This fourth printing was published in March 1972 according to the publishing history printed in the 8th Bantam printing. Mhhutchins 19:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated the record and adjusted the notes. --MartyD 10:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Advanced Search

Thanks for looking at this, it looks like you may have saved us from some awful-performing combinations! We'll want the same for of course. The emailed copy introduced CR/LF problems so I haven't checked it in for you - does your local copy retain the Linux format? If so it looks good to check-in. I've experimented a bit further and it looks like the new facility would also allow us to fix Bug 3300042 "Publication Search for Cover Artist doesn't work" without performance problems. BLongley 17:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to check it in. I will move tableInfo into another file and then make all three searches use the same mechanism. I'll also assign myself 3300042 (or will get Ahasuerus to do it) and will take a look at it while I'm in there anyway. Thanks for trying it out. --MartyD 00:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Berserker Wars

Scanned a new image for [this]. Frustratingly, I have no idea who the interior artist is either... --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agent of Chaos

Scanned in an image and identified the artist [from secondary source] for [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

One More for the Road

Found what I think is the correct image for [this]. Old one had a National Book Award stamp on the cover. Removed the note referring to that. --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the right one. Thanks, you got me to do further research on "The Dragon Danced at Midnight" in there.... --MartyD 10:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Submissions on hold

Re this submission: it's been three weeks, and it's not likely that he's ever going to find his user talk page. A search on Amazon and OCLC found nothing about this title or author. Mhhutchins 00:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re this submission: except for the page count, every other field is identical to the record already in the database. I think the submitter just overlooked the original record. Mhhutchins 00:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was/am giving them until this weekend (work has been crazy this week, so I haven't had enough ISFDB time). I heard from Ppsantos via email about the Moffitt birth date submission, so I will move that one along, too. --MartyD 10:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Forbidden Tower - cover scan + artist

Hi, I added a scan for The Forbidden Tower. According to me, "Melvyn" is Melvyn Grant.--Dirk P Broer 14:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw, and I updated the artist, thanks! --MartyD 15:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Productions of Time

Hi, Marty. Anything wrong with my edit of The Productions of Time? I have a scan of the back cover ready in case it is about the two different UK prices (25p and 5/-). Cover is a wrap around, and Franco Grignani is credited on the back cover.--Dirk P Broer 12:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The October 1970 publication date is also supported by this site.--Dirk P Broer 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I ran out of time this morning (having to go to work is so disruptive). Amazon is not a reliable source for dates, so I wanted to search and see if I could find any corroboration before accepting it (just like you provided above). I see someone has accepted it for you. Sorry about the delay. --MartyD 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Green Mars 19th printing

Added some notes and a cover scan to this printing of Green Mars Albinoflea 22:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Note to Moderator submissions

Did you notice the Note to Moderator on the two submissions from Don Erikson adding pubs to The Fifth Head of Cerberus? I was working on the first of three such submissions and saw in the Note to the Moderator that there was a Pamela Sargent afterword. After leaving Don a message I came back and saw that you'd approved the other two. I'm thinking he may not be familiar with the new field, so I hope the message I left will help. Mhhutchins 23:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the unintended interference. Yes, you beat me to the note on his talk page. I didn't see there was another pub for that title in the queue. I put the note about Pamela Sargent into the Notes for the two additions I approved. I found we have an afterword for that pub by her, but it's described as "new" for the 1976 Ace printing, so I decided not to add a content record. --MartyD 00:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw the same thing about the afterword being new. Give me a little time and I'll pull out my 1976 Ace pb edition to see if the afterword is dated. I suppose "new" could mean "new to the US" and may have been the same afterword published in the Gollancz edition. And don't think I thought you were interfering. I was only wondering if you'd seen the note. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sargent's afterword in the 1976 Ace paperback is not dated, but is copyrighted 1976, not that that means anything. I'll just leave it alone until someone does a primary verification of either the Gollancz hardcover or the Quartet paperbacks. Thanks. Mhhutchins 00:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Poor wording on my part. Thanks for pointing it out -- I've noticed it's easy to miss the moderator notes.... If I get a chance I'll poke around on Google Books and Amazon and see if I can find anything useful. --MartyD 01:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Added gutter codes

I added reprint gutter codes to your verified [3]. Don Erikson 16:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen display on ISBN's for Playboy books

A new user tried to correct the placement of hyphens of hyphen in the ISBN for this pub. The right display should be 0-872-16564-7, but our software displays 0-87216-564-7. You once said to let you know "If anyone notices ISBNs with dashes in the wrong places (groups of numbers not the right size)". --Willem H. 13:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Thanks for letting me know. I checked, and I believe the user is mistaken. 872 isn't a group. 87216 is Playboy. 87223 began life as Fawcett (?), then Seaview, then Playboy, then Wideview -- don't know went on with that one. 87220 is Hackett. 87226 is Bedrick. 87232 is Pendulum. 87249 is University of South Carolina. 87286 is City Lights. 87287 is Libraries Unlimited. So I think the software is doing the right thing on those. --MartyD 13:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I can live with that. Then Playboy had it wrong on most of their pubs. Thanks for checking! --Willem H. 14:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a lot of them? I asked User:Deagol the same question. Because there are so many other publishers, I don't think it would be right to misformat 872 in general, but if Playboy consistently did it, I could make the software deliberately misformat just 87216 (I'd probably leave 87223 alone, although if you have any of those, it would be interesting to know how they're formatted). --MartyD 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have 5 paperbacks from the 87216 series, all are on the pub as 0-872-16xxx-x. These are Image of the Beast, No Brother, No Friend, Vestiges of Time, A Feast Unknown and Utopia 3. I have 3 pb's where Playboy used these numbers before the introduction of the ISBN: The Inner Wheel, Binary Divine and The Future Is Now. For these the catalog# is explained in the notefield. There is also the 86721 series, I have 3 of these, all have the ISBN on the pub (spine) as 0-867-21xxx-x. These are Molt Brother, Of Alien Bondage and Corundum's Woman. I have no Playboy paperbacks where the ISBN is displayed as it should be, but there is one hardcover, Lucifer's Hammer that does. Looks like Playboy was consistent for it's paperbacks, but not for hardcovers. Your call I think. --Willem H. 15:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Cantine: Holly vs Holley

Can you check this pub for the spelling of Holly/Holley Cantine's name? I think the canonical name should be Holley (my edition of Judith Merril's anthology, Contento and the NESFA-index and even agree. If all verified publications have the same name, I can change it. Thanks, --Willem H. 15:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's Holley, in the TOC and on the title page. Thanks for catching it. I'll leave it for now -- I assume you'll just merge it with the variant and get rid of the pseudonym, too, but I'm happy to fix up just the above if you want them to switch over piecemeal. --MartyD 15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly the plan. I don't think Holly exists, and it's easier to change the whole thing at once. Thanks! --Willem H. 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
As I suspected, all verified versions were as by Holley Cantine. A little unmerging and remering put them all together here. Holly is gone now. Thanks, --Willem H. 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Title expansion to "An Inquiry Concerning the Curvature of the Earth's Surface..."

Just a note. I checked your long ago question on Title Expansion for a '... Divers Investigation....'. Answered there for the record but also wanted to let you know it looks good to me. Checked copyright, TOC and Title. All had the long title. Thanks Kevin 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost like a time machine! Thanks for following up. --MartyD 19:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

First Men in the Moon

Added a note to [this] confirming the publication date from a recently acquired third printing. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 01:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! --MartyD 02:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Martha Absher

Hi, this is how I came upon my data: being Mormon, Martha was bound to have a well documented ancestry, so I looked her up and came across, containing

8. Raymond C.7 Absher (Lewis McDaniel "Dan"6, Jacob5, John4 Abshire, Sr., William3, Peter2, Abshire-Absher1) was born 05 August 1901, and died 22 April 1988.
He married Nora Felts 16 June 1934, daughter of John Felts and Virginia Felts. She was born 27 September 1905.
Children of Raymond Absher and Nora Felts are:

+ 65 i. Martha Virginia8 Absher, born 05 July 1935.

65. Martha Virginia8 Absher (Raymond C.7, Lewis McDaniel "Dan"6, Jacob5, John4 Abshire, Sr., William3, Peter2, Abshire-Absher1) was born 05 July 1935.
She married Cyrus F. Shumate 11 February 1956, son of Erbie Shumate and Mertie Shumate. He died 11 April 1984.

Now if that is not 'our' Martha, it is bound to be a close relative. --Dirk P Broer 10:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced and am researching. It looks to me like Shumate and Absher are common last names. The BYU site uses "Absher" as her last name and "Shumate" as a middle name. I also found this on Worldcat, which almost certainly must be the same author, and they are using Absher as the last name, too. Of course, the ultimate source of that name is also BYU, so if they have it mixed up, they are probably consistent about it. --MartyD 11:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You could mail her, Martha Shumate Absher, Director of Outreach, Duke University, Box 90295 B233, LSRC Durham, NC 27708-0295. --Dirk P Broer 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I found that Martha Absher. An email address is posted here. But if she's the same person, it draws your proposed use of "Shumate" as her legal last name further into question. Really, the important thing about data entries is that we should not be guessing. I would like to see some evidence connecting the information you found to the author attribution we know about. --MartyD 10:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Any progress on this month-old submission? Mhhutchins 20:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I sent the Martha Absher at Duke mail, and on 9/27 she confirmed that she's the author in our database. But in the week since, she has not responded to the request to confirm/deny Dirk's proposed details. Perhaps I'm creepy.... I'm holding out until the weekend. If I don't hear anything, I'm going to reject it (Duke also refers to her as Martha Shumate Absher, so all of the best evidence is running counter to the "Shumate" legal last name). --MartyD 10:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
She replied today, and I will be rejecting the submission and putting in the couple of details she gave me. --MartyD 01:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"A" writing as "B"

I agree with you that "B" should be the credited author. I don't know what is stated in the help section but have been following this personal standard for years. If you agree, please bring up a discussion on the Rules & Standards page, and I'll side with you. This is rather selfish on my part, because I don't want to change the hundreds of records that I've entered this way. In fact, I don't know of any records that I've either entered or moderated that do the opposite. "Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman" is under Bachman. "Nora Roberts writing as J. D. Robb" is under Robb. "Dean R. Koontz writing as Leigh Nichols" is under Nichols. I could go on... Mhhutchins 15:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look at both the help page and the rules discussion that you linked to on Chavey's page. The help page is less than satisfactory as it appears to treat the situation as so unusual that it's best just to record the canonical name. The rules discussion petered out and went off into tangents (as such discussions tend to do when no one's around to guide it back to the original point) and wound up with no definite conclusion about how or more important why such books should be credited one way or the other. I think it's time we made a clear-cut decision about how it should be done and will start the discussion anew. Mhhutchins 16:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
You're very brave, but I'm with you. Into the breach! --MartyD 02:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. It would be nice to have a clear decision - or at least clearer. It's obviously not good if some of our top editors have been going in different directions. :-/ BLongley 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Added cover credit

I added cover credit for your verified [4].Don Erikson 23:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Illearth War

It looks like the URL used by your verified version The Illearth War no longer works. Could you please take a look when you get a chance? TIA! Ahasuerus 02:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will fix. --MartyD 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Lester del Rey - Rocket Jockey

I updated the notes for Rocket Jockey, in particular adding the following info from my copy in hand .... "Afterword Copyright © 1978 by Lester del Rey" - But no afterword appears. The novel ends at the bottom of page 166 ".... like a fine idea." followed by 4 pages of ads. Kevin 18:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

List of things to look into doing

I know there's a severe backlog in the development queue at the moment, but if you're interested then we could adopt some testing roles as well and see if that helps Ahasuerus? I have more changes fairly ready to go but as they're built on outstanding changes I'm reluctant to submit them in case my prior ones are found wanting. Basically - if you test mine, I'll test yours! :-) BLongley 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to try to help test. I know how Ahasuerus feels.... Work has been crazy lately, leaving me barely any time for things ISFDB. Are the things needing testing in logical order, top down? --MartyD 01:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much, unless Ahasuerus has rearranged them. (I know he's put things into alphabetical order within a change, but that makes no real difference.) I just have a nasty feeling that we're getting really poor at explaining changes - I can look at something I did three months ago and wonder what on earth I did it for. We few coders should admit that we need to do a bit more documentation or code-commenting if we're going to move forward. :-/ BLongley 02:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Forward the Foundation (Excerpt)

Two of your verified pubs, Foundation and Foundation and Empire, contain an excerpt from Forward the Foundation. Could you check if these two excerpts are identical? I have a copy of The Gods Themselves which also contains such an excerpt. Maybe it's the same in all three cases. The excerpt in my book starts with "As Hari Seldon continues to develop ..." and ends with "What happens?". Thanks, Darkday 20:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, will dig them up and check. --MartyD 11:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. In Foundation, the excerpt is first introduced with "As Hari Seldon continues ... Kill Hari Seldon." over "Here is an excerpt from the long-awaited [ big blank ] episode in Isaac Asimov's epic future history, available now from Bantam:". The excerpt itself starts with "Gambol Deen Namarti was not,..." and ends with "What happens?". In Foundation and Empire, the first introductory paragraph is identical. The lead-in is different: "Here is an episode in the long-awaited episode in Isaac Asimov's epic future history, available now in paperback from Bantam Books:". The excerpt itself appears to be identical. In Second Foundation, all of the material is identical to that in Foundation and Empire (the typesetting of the introductory paragraph is a little different, but the text is the same). So in my books, they're the same, and I will merge those three instances. It counds like yours is probably the same, too, if you want to merge that one. --MartyD 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking this up! I added my copy of The Gods Themselves now and merged its excerpt. Darkday 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jim Butcher - White Night

I was verifying my copy of White Night today and I found that you had already verified it with a publisher of "Roc / New American Library". I went to double check and neither NAL nor New American Library appear anywhere in this book other than the copyright page. The title page, and spine both list 'Roc' alone. Would you be okay with changing this to simply 'Roc'? Thanks Kevin 20:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I also went ahead and added a note that the ISBN-10 has disappeared and only the ISBN-13 is on this book. Kevin 20:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the change -- and will double-check to confirm -- but if ROC is described in the book as an imprint of New American Library, shouldn't we be recording it that way to distinguish from the time ROC was not an NAL imprint? --MartyD 11:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to describe the full lineage I could go with "Roc / NAL / Penguin". Penguin actually does appear on the back cover, and NAL has been owned by Penguin since before Roc existed. Would that work for you? Kevin 00:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't. :-/ We're not going to progress on publisher data unless we standardise a bit more, and the KISS ("Keep It Simple, Stupid") principle seems to have gone flying by. Do we really want to "correct" every Fixer submission to have the Imprint, Division, Publisher and Holding Company listed? Does anyone want to rework every Bantam and Corgi book to be part of "Transworld"? I don't. I'd prefer to stick with "record the imprint", and then note the dates of when the imprint belonged to a certain division or publisher. I think people want to know about related books, but there's no point splitting all the imprints now owned by "Hachette Livre" for instance. BLongley 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
That was my original intent, just to change to 'Roc' since that's what the average guy standing in a store will see when they look at this book. I was just trying to find a middle ground. Kevin 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
To be blunt, I don't really care, so I'm not the best source of an opinion. :-) If it were to be just "Roc", I'd be happy. All I can say is, I was trying to follow what the help says to do. The help is thankfully silent on parents / holding companies / subsidiaries / divisions, so I avoided adding Penguin into the mix. I know Michael just went through a major effort to fix up Scribner in all of its various incarnations. It is probably worth asking his opinion about the trade-offs of having it be just "Roc" vs. maintaining a record of whether it's an imprint or a publisher. --MartyD 10:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
In most cases, I choose to use "imprint / publisher" when both are mentioned on the book's title page, e.g. "Del Rey / Ballantine", the very publisher that started the whole movement toward indicating both in the ISFDB record's publisher field. In other cases, I will indicate both imprint and publisher when a major change has occurred. When I worked on the records for Scribner, which became an imprint after more than 100 years as a publisher, I wanted to make it clear when that change occurred. Add to that the fact that the name actually changed from "Charles Scribner's Sons" to simply "Scribner". So this should not be brought up as an example of whether or not to add a publisher name to the imprint. If an imprint, like Roc (which has always been an imprint), undergoes a change in publisher, I think the records should reflect that. If it began and remains an imprint of New American Library I don't see why that should be part of the record, but that's my own opinion. Mhhutchins 13:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Lets just go with 'Roc' then. Thanks again Kevin 23:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rama II

I changed the years of the excerpts in your verified pub from 1990 to the publication years of the respective novels. Darkday 18:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


I added a note to your verified publication that the "Proofs" Appendix "gives mathematical justification as to why the formulae for the chapter "numbers" reduce to the correct numbers". Chavey 03:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A slight correction

Hello, Marty! This is just a statement of information (and maybe we can come to a common practice): You approved a submission of an author update of Jürgen Rogner, where his birthplace was altered from 'Giessen, Hessen, Germany' to 'Giessen, Hesse, Germany'. Now, there is no country of Hesse in Germany. It should be either Hessen (German) or Hessia (English name, as far as I know it). I already corrected this to Hessen before I found your approvement in the Recent Edits, so we could change it once more. Which name would you prefer? Stonecreek 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, error on my side: I only thought it is called Hessia in English, actually both possibilities are stated. Shall I change it back to Hesse? Stonecreek 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Christian. I am not personally familiar with the name in English and do not have any strong feelings about it. When I reviewed the proposed change, I found this, and that was the end of my research effort. :-) Searching for both Hessia and Hesse (and Hessen) suggests the more common English treatment is indeed Hesse. On the other hand, the English version of Hessen's own website uses "Hessen". --MartyD 02:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jules Verne, "Master of the World", Airmont Classics

I'm cleaning up some of the "Airmont Publishing" (aka "Airmont Books") titles. They had two different publishing series of relevance to us: "Airmont Classics" and "Airmont SF". Many of the books from the Airmont Classics were entered as if that were the publisher, and I'm trying to correct those to "Airmont Books" publisher and "Airmont Classics" publication series. One such book is your verified "Master of the World". Would you mind if I changed that? Chavey 21:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. One of my earliest verifications, which all left a lot to be desired (and we didn't have pub series at the time, but that's no excuse). --MartyD 11:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Star Kings

Scanned in an image for [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Planet of Exile

Scanned in an image for [this], added artist from signature. --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Airmont Science Fiction series

I am organizing the Airmont Science Fiction series, and have added your verified pub Lords of Atlantis to this series. Chavey 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Carrie VT

Yes, I realized afterward that it might look badly since the language is given next to a variant title. I need to take more time when editing here. I usually work on Librarything/Wikimedia projects where fixing data mistakes is quick and easy, but here, multiple edits to a record are a pain for me AND the reviewers... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) .

Not a problem. Many things are not at all obvious (or straightforward), and moderated submissions do have their price. It gets easier quickly, though. --MartyD 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Far Call

Added a cover image to [this] and the CDN price, from the image which isn't that clear. Hope both are correct! Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 02:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, thanks. I'm surprised I didn't record the CDN price, but Mr. Detail, that's me.... --MartyD 11:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Make Room Make Room

Scanned in an image for [this]. --~ Bill, Bluesman 04:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comtese -> Comtesse

Hi Marty, I see you hold my edit for Comtese d'Aulnoy. I can assure you that Comtese is very bad French, it ought to be Comtesse. You can also find the right way of writing here (first paragraph under Biography). --Dirk P Broer 08:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dirk, yes, I have no doubt about the correct way to spell it. But what matters is how it is recorded in the book(s). Since we have a primary verifier in Willem, it is easy enough to ask, which I have done. --MartyD 11:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I checked WorldCat: It's wrong there too (A blend between 'obese' and 'comtesse'), so no doubt it is wrong in Willem's book as well. I've asked Willem as well, we'll see. --Dirk P Broer 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sign of the Unicorn Roger Zelazny 1986

Uploaded actual cover for this pub. Please, check it. BarDenis 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the delay. That's a good cover. It looks like you've been tricked by the interface, though. Once you upload the cover, you need to edit the pub and paste that URL into the slot for the link to the cover image. It's safe -- that change is moderated as are all others. If you'd rather I did it, let me know. Thanks. --MartyD 01:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it may have been a slight mix-up or misunderstanding. He's been uploading the covers and then updating the records with the new URL for quite a number of cover images. He may have intended that you (Marty) do the change because of the note in the record about the cover. I couldn't say. And I'd bugged him about notifying primary verifiers about changes, so his not updating this record may have been a misunderstanding of the protocol. Please feel free to update the record with the new image. Mhhutchins 01:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Alrighty, then. Done. --MartyD 02:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. And yes, I had not idea what to do with your note. BarDenis 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools