User talk:MLB/Archive/2012Aug-Dec

The Yith Cycle

I have your submission to update this record, and I'm going to accept it, but will have to correct a few things. First, "Call of Cthulhu Fiction" is a publication series and should be recorded in the publication record, not the title record. (I rejected the submission to add it to the title record.) Also, concerning the SERIAL type: this is reserved for the publication of novel-length works within publication records which are typed as MAGAZINE. We also type novellas which are published serially in different issues as SERIAL. If a novel, which was originally published serially, is later published in an OMNIBUS, ANTHOLOGY, COLLECTION or NOVEL, it's entered as a NOVEL type. If a novella, which was previously published serially in a magazine, is then reprinted in any of the types of publications I listed above, then it's entered as SHORTFICTION with a story length of "novella" (or even "novelette" if it's less than 17.5K). So I'm going to change the three parts of "The Horror from Yith" as SHORTFICTION instead of SERIAL. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A question about the introductions by Price: are they separate from each story, have their own title page and titled as you have them here? Mhhutchins 17:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

About the serial part, you cleared that question up. About the introductions by Price, they have their own title page, as transcribed, and they range from a couple of paragraphs to two pages long. Opposite the title page is a listing of Call of Cthulhu Fiction books giving the impression that this is a title instead of a publication series. This is a series that is scattered over a half dozen or so authors and editors. Still, I bow to those in charge. The difference between the two seems rather tricky at times, it's a good thing that you're here to guide the way. MLB 08:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The differences between a title series and a publication series can sometimes be hazy, but ask yourself this question: "Could this title be published by another publisher and still remain in the same series?". This becomes tricky when the contents are theme-related (like the Cthulhu mythos), but otherwise have no other relationship: characters, settings, plots, etc. Another sign of a publication series is the design of the book, especially the front cover, which almost always has the series name on it. Would another publisher be able to use the name "Call of Cthulhu© Fiction"? No, then it's a publication series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You were correct to give each of the Price story introductions their own record. If they didn't have their own title page, they would not have been recorded in the contents. Mhhutchins 14:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ghost of Graydon Place

"1 2 3 4 5/9" does indicate 1991 (it means 91 92 93 94 95, and the lowest number wins). The meaning of the 01 below the number line is unknown. According to this that number is always either 01 or 06. If a month is provided, it will appear as a number on the number line, between the printing portion and the date portion. I updated the date to 1991 and added your info about the date part of the line as a second note. I also noticed it's #11 in Windswept, so I added the 11. --MartyD 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean I actually got it (mostly) right?!? Good gosh, how'd I do that? There may be hope for me after all. MLB 12:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all that bludgeoning... er... indoctrinating... er... helpful advice paying off. :-) --MartyD 13:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Author Data Reminder

Legal Names go "Last name, Forenames" - so "Aloian, David" rather than "David Aloian". And Birthdates and Deathdates need to be in YYYY-MM-DD format, so "1928-12-14" rather than "14 December 1928" and "1986-11-00" rather than "November 1986". (Note the 00 for an unkown part of the date.) BLongley 15:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is confusing, I once did it the way that you suggested and it was corrected to the way that I did this time by the moderator. I also see it, and I looked at several other authors, in the mode of 14 December 1928. I'll go back and correct it again. MLB 15:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The system displays it as "14 December 1928", but it has to be entered as "1928-12-14". Mhhutchins 16:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Now I know. Never to make the same mistake twice. Thanx. MLB 16:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You've made a new mistake though: "Birthdate 14-12-28" and "Deathdate 00-11-86" won't work either! :-) BLongley 11:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And another - I'm pretty sure Cheryl Kaye Tardif was born earlier than two days from now! :-) BLongley 14:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I do that? While some people lie about their age, I guess they don't need me to do it for them. I keep doing things one step forward and two backwards. Tardif's Wiki page lists Cheryl Kaye Tardif's birthday as August 12, 1963. Unfortunately, there is little actually written about David Aloian on the web, although he had a distinguished academic record, all I can find was his birthday and his approx. deathdate. How do I list his deathdate? Just list November 1986? Do I have to do these entries all over again? Repetition makes perfection I guess. MLB 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For David Aloian, try again with exactly the dates I suggested: "1928-12-14" rather than "14 December 1928" and "1986-11-00" rather than "November 1986". For Cheryl Kaye Tardif, try entering "1963-08-12" rather than "12-08-2012". BLongley 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Victorian Ghost Stories

Your proposed Victorian Ghost Stories clone looks to me like a duplicate of this (priced in pounds, but the USD price is in the notes). What do you think? --MartyD 10:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I picked the edition/printing that I did to clone because the page numbers of the contents were the same as mine. A wrong move, I guess. Also, I just can't find any price listed anywhere on this printing. I bought it second-hand from a dealer, and when I contacted him about this, he told me it was an instant remainder, sold through one of the mega bookstores. I suspect I got rooked for a book-club edition, but I can't prove it. The ISBN is the same and the cover seems to be the same as this book's various early editions, although I'm the only one to download a cover image. Maybe I'll take this book somewhere and see if I can get the bar code read. I guess you can date it 0000-00-00 and list it as an unknown printing. It also wouldn't be the first time that a book has been mass-printed and then priced and repriced only through a various series of stickers on their covers. I'm sorry that I can't be of more help, I'm just a poor smuck living out here in the hinterlands of Michigan where most people think the ghost story was invented by Stephen King. I suspect that when it comes to books like this, most contributers just get lazy, or aren't interested. MLB 11:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's ok, I'll leave it, although if there's no price on it anywhere, you might leave the price blank instead of propagating the $24.95, and you should consider adding some of this info to the notes. We can't tell where the edition with the GBP and USD pricing info came from, but considering that it lists prices in two currencies, I assume the prices were marked on that one somewhere. BTW, there's also a BOMC edition with no ISBN, but the description (likely from Locus1) says no ISBN on the cover, so that doesn't seem to match yours, either. --MartyD 10:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the price, and I've tinkered with the Notes, I hope I've made this printing sufficiently ambiguous. MLB 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Starting a topic on the wiki

I've asked you this several times, albeit in the body of a response to one of the messages you've posted on other wiki pages, but I've never made a direct query, and you've never responded to my indirect ones. Can you please tell me how you initiate a topic on a wiki page? For some reason, none of your original postings ever appear with a subject heading on the Recent Changes page. If you look at the list of your contributions, you'll also see that the posts of topics you initiate are missing the subject line. This usually occurs when you choose the "Edit" tab instead of using the "+" tab. If you use the "Edit" tab, you're editing the entire page, which can lead to edit conflicts if another person is also leaving or responding to a message on the page. And the topic you add to the subject line of the message isn't part of the page history. It is better to use the "+" tab, which adds a new topic to the page instead of editing the entire page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lately, since I've been corrected, I hit the "+" tab, and then I use the "A" tab to use a level 2 headline. I guess I'm going to try to do better, my computer or my computer service provider are also hardly glitch free, but the fault is mine. I do use the "edit" tab in the corner of inquiries like this though. I'll try to do better. MLB 17:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha! Problem solved. Don't attempt to create a headline in the body of the message. Just enter the subject in the subject/headline box provided, and start your message directly in the box below. The system will automatically format the header to the proper wiki level. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. MLB 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Paperback Fantatic #15 [sic]

According to your notes in the submission to add this title, this is a "general interest magazine", so non-genre magazine rules apply. The only content of non-genre magazines allowed into the database is speculative fiction, emphasis on fiction. I can find no allowance for spec-fic related nonfiction, i.e. articles about spec-fic, but are not fiction. I know in the past some borderline magazines have been allowed, but I personally see this magazine as being too far away to be borderline. I have placed the submission on hold and will start a discussion on the rules page. Please feel free to give your opinion about whether this publication should be "in" under the current standards. Mhhutchins 05:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, unlike Paperback Parade, which concentrates mostly on sleaze and detective fiction, the magazine The Paperback Fanatic is usually a general interest paperback only in name. The contents are usually at least three-quarters speculative fiction oriented. If you can put Locus, which I see as mostly a review and newszine, and others in the database, then why not something that goes into more detail? MLB 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Paperback Fanatic and was only going by the information you gave in the submission: "General interest paperback collecting magazine". Bringing Locus into the discussion is a non-starter. It is 100% devoted to spec-fic. There is a clear distinction between the two publications. Mhhutchins 15:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In the issue under discussion, there are two articles on Fu Manchu (in the database), two on the borderline (and sometimes not-so borderline) series The Destroyer (later books dealt with Lovecraftian monsters, zombies, dinosaurs, etc.), and two on Karl Edward Wagner's Kane series, and one on the horror novels of Guy N. Smith. In fact, the only non-genre content is an article on the James Bond rip-off "The Baroness". In fact there have been two issues dealing with Karl Edward Wagner's Kane character. I understand not doing film magazines, but if the content of any genre oriented magazine is at least one-half a serious examination of genre fiction, then why not list these, and only these, articles. If this magazine had published a couple of short stories, then there wouldn't be any problem listing these articles, would there. MLB 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not true according to the rules, but spec-fic related nonfiction has sneaked in through the backdoor this way. You've probably entered such magazines before, and the moderators have either overlooked it or wasn't aware of the restrictions. The point I'm trying to make is that allowing "general interest magazines" (your description) into the database creates a slippery slope. You'll find that most moderators, once they've seen a few of these get into the database, will stop questioning, and before we know it, it becomes the norm and the standards have no meaning. Mhhutchins 15:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Still, I'll bow to the majority, after all, I'm still a newbie here, while mostly everybody else involved are seasoned pros.

Still a newbie, so, how do I find this discussion? MLB 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's here. Mhhutchins 15:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

£4.47 in the United Kingdom

The chances of that being on the book are zero. Please don't try and add Amazon UK data to US publications. BLongley 18:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what I saw on Amazon, it looked odd. I'll remove it. MLB 11:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Same with "No Canadian price listed, but it is $12.73 according to Amazon.ca." These are currency converted prices, not actual prices. BLongley 15:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Gold Eagle / Worldwide Library...

... is the preferred format of that publisher name, rather than "Gold Eagle / Worldwide". BLongley 18:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Archer variants

I accepted your Tear of the Gods variant, but I changed the new parent's author from Joe Nassise to Joseph Nassise. When you make a parent, everything in it needs to be canonical. Since Joe Nassise is set up as a pseudonym of Joseph Nassise, that's where the parent has to go. Thanks. --MartyD 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I did likewise with the others. --MartyD 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. MLB 11:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Something Rotten

I've put your sub for cloning this novel on hold, since the pages you mentioned are not mirrored in the overall page count of 385+[4]: you mention Roman page numbering and that should be reflected in this page count as well. Are there Roman page numbers? And where do they appear in the book? Stonecreek 17:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dang it. I missed putting in the Roman page numbering, but they are also wrong, as a piece of artwork appears before the listed Roman page count, which is why I listed a piece of the artwork as -iv. Yes, the book lists Roman page numbering, they're even on the contents page. I have also listed several questions pertaining to the contents of this book on the help page. I'll probably have to revise the listing when and if I get any answers to these question. I'd just hate to lose the notes however. MLB 17:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Book club editions don't usually have number lines, but these days anything is possible. Does your copy of the book have the book club ID number "1172704" on the back cover? Mhhutchins 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've released your submission for your review of it. Thanks, Stonecreek 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm am going to re-write this entry using all the new information that has been supplied from the help page. And yes, the back cover has the numbers 1172704 AND a numberline. MLB 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you certain the artist credit is "Maggie" instead of "Maggy"? Mhhutchins 16:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it's "Maggy" instead of "Maggie". It's sloppy of me, but since I know a Maggie I probably conflated the two in my mind. If you okay it, I'll correct it. MLB 18:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted the submission and made the correction. One more question: is the words "Faux Advertisement" actually part of the title for these illustrations? ISFDB records should reflect the stated titles as published. If they are cartoons, they can titled 'Cartoon: "[caption]"'. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would consider them cartoons, but since they are at the end of the novel, and in the form of advertisments for non-existant items and events I listed them as faux advertisments. I could list them as just illustrations or advertisments, but if I listed them as advertisments people might think all advertisments might be acceptable (they're not) and I tried to seperate them from an oridinary cartoon or an ordinary illustration, since they only appear at the end of the novel, and they are not proper illustrations. I can change it to just "illustration" and mention them in the Note field, or I can put the faux advertisement in either quotations or use the term as a title as there might be others like this in his other books in this series. MLB 18:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Cold Case" in Bound by Suggestion

I've removed the short story content record that you added to this novel record. If a story is incorporated into a novel, it's no longer a short story, and a separate content record for it is not created. Adding a note to its title record concerning a later usage of the story would be a good idea. Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. MLB 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lore #1

I'm not sure what was the meaning of the page count given in this record. For magazines, we do actual page counts including the covers, regardless of how the actual pages are numbered. (Pagination and page counts are two different things.) And I've never known a magazine to have roman numerals, but I suppose it's possible. Most saddle-stapled publications (which I can only assume this one is) have a page count in a multiple of 4. So it seems that the page count should be 76 instead of "ii+74". Keep in mind that the method for magazine page counts differ from that used for books. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I went through this once before with this magazine (issue #9). I didn't originally enter this record, somebody else did, I just updated it from my own copy. While I'm very happy to change the page count, how would I list the editorial in the credits? Just give the total page count, and then mention in the Note field that the editorial is on the unnumbered inside front cover? MLB 08:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you've already listed it as "fep", which is the page inside the front cover. No problem with that. No need to mention it in the notes. You just need to correct the page count field, which has nothing to do with the pagination. Mhhutchins 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Shining Reader

I had to change the title record so that the author credit matches that of the publication record which you updated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the record we have for 1989 trade paperback is erroneously dated, now that we have evidence that the book was copyrighted in 1991. It could have been announced but never published. I'm going to update the record to give the dates for all contents as May 1991. Please remember that we don't use the writing date (as is given often at the end of introductions), but the date that the work was first published. We can always go back and adjust the dates of the contents if we have evidence that they were previously published. Mhhutchins 14:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A question: is the "Index" more than just a list of subjects that index the page numbers on which they appear? If not, we don't create separate content records for them. Mhhutchins 14:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A final note: I've come across maybe a dozen different submissions in which you misspell "separate" as "seperate". I've corrected them but just wanted you to be aware of it. (I misspelled Newbery Award for 40 years as "Newberry" before it was brought to my attention!) Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited editors for multi-author anthologies

This probably came up before (or maybe it was for another editor within the last few months), but in the case where there are more than four authors in an uncredited anthology, we leave the editor field as "uncredited". If there are two to four authors, we usually allow them to be credited as the editors of the anthology, even though officially it should be "uncredited". I personally feel we should not make any exceptions, but the rule about crediting authors based on the title page has been used to defend the practice. I don't think it applies for anthologies, because the ISFDB doesn't credit authors for anthologies, only the editor. But we have to draw the line somewhere. Can you imagine an uncredited anthology with 10, 15, 20 or more stories? If you believe we should credit the authors as editors in this record, please start a discussion on the Rules & Standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see another moderator has allowed this record to credit the six authors as the editors. It goes to show just how fluid the rules can become. Mhhutchins 14:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm all for using uncredited as editor. This has come up before, and I thought that using six authors as "editors" left the entry too cluttered and confusing, especially since none of the authors were probably the editor. I'm totally on your side, lets leave the credit "uncredited".MLB 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't enter the initial entry to the example (Midnight Cravings) that you used. I just entered the notes. Do you want me to change it to uncredited? MLB 07:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Holiday with a Vampire III

It appears that the introductions for the first and third stories have been reversed in this record. Mhhutchins 15:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed and corrected. MLB 07:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Normalizing Altbacker

I normalized 'EJ Altbacker' to 'E. J. Altbacker', thus meeting the standards of the ISFDB. Sorry, for this short message, but there's a loooong list of sub.s. Stonecreek 19:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that all the books in this series are published under the name EJ Altbacker and 'not' as E. J. Altbacker. He has also written for television as Ernie Altbacker, which is a side issue, so if all of his published fiction, so far, is under the name EJ Altbacker, shouldn't that be the name his fiction is listed on this site as? E. J. Altbacker won't show up if somebody searches for EJ Altbacker. MLB 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the fuss, but you're right that the books than should be filed under 'EJ'. I didn't realize that it was a whole series and that all were published as in your submission. I'll correct my fault. Sorry and thanks for the correction, Stonecreek 11:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also changed the date for the title of the novel to 2011-06-14 since you mentioned it in the notes (the shortfiction needn't had to be published in the first printing, so its date remains unknown). Stonecreek 11:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Toad Man Specter [3]"

Hi. I have on hold your submission that would change the length of shortfiction title The Toad Man Specter [3] from "sf" to "INTERIORART", while leaving the title's type SHORTFICTION. Is it safe to assume you really mean this title to of type INTERIORART, with no length, instead? --MartyD 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I got it wrong the first time. This is an illustration, not a story, the story was written by Condrad Ricter. I was just making a clumsy attempt at trying to correct this mistake. MLB 11:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Just wanted to make sure. I rejected your submission and changed the title to Interiorart. That should have it be the way you want. --MartyD 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguated author names

For your proposed variant of Chicago's Flying Horror based on Stuart Palmer -> Stuart Palmer (1905-1968), we don't do it that way. "Stuart Palmer" is ambiguous, since there are multiple authors with the same name. We have disambiguated these as Stuart Palmer (1905-1968) and Stuart Palmer (?-). When you have a work with the ambiguous credit, once you figure out which author it is, you should change the credit to the disambiguated name. So even though the work is credited to plain "Stuart Palmer" in the magazine, we would record the author as "Stuart Palmer (1905-1968)". No variant, no pseudonym. It's understood that the parenthetical information doesn't appear in the publication's credit. It's a lot like disambiguating a common title with parenthetical information. See Help:How_to_separate_two_authors_with_the_same_name. So you should cancel this submission and edit the title's author instead. Thanks. --MartyD 13:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The anthology Ghost Stories, June 1931 is a facsimile reprint of the pulp magazine that is also listed here http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?360462 and the reason that I did this was because the original listing for Chicago's Flying Horror is for Stuart Palmer (1905-1968) and I was just trying to merge the two entries. So, now how do I merge the two? MLB 17:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two ways. The one-step way is to go to Advanced Search and search for titles "Chicago's Flying Horror". Merge the two Shortfiction entries, keeping the "Stuart Palmer (1905-1968)" name and letting the ambigious one be dropped. The multi-step way is to go to the one in Ghost Stories, June 1931 -- the one I provided the link to above. (This is the one you used in submitting the "Make this a Title a Variant...".) Edit the title, and change the author from "Stuart Palmer" to "Stuart Palmer (1905-1968)". Once that is approved, you could then go to Stuart Palmer (1905-1968) and Check for Duplicate Titles and submit a merge for the two. Using merge to also get rid of bad data can sometimes confuse a moderator if what you're doing isn't obvious, so sometimes the two-step approach ends up being less total effort. Here, though, merging a credit having an ambiguous name with a credit having a disambiguated name is pretty straightforward. Let me know if you need help. --MartyD 10:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Serial merges

I have three proposed merges on hold, where you're trying to merge one serial installment title with the canonical title for the complete work. That's not the right thing to do. Serial installments should be made variant titles of the canonical title of the complete work. We don't normally merge serial titles with each other, either, except when we know the serial installments to be the same. Installments appearing in a reprint qualify as "the same". So what you should do with these is merge them with the same serial title from the original magazine (and not with the canonical title). Check for Duplicate Titles won't work, because the other installments are variants of the complete-work title and CfDT doesn't show variants, unfortunately. So you'll either need to use Show All Titles (which will show the variants) or do some advanced searching. If you need help, let me know or ask on the Help Desk. I've left the merges on hold for your reference, but you should cancel them (or I can reject them) once you're done. Thanks. --MartyD 14:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See above (the Stuart Palmer entry) for the reason as to why I did this. I knew when I did this I was doing it wrong, but, I was hoping . . . Ah well, I will need help. Life is a learning experience, now you've learned to go on vacation when you see my name attached to something. MLB 17:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This was a little different. Here you were trying to merge "Foo Bar" and "Foo Bar (Part 1 of 6)" -- sorry, I don't remember what the titles you were working with were. What we do with serials is make the individual installments variants of the complete work. So you would go to the "Foo Bar (Part 1 of 6)" title, do a "Make this Title a Variant..." and give the new parent "Foo Bar". If "Foo Bar" already existed, you could give its ID instead of creating a new one. You would do the same with Part 2 of 6 and so on. If you created a bunch of new "Foo Bar"s, then you'd have to go merge them. This would leave all of the parts variants of the one complete title. But where you're working with a reprint, and the original magazine is already entered, you can save yourself some work. You just need to merge your new Part 1 of 6 with the existing Part 1 of 6 from the original magazine.

Unfortunately, "Check for Duplicate Titles" on the author's bibliography page won't work, because Check for Duplicate Titles will not show you titles that are variants of something else; the original "Foo Bar Part 1 of 6" record will be a variant of "Foo Bar" already, so it won't show up as a duplicate of your new Part 1 of 6. To find it, you either need to do Advanced Search and enter "Foo Bar (Part 1 of 6)" as the title, then merge the two and keep the "parent ID" when you do, or use Show All Titles on the author's bibliography and scroll/page through until you get to "Foo Bar (Part 1 of 6)" and select them for merging there (again, preserving the parent ID when you choose what info to keep). Try it and see how you make out. It's a little tricky at first, but really not too bad. --MartyD 10:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Titles for untitled interior art...strike three

All untitled interior art records should be titled the same as the work they illustrate. If they do not illustrate a specific story, they should be titled the same as the publication (book or magazine) which they illustrate. You'll need to correct the titles of the interior art records in this pub record. The second work of art by the same artist is disambiguated by adding "[2]" to the title. Also if the "Dramatis Personǽ" is a recurring column in the periodical, its title must be disambiguated by parenthetically adding the title of the publication (Lore #5, in this case). Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Chatting with Anubis"

I don't understand the point of adding a note to this record that "This story had to be published in Lore #1 before the Dark Horse comic book printing in Harlen Ellison's Dream Corridor #1 according to a personal letter to MLB from Rod Heather." That's obvious just by looking at the publication listings. The story was published in three different publicatins before Dream Corridor. Mhhutchins 20:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have, someplace, the complete rune of the original comic book version of Harlen Ellison's Dream Corridor, NOT the later Dark Horse anthology that collected all of published issues of the comic book that is listed on this site. If I can track it down, I might list it, but the first issue of the comic book came out almost simultaneously with the first issue of Lore, which is why I posed the question to Rod Heather in the first place at the time. Sorry to say, Ellison has a habit of simultaneously submitting his stories to multiple markets at the same time. During the eighties this was a popular practice. Witness such things as Bully! by Mike Resnick and The Gallery of His Dreams by Kristine Kathryn Rusch, or the stories in the anthology Medea: Harlan's World but Ellison does this to a fault. That is why the note. MLB 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the author's proclivities, in the context of this work's title record and the list of its publication appearances, the note is superfluous. Nevertheless, I'll accept the submission, but rewrite the note. Mhhutchins 17:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Separate not "seperate"

...as it's spelled in the note field of this record. Ordinarily I'd just make the correction and move on, but I've pointed out this misspelling before and have had to correct more than a dozen other records in the past. I'm sorry to be picky. Mhhutchins 20:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll correct this, and add a cover image. I'm slightly dyslectic, so I constantly mispell certain words. I have to watch out for "teh" instead of "the", thank goodness for Spellcheck. I will try to do better. MLB 15:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Shark Wars

Other than talking sharks, are there any other speculative elements in these novels? Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Amazon, and the later novels, "Gray" the shark is a megalodon, and this series explores the wars and conflicts between certain shark clans. I think this takes place in prehistoric times. I own this series but have yet to read it. (I read a wide rainbow of crap, eh?, just check out my reviews on Amazon.) But I have a real interest in juvenalia, especially juvenile speculative fiction, which is why I picked up these in the first place.

The upcoming fifth book in the series, a description of which can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Shark-Wars-5-Enemy-Oceans/dp/1595144765/ref=pd_sim_b_4 solidifies this impression and more prehistoric monsters show up. This sounds like a prehistoric shark version of the Redwall series by Brian Jacques. MLB 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Still sounds like a talking shark story, regardless of the time setting. I'm looking for any speculative content. (That's why those "Land Before Time" stories shouldn't be in the database either. They're just talking dinosaurs.) If you get around to reading them, please note any speculative content in the title records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but should I still put the other two books in the database? Or just let it go for now? Didn't this whole trend become popular with Watership Down? I think that talking animals are speculative, my cat refuses to have an intellectual discussion of any kind with me, she just does advanced yoga exercises and cleans herself, so if she were to talk I would consider it somehow fantastic. But, I'm not the boss. What you say goes. Just let me know as to yea or nay on the others. MLB 18:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking animals have been around forever in children's literature. I think Adams' Watership Down brought it to an adult level, but made it almost mythical, yet not allegorical (as in the case of Orwell's Animal Farm.) I've always been ambivalent about the extent to which we include juvenile literature in this database. For example, all of those Daisy Meadows fairy princess books. If pushed, our policy could be stretched to the point that all children's literature (pre-ya) would be included. Mhhutchins 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Marsden's Out of Time

Re this record: please specify about where the printing is blurry. I would assume you meant the text of the book, without reference to the cover. And it just may be unique to your copy, which should probably be noted. Also, "seperate" again. I really don't understand the point of noting in a publication record that there are no chapters in the novel. There are many novels that don't have chapters. Now if one publication of the work had chapters and a reprint didn't, then that would be noteworthy. Mhhutchins 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're right, I was vague. I meant the cover printing. My cover is identical to Amazon's and all of the printing is fuzzy, with the computer feed-out that makes up about half of the cover almost totally unreadable. Just looking at it gives me a headache. I just mentioned it so that people wouldn't think that a bad image was posted on this site. I am going to go and eat a dictionary so that I don't keep making the same mistake on "separate".

I mentioned that this book had no chapters as it is 127 pages of unbroken text. Unusual for a juvenile. MLB 18:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Forest of Forgetting

I have submissions to add notes to the title records of two stories from this collection stating that "This story is original to this collection of short stories." That note would work in a publication record of the referenced collection. But within the context of a title record, this note can be confusing. It's possible that the story will be reprinted in a later Goss collection, so the user would not know which collection is being reference. Instead it should state "This story was originally published in In the Forest of Forgetting." I'll change the note. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

London Revenant

We don't include publisher ads as part of a book's page count, even if they're given in brackets as unpaginated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that. I just mentioned them as the "About the Author" feature was buried at the end of the book after the ads, and many readers probably won't even know it's there. MLB 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to record that info in the record's note field. Just don't give the extra pages in the page count field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Brave New Love

What is the publisher credited on this book's title page? Also, I removed the unknown dates from each of the content stories, and allowed the date to default to the publication date of the anthology. This is standard ISFDB practice. A question: is there anything in the "Acknowledgments" other than a list of thank yous. We don't include such a content record otherwise. Mhhutchins 16:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Using title page information, as I have been taught by various moderators, including some guy called "Mike", a suspicious nom-de-plume if I've ever heard one, I only used title page information. On the title page is listed "Robinson" and "RP׀Teens". "Running Press Teens" is only found on the copyright page. "RP׀Teens" is also used on the book's spine if that matters. MLB 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So the record is correct as given. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Acknowledgments" is a listing of the copyrights of the stories, and these two pages shows that all of these stories are original to this anthology, otherwise I wouldn't have listed it, I usually don't. I'll mention this fact in the notes. MLB 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't list such acknowledgments as a separate content record. You can mention it in the notes, but the content record will have to be removed and deleted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The copyright page lists both the United Kingdom and the American ISBN numbers, copyrights, credits, and e-book information, so I checked Amazon.uk and found that this anthology was printed two months ahead of the American printing, so I used that information in case somebody with a British edition wants to enter the "Mammoth" edition. This shouldn't be a surprise, as Robinson is, I believe, a British company. MLB 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Running Press reprints Robinson editions for the US market, even though technically they're separate companies. In fact, I think the books may be from the same print run. Look at this record to see how I handled one of their US editions. I'll clone your copy to create a UK edition. Mhhutchins 20:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure Model

I changed the publisher of this record from "Heavy Metal / Tor" (which implies that Heavy Metal is an imprint of Tor) to just "Tor", and placed the record into the publication series "Heavy Metal Pulp". Mhhutchins 20:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Blindsight

The addition of "But date taken from Locus1 index for 2007" to the note field of this record is superfluous, because the date was taken from Locus #555. The Locus1 database is built on the listings of the hard copy issues of the Locus magazine. It would be better to remove the "Info from Locus #555 (April 2007)" note if everything in the data fields is present in the book itself (I'm assuming you're working from the book). Just note the source of data that is not present in the book. So if the publication date is not stated (as most SFBC reprints of trade editions aren't), you can state "Date of publication from Locus #555 (April 2007)." Mhhutchins 18:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I own the hardcover, and I added all the notes except for anything relating to Locus. That was added by a previous editor. I left that as I can't verify that, I assumed that it was added by one of your illustrious contemporaries, so I left these notes as I found them. Is the Locus1 index to be found on-line? I'll re-edit the notes soon. MLB 18:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have changed this Note as requested. MLB 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Cloning instead of updating

I'm holding a submission to update this record, making it a third printing to match what I assume is your copy. That's not the best way to do this. What you're attempting to do is replacing the record for the first printing with one for the third printing. It's better to clone this record to create a new one. Otherwise, there would be no record for the first printing. You did the same thing yesterday for records of a couple of juvenile titles. Before accepting your submissions to update them to later printings, I cloned the first printings to create new records. I thought you'd hit "Edit This Pub" by mistake, instead of "Clone This Pub". Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps you meant to actually change the record already in the database, which is not the usual ISFDB practice. If your copy doesn't match the record that's in the database, and yours is a later printing, you should clone the current record to create one that matches your copy, not the other way around. I hope you've not done this to other records and the moderators failed to catch what you're doing. I'm going to clone the current record in the database for The Chronicles of Riddick and then accept your submission to change the record to the third printing. Mhhutchins 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I would never intentionally replace a first printing with a later one. If you think that I'm doing this please reject them. MLB 17:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's happened more than once. Perhaps you accidentally clicked on "Edit This Pub" instead of "Clone This Pub". I'll let you know if it happens again. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

King Kong

Did you mean the date of this record to be 2005-08-25, the date given on Amazon? Mhhutchins 14:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although I used the date that is for the paperback. The hardcover is not mentioned on Amazon unless it is the library edition. Maybe I should note that. MLB 20:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled they're the same price. Is it possible the hardcover is simply a rebinding of the paperback for libraries, so everything is identical: price, ISBN, etc? . Mhhutchins 20:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I picked this book up at a remainders store that carried a lot of British editions of American paperbacks, which unfortunately closed its doors two weeks ago. Anyway, I thought it a good idea to just work up a separate entry and not screw around with an existing entry "just in case". Amazon does mention a library edition, but I just don't know, and this book is now out of print. MLB 20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cover image upload for Over Sea, Under Stone

You should wait until a publication record has been created before uploading the file of the cover image. If you look at this one, you'll see it has a nonstandard filename, doesn't have a license tag (required for all images uploaded to the ISFDB server), and there's no link back to the pub record, since the pub record did not exist at the time you uploaded it. After you've read this message, just acknowledge it, and I'll save the file to my computer, then delete if from the ISFDB server. Once the pub record is in the database, I'll upload it again using the "Upload Cover Scan" link on the pub record. This method creates a license tag, creates a unique file name, and automatically links it back to the database publication record. Mhhutchins 23:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks. MLB 23:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The image has been uploaded with the license tag and now linked to the pub. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Oathbreakers", by Mercedes Lackey

You verified this edition of Oathbreakers, but didn't include which printing it was. Could you add that please? Chavey 08:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This was one of the first things that I did for this site, I do much better now, I didn't even understand numberlines then. My collection is awesomely in disarray, and it may take a while to find it, as things are constantly going into and out of storage. This is compounded by my interests in juvenile literature, pulp literature, mysteries, gothics, thrillers, westerns and that I live in a house only slightly larger than a trailer home. I literally have boxes of books, comics, CDs and DVDs stacked to my ceiling. I also seem to be a clearing house for my extended family. My parents have their book and music collections stored here. I can't drive and much of my collection is in storage, but I know that I haven't gotten rid of it. I've already found several places where it isn't, so there's hope. So, I hope that you can wait. MLB 10:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. We're all in this for the long-term accuracy, and don't expect things to happen right away. If you're like me, you'll have a bunch of early verifications before we understood what kinds of things to put in notes, which things we should check (e.g. after finding some Table of Contents mistakes, I now check page numbers for all stories in collections). If at some point your books, or your time, get to the point where you want to re-check these earlier verifications, the navigation bar on the left of the main "Home" page includes a link for "My Primary Verifications". Those are always listed in chronological order, oldest first, specifically because most of us have wanted to go back and clean things up later. That's also a really good link to use to help create a "shelf list" of the books you own, at least the ones you've told the ISFDB that you own. (Every year or so, I copy that whole thing out, paste it into Excel, then sort by author's name.) And I know the problems with collecting too much -- I have several thousand comic books and about 6000 record albums, which I'm ignoring :-). But at least I don't have to worry about any family members storage! Good luck with managing your multiple collections. Chavey 16:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Leganlname field in author data updates

The author's name in this field should be given in this format: LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME MIDDLENAME. I've corrected the submission you made to update Joyce Tenneson. Also, if the collection of her photographs had been solely of a spec-fic nature, it would have been accepted into the database, but under the NONFICTION type, not NONGENRE, which is used for non-genre novels only. Mhhutchins 19:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. MLB 19:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Variants of existing title records

Don't create a new parent record if there's already one in the database. I've rejected most of the submissions to make variants of the stories in the Prentice-Hall anthology, but have gone back and varianted them to the existing record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Prentice-Hall anthology update

I have to do a hard-reject to the submission updating this record, because I'm unable to either hold it, accept it, or reject it normally. I can't even tell you why. Sometimes this is caused by bad HTML, and sometimes because there's been an edit of a content record between the time that you submitted it and the time a moderator handled it. I suspect the latter because you merged a content record ("The Third Level") just prior to this submission. In that merge the content record that was in the publication record disappeared (it was replaced by the original record when you merged it). So the system was unable to "find" a content record that was part of the publication record at the time of the submission, but disappeared subsequently. I can only suggest in the future that you not update a record until all submissions for records contained in that record have been accepted. I hope this submission isn't too hard to re-create. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened, I think, is that when I tried merging the Prentiss-Hall entry with the entry on this site, I found that Roberts had gotten the date and origin of the story wrong. I merged then updated. I should have updated the entry first I guess. I'm just trying to get everything in order that I've entered so far, and then enter the rest of the anthology. Sorry for the foul-up. MLB 22:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No, updating the content entries before merging them with the current database records would not have done this. Looking back at the sequence of events, I'm pretty sure my theory is correct. I would suggest that you not merge any content records until you've completely added all the contents to the publication record. After you've done that, and when there's no need to update the pub record any more, you can either merge or variant its content records. Doing it this way will avoid the conflict that caused me to do a hard-reject of the submission. Mhhutchins 22:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"The City of the Singing Flame"

Does the publication of the combined stories only have one title page without any separation between the two parts? If so, this may be the first publication thus, and the record will have to be dated the same as that of the publication (2000-07-28). Mhhutchins 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no title page separating the two stories, they just flow into one another. I'll change the date and add a note to the Note field. This is why I asked. Thanx for the answer. MLB 07:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Castaways in Lilliput

Can you confirm both the date and publisher as given in this record? OCLC gives the date as "[1960]" which indicates it is not physically dated, but there is secondary evidence of the year of publication. Also Harcourt Brace merged with World in 1960 to become Harcourt Brace & World. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 14:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Until you accepted this listing, I couldn't complete the entry. This is a Weekly Reader Children's Book Club edition. This club reached across many book companies, and it clearly states 1961 on the copyright page, although there may have been a previous non-book club edition. It also states Harcourt, Brace and Company on its title page. My copy, which I just found at a garage sale, has no cover and no price, but these were easily found on the Internet. In fact, the dust jacket illustration is a color version of an interior illustration. MLB 08:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Because this book club reprinted books from many publishers, it should not be considered a publication series, so that should be removed from the pub record and placed into the note field. Are you certain the price you gave is the price of the book club edition and not the trade edition?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Until you accepted this listing, I couldn't complete the entry." All of the data fields are present in the initial entry form. What did you need to add that couldn't be part of the first submission?

I'm going to create a record for the first trade edition so that the book club edition won't be confused as the first. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, about the price. If you follow this link http://www.ebay.com/itm/CASTAWAYS-LILLIPUT-HENRY-WINTERFELD-HB-DJ-1960-/330680251689 you will see a jacketed copy of the book club edition with a picture of the inside front flap showing the price, and all of the publishing information that I've used that is in my book. I've also seen this cataloged on a site or two as a Weekly Reader Children's Book Club book, as it is listed at this site. Maybe this should be listed as Weekly Reader Children's Book Club / Harcourt, Brace and Company? MLB 13:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Masterpieces of Fantasy and Wonder

You removed the ISBN (1-56865-039-6) from this record. Is it not present on the book's copyright page? (The OCLC record gives an ISBN.) If not, you need to move the SFBC ID number (14784) in this field (preceded by the number sign). Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, as mentioned in the Note field, there is no ISBN mentioned anywhere in this anthology, on on it's dust jacket. I'll do as you say. MLB 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bleeder

I was unable to find any mention of a spec-fic element in this novel. Is there? Mhhutchins 15:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I came across this novel while web-browsing and in an interview, which seems to have disappeared, the author claimed that this was a novel which took stigmatism seriously. Sadly, every review that I've recently read now seems to avoid this whole plotpoint. I was under the impression that this novel had a religiously oriented fantastic element to it. Just reject the entry, although the second novel in the series seems to have some fantastic elements to it, until either are read, then its better to just ignore them. Sorry to have wasted your time. MLB 08:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Varianting the contents of the Prentice-Hall anthology

I asked you in this message not to variant the content records until you'd completed the addition of all of them. By varianting and merging the records now you risk the same error that caused you to lose data in a previous update. Mhhutchins 15:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my enthusiasm got the better of me. I'll finish entering the contents today. MLB 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before: we don't create a content record for the index, unless it's something more than just a list of subjects, titles, and names. Mhhutchins 14:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In accepting the variants, the author names made me cringe, so I started this discussion, if you'd care to weigh in. --MartyD 11:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, me too. I mean, these are very unorthodox uses of the author's names. When did Stephen King ever use his middle name? His use of the parenthesis just seemed arbitrary and jarring. He used them on the page's headers too. MLB 11:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and should I finish the rest of the entries? MLB 11:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean add more or make variants? It looks like the consensus is coming down firmly on the side of omitting the parenthetical information, so I wouldn't enter any more that way, and I'd hold off on further variants. If the consensus holds, going through the anthology and adjusting the author names would be quickest. It should be ok to change the names even on the ones for which variants went through. We can (carefully) merge those with the parent, allowing the parent ID to be dropped. Having the author names be the same would make that slightly easier, since we could use Show All Titles on each author's page, rather than searching for each individual title. Over the weekend, I will propose some help text clarifications, to bring that discussion to a conclusion (discussions are pretty easy when no one objects!) --MartyD 11:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the entry is now complete. I was wondering about doing the parenthesis. I have a couple of merges to do, but I didn't want to do anymore varients until the rules about parenthetical information were set, and the information had to be undone. I guess I'll wait until after the weekend. MLB 23:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It was decided by the consensus of the rules discussion that the parenthetical credits should be regularized. So I've removed the variants, and then merged the records (except in the cases where the story is a true variant.) Mhhutchins 03:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry to have caused so much trouble. MLB 07:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) You have nothing to be sorry about. Those names are an unusual situation and proved to be an interesting problem. Thanks for taking the time to get everything entered. --MartyD 10:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Replacing Cover Art Uploads at ISFDB

I cancelled your submission for an edit to The Ghost, since it seems that you were replacing artwork at the ISFDB. When you upload new artwork to the ISFDB, and you replace artwork that was already in the isfdb, as you did on Image:THGHSTWRTL1997.jpg, then there is no need to submit a new change to the database... since the database is already pointing at The cover art file. If I've misunderstood your intent, I apologize. Please resubmit with additional details here. - Thanks Kevin 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing uploaded images

Hi. Just FYI: If you change an uploaded-to-the-ISFDB image by going to the Image:xxxx page in the Wiki and uploading a new version of the file, as you did with Image:THSLPNGCTT1999.jpg for The Sleeping City, you do not also need to submit a change to the publication record. The file link in the publication record remains the same, simply pointing to the new file. You did the right thing by checking with the verifier first. --MartyD 10:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I see Kevin said the same thing immediately above. --MartyD 10:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Date on 7th printing of Stardust of Yesterday

I don't think you can safely derive the 7th printing's publication date from the excerpt in the back. The same excerpt with the same leading descriptive material will be carried into subsequent printings, beyond the initial appearance. In fact, I have seen excerpts claiming "new" and "coming xxxx" where the publication is specifically dated sometime after that. All you can really rely on that sort of thing for is a no-earlier-than date unless you can find the printing in which it first appeared. I suggest you change the pub's date to 0000-00-00 and adjust the note to describe the dated announcement. Someone with the 6th printing would be in a position to try to make a determination based on that info. --MartyD 11:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Skeletons in the Closet...

Your proposed addition of Skeletons in the Closet... has an author credit of Cheryl Kane Tardif, the first half of the content entries credited to Cheryl Kaye Tardif, and the second half of the content entries credited to Cheryl Kay Tardif. I'm suspecting typos are afoot. Are three different versions of her name used? Thanks. --MartyD 11:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, typos are afoot Dr. Watson. The name is Cheryl Kaye Tardif. I'm afraid it was a long day and I fell asleep at the keyboard while typing this one up. I can correct thes mistakes if you okay the entry. MLB 07:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I approved it and changed everything to "Kaye". I'll leave other typo detection to you. :-) --MartyD 10:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Switching Well update

I have your Switching Well update on hold. It would change the 16th printing to the 9th printing. Looks like you did an Edit This Pub instead of a Clone This Pub. I've left it on hold so you can copy the information if you want. Please cancel and resubmit. Thanks. --MartyD 10:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Done MLB 10:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange Tales of Mystery and Terror, October 1932

First, a question: Is the essay in Strange Tales of Mystery and Terror, October 1932 in fact "Odd" Superstitions, or might it be "Old" Superstitions? The verified record of the original uses "Old" -- I'll go ask Ahasuerus to double-check his if yours says Odd.

Second, a comment/request/plea: When you are entering any sort of collection, and especially when it's a reprint, please check whether there's already a record or set of records with most or all of the same content, and either use Clone This Pub, or enter an empty shell and after approval use the Import or Export Contents functions. If you hand-enter all of the content, each title then needs to be hunted down and merged with the titles from the other records. That takes a bit of time. I've done this for this Strange Tales of Mystery, but you could save a moderator or yourself work down the line.

Thanks. --MartyD 11:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing from this. In your submission, you have The Cauldron as an essay by "various". In the original, Ahasuerus has The Cauldron: A Meeting Place for Sorcerers and Apprentices as an essay by "uncredited". Which seems more correct to you? If it's yours, we should take that up with Ahasuerus, too. I also see that we have The Cauldron (Strange Tales of Mystery and Terror, January 1933) as an essay by "various" in a reprint you have verified. If it's a regular feature, perhaps that titling is the best way to go. I will point Ahasuerus here so he can voice an opinion/give guidance. Thanks. --MartyD 11:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is "Odd" Superstitions. It is listing of odd superstitions through out the world and through out time.

I didn't think that you could clone magazines, or import content from them. I must have been mistaken.

You can't clone a magazine, but you can use the Import/Export functions with them (import into an anthology from the magazine pub id or export from the magazine into an anthology pub id). If you get to a point where you want to try it and can't figure it out, ask, and I or one of the other moderators will help you. It's safe to try: It will show you what it's doing, and the end result is moderated. --MartyD 22:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

What I see: "The Cauldron" is (hand?) written at the top of an illustration by Amos Sewell, underneath the illustration is the quote "Fire burn and cauldron bubble" and then underneath that A MEETING PLACE FOR SORCERERS AND APPRENTICES. This whole package is used on both issues #6 and #7 of these facsimile reprints that I own and that I have posted here (the issue #4 facsimile had no letter section). I simplified this half page column header to "The Cauldron" as the on this site as the two subtitles follow the illustration, although A Meeting Place for Sorcerers and Apprentices is used as a blurb on the magazine's contents page. The simplified "The Cauldron" is the only title used for each page's header with the page numbers. I realize that this clears up nothing, but I'll go with the flow, if you think that the column title The Cauldron: A Meeting Place for Sorcerers and Apprentices should be used on all of my entries, then fine, I'll just go back and change them.

I use "various" for letter columns as these columns are written by multiple authors. In issue #6 there are fifteen different letters, I only listed those by authors who have published fiction or poetry on this site. I wasn't the first to use this tho', I just copied somebody else, and it just seemed logical. Although listing letter column verse just might be stretching the term "poetry" a bit. But I wanted to be thorough. MLB 21:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't so much worried about the "various" as the consistency with the original magazine and with the same feature in other issues. Let's just wait until Ahasuerus chimes in, since he is verifier of the original magazine entry. --MartyD 22:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I can find the pub -- getting my pulp collection organized is one of the bigger items on my list of things to do in retirement... Ahasuerus 00:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

To make things more interesting. When they revived the pulp, they used "The Cauldron", the same illustration, and the legend "Fire burn and cauldron bubble", but cropped off/omitted A Meeting Place for Sorcerers and Apprentices for their letter column. MLB 00:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I have the original right here. There are a number of things to discuss, so let me list them in order:

1. That's a very nice cover scan, I will use it on my verified pub as well. I thought my cover was fairly decent considering its age, but the one that Wildside Press used is superb.
2. Does page 303 of your copy contain "Speaking Heads", an uncredited essay?
3. Good catch re: "Odd Superstitions". I have corrected the spelling in my verified pub and merged the two title records.
4. I must have been blind (or, more likely, very tired) not to notice Amos Sewell's signatures. I will correct the data shortly.
5. Rafael DeSoto's illustration preceding Hugh B. Cave's "The Infernal Shadow" appears on page 387 rather than on page 587.
6. I will go along with "various", which seems more appropriate in this context and has been used in many similar cases.
7. As far as "The Cauldron: A Meeting Place for Sorcerers and Apprentices" vs. just "The Cauldron" goes, I think it's a coin toss. I will go along with "The Cauldron" to make things easier and update the Notes field accordingly. I will also add "Strange Tales of Mystery and Terror, October 1932" in parentheses to distinguish this column from similarly named columns in other issues.

Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, page 303 does have an uncredited essay called "Speaking Heads", I don't know how I missed that. I will correct that. Sorry for missing that. MLB 18:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Approved and merged, thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 20:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange Tales #9

Because this continues the numbering of the original magazine title, I changed its type from ANTHOLOGY to MAGAZINE which also matches the ISFDB record for issue #8. And I normalized the credit of author "J.J. Travis" to "J. J. Travis". Mhhutchins 16:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wildside Press gives me headaches. Strange Tales #9 originally appeared as a newsprint bedsheet type magazine. Then there was a pulp version issued, and it was advertised at the time as having additional content. I recently discovered this third version of this magazine, their facsimile reprint of their own magazine on Amazon and I got one used. It is not the original which I once owned, It still might be in storage somewhere, when I was once young and foolish and trusted Wildside to do the right thing. This is not the place to discuss Wildside's questionable publishing practices however, but the Strange Tales #9 that I listed IS a reprint none-the-less, and I used "anthology" for this as I do for other facsimile reprints as the format has been altered from the the first printing of the original magazine. MLB 21:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: The dates for the material in this entry are fluid. If I ever track down the original magazine then the dates will have to be changed, as I believe that the original magazine appeared a year or so before this reprint. MLB 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to do some research as well about the original publication. And the fact that someone decided that a facsimile reprint of a MAGAZINE-typed record should be entered as an ANTHOLOGY record doesn't make much sense to me personally. I don't recall there ever being a discussion about this, so I'll start one on the Rules & Standards page. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Either somebody corrected me once, or I saw it and copied it, but I guess the reasoning is that despite being a facsimile, anything reprinted can be altered. The G-8 pulp reprints from Adventure House (which I'll enter sometime as they all have fantastic elements) are facsimile reprints of the novels, but only about half the magazine is reprinted, and only the lead novel has any fantastic elements to it. I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong, but perhaps only the original printing is considered a "true" magazine. I dunno, I'm just a johnny-come-lately to this, I'll abide the consensus of the majority. MLB 22:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I'm not talking about a publication that contains facsimile reprints from various sources. That would obviously be an ANTHOLOGY-typed record, and it is an original publication, not a reprint, whether it is facsimile or otherwise. I speaking specifically of a publication which is a facsimile reprint of an entire issue of a MAGAZINE-typed record. And just like you, I'm puzzled about what was the rationale behind typing such reprint publications as anthologies.

My research has been unable to come up with more than two versions of issue #9, the 56-page standard edition and a 92-page pulp magazine edition. I can not find anything about an "original magazine edition". Mhhutchins 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

All I know is that I sent in for a group subsciption for six of their magazines. I got some issues of some of their magazines, and no issues for some others, and some of both ended up as appearing as print-on-demand magazines. Issue #8 appeared in my mailbox, and I could have sworn that issue #9 did also. By this time I was writing and inquiring about my disappeared subs and getting no answers. So, it may have been advertised, it may have been promised, and then it may have been canceled, but, like I said, I could have sworn I had a copy. None of my subs ever ran out, and Wildside were publishing various versions of all of their publications. But, be that as it may be, I'll go back and revise the notes. Most of my magazines from this period are locked away in storage, so I can't argue in the definite for now. MLB 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now corrected the notes, and downloaded a cover image. MLB 00:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the use of ANTHOLOGY for MAGAZINE reprints is mostly down to the fact that MAGAZINEs can't be cloned, as they're assumed to be one-off printings. This obviously isn't true, as we've found out from entering British Editions of US magazines and vice versa. And if we want to distinguish electronic and dead-tree versions then cloning would make a lot of sense. I suspect we'll need to relax the software-enforced rules. BLongley 05:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a documented rule that reprints of MAGAZINE records should be entered as ANTHOLOGYs? If there is, I can't find it. I'd like to know who wrote it so I can ask them about their reasoning, because I don't remember a discussion. Or perhaps, as you suggest, it is the cloning issue that caused it to become a de facto standard without having ever been discussed or documented. Mhhutchins 13:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Worlds of Fantasy No. 2 redux

Could you please clarify how "The Visitors" is credited in your verified Worlds of Fantasy No. 2? Here is what Help:Screen:NewPub says about anonymous works:

• Anonymous or uncredited works. If a work is credited to "Anonymous", then put "Anonymous" in the author field. The same applies for any obviously similar pseudonym, such as "Noname". If the work is not credited at all, use "uncredited", with a lower case "u".

so I wonder if we may want to change the attribution from "Anonymous" to "uncredited". TIA! Ahasuerus 05:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This was one of the early things that I verified. Most of the work was by done by an early person, including putting in "Anonymous". I simply double checked all the information to the issue that I had on hand (I also have #6 around here somewhere). There is no name at all on this story, although all the rest of the stories are accredited, although not on the contents page. Please feel free to to change it. I now, after being corrected, always use uncredited on all unsigned works. MLB 11:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for checking! Ahasuerus 16:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nostalgia Ventures Doc Savage reprints

I slightly altered the name of the series to conform with other reprints of DS titles, and then placed it into the parent series. Mhhutchins 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to differentiate this series of Doc Savage reprints from several others, but still make them easy to find. MLB 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Conan essay by de Camp

Please check the spelling of the essay in this record. Also, I've responded to your question on the community portal. Mhhutchins 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Danged bifocals. I couldn't read the type of the title of the article so I depended on the spelling on the book's back cover. I have corrected the title and added a note describing the discrepancy in the spelling of the two titles. I will also change the date of the article. Thank you. MLB 09:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Death Sentence

You say "No, I don't know what AR: 6:7 / LEXILE: 960L means. I just listed it." in the moderator note of the submission to update this record. If you don't know what it means, it's better not to enter it as part of the record. If you feel you have to (not everything has to become part of the ISFDB record), you should at least note the context in which it appears in the book, for instance, its location. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Map merge

Your proposed merge of the maps would result in "Conan the Magnificent (map)" in Conan the Victorious. That's counter to the name-interiorart-after-the-illustrated-work's-title standard. Assuming they are indeed all the same map, I think you should merge the two "Conan the Victorious (map)" titles, and then make the result a variant of Conan the Magnificent (map) (or make it the variant, whichever direction is more appropriate). --MartyD 10:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. They are the same. They are the only two Robert Jordan Conan novels. MLB 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Voodoo Fury

Can you confirm that the publisher credit given in this record is correct? How is it stated on the book's title page? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 15:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's Diamond, not Charter Diamond, I have changed it. I don't know how I missed it. MLB 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-map?

Hi. What's a "non-map", as in Discworld (non-map)? If it's just a random illustration, we wouldn't use a parenthetical disambiguator/explanation. --MartyD 10:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks to be a atlas-type map with the center blanked out, with the words "There are no maps. You can't map a sense of humor." There are also a couple of pages of the novels in the series listed, each with its own plot synopsis, which I didn't think worthy of listing (as it fead like an ad, and ads aren't listed here as I've been told.). MLB 17:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That's pretty funny. I guess non-map it is, then. :-) --MartyD 11:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Street Magic", by Caitlin Kittredge

I added a cover artist to your verified publication, based on the artist's web site. Chavey 14:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you MLB 16:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Time Jumper

I accepted the submission adding this record, but made some changes. The publisher is Silhouette, "Silhouette Nocturne Bites" is a publication series. Binding was changed from "e-book" to the standard "ebook". If you're not working from the actual publication you need to indicate your source in the note field. If you are adding a new pub from a book-in-hand, please let the moderator know in the note to moderator field. Also, I don't fully understand your note to the moderator "I wish there was a Pub Type for e-short fiction". A single story ebook is entered as a CHAPTERBOOK. Binding is not a factor in determining the pub type. A NOVEL can be either a hc, tp, pb, ebook, etc. So can a CHAPTERBOOK. Mhhutchins 16:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Made the same changes with this record and this one. Mhhutchins 16:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Silhouette/Silhouette Nocturne Bites: Sorry. I'm still learning about doing e-books/ebooks. Ditto for the spelling of such. I thought I did mention these were from Amazon, stupid me. I guess my mind took the term chapterbook too literally as I'm just too used to tree-based books. This is why your job is very safe for a very long time. MLB 07:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Kilpatrick's Endorphins "forward"

Can you confirm the spelling of the foreword in this publication? If it is correctly entered as stated, it would be a good idea to note the unusual spelling in the work's title record. Also, the ISSN should be removed from the ISBN field of the publication record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the ISSN number, but with my problem with spelling I automatically assumed I misspelled "Forward" but I just spent the last hour tracking down Siege and Endorphins (garage sale, I gotta have a garage sale real soon now) and found that "Forward" is really spelled that way and I did mention it in the Note field.

"Forward" is misspelled in Siege, and it is real. Dr. Pus is a pseudonym for Michael Carl West of "The Library of the Living Dead podcast". The "Foreward" is copyrighted in his name and he is given the credit "The Library of the Living Dead podcast" on the "Foreward"'s title page. Until he publishes something else I didn't know which to use as his canonical name, and besides, just because the "Foreward" is copyrighted in his name, that doesn't mean that Dr. Pus is a name that is used exclusively by him, or that he wrote the foreward. At the time of the entry of this title, West wasn't credited to anything else on this site, so Michael Carl West may not be his real name either, it may just be a rip-off of Herbert West of H. P. Lovecraft's fame. Don't know, just entered what was there, and yes, I think the name is too cute by half. MLB 08:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Frater's Seige

Same situation as above: is the foreword spelled "Forward" in this publication? Also, are you certain that this is a legitimate foreword, or a fictional "in-universe" work that is actually part of the novel? (The "author" credit would seem to indicate this.) If so, you should not have created a separate record for it, and this one will have to be deleted from the db. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 14:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just double-checking. I accepted the "Forward" -> "Foreward" change, but is it really an "a" and not an "o" ("Foreword")? I only ask because I make that typo myself all the time. I shouldn't project, I know.... Thanks. --MartyD 10:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dang it, I need new glasses. Yes, it's "Foreword". Will change it. Again. MLB 10:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Triple checking: Yes it's spelled "Forward" in Endorphins. MLB 11:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I got it. --MartyD 11:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic Tales of Ray Bradbury format

I accepted Fantastic Tales of Ray Bradbury but changed the binding/format from "cassette" to "audio (CAS)". See Help:Screen:EditPub#Pub_Format_.28Binding.29. --MartyD 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, now I know. MLB 11:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Song of Fire

Are you certain that this book is part of a publications series "Jan Dennis"? It seems like an unlikely name for such a series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

On the title page it states "A Jan Dennis Book", and these words have their own distictive font accompanied with their own logo. "A Jan Dennis Book" is also found on the back cover and the copyright page along with "Thomas Nelson Publishers". Should I have treated this like "Del Rey / Ballentine"? MLB 19:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's an imprint. Publication series are rarely recognized on the title page, and almost always only indicated on the cover. I'll update the record. Mhhutchins 20:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Touch and Go!"

Can you confirm that the story in this publication has the exclamation point in its title on the story's title page? Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see the image that I've submitted. MLB 19:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Selkie Girl

I'm holding your submission to update this record, and will accept it, but make a couple of reversions. Illustrators are not given co-author credit, so I'll remove Warwick Hutton's credit from the author field (there's already a content record that gives the interiorart credit.) I will also revert the page count back to the original that used brackets, which is the bibliographic indication that the book is unpaginated and that the pages have been hand-counted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Warwick Hutton is given co-credit on the cover (see the image that I've submitted) and on the inside back cover flap. My guess is that if the text can be lifted up from the illustrations, and it can be read as a coherent work, then it should be considered a seperate work? MLB 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The ISFDB doesn't credit illustrators in the author field of a fiction-type record (artbooks, yes), regardless of where that credit occurs in the book: cover, title page, flap, etc. The fact that the text and illustrations are inseparable is not a factor in determining who is credited in the author field. Looking at the cover image I don't see that the book is credited as "Retold by Susan Cooper and Warwick Hutton", so he would not qualify as the author of the work. Mhhutchins 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now I know. MLB 21:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Shock Totem

I have your submission to update this record, but have a couple of questions before accepting it. In the notes you give it as a magazine, but the record is currently typed as an anthology. Do you think that should be changed? If so, the title field should be disambiguated from other issues that may follow, such as "Volume 1, 2009", or "#1, 2009". Is there such a designation within the publication?

Also, most of the essays are given in quotation marks. Would you consider these to be authorial (meaning that's the authors' intentions) or just the art designer's choice. We usually don't add quotation marks to a piece (even if they appear in the publication) unless it's obvious that the author wanted the title to be perceived as either dialog or a quote.

One last thing: you note that Rex Zacherly is credited with interiorart but not credited to specific pieces. You can create an interiorart record that is titled "Shock Totem #1" (or whatever is given in the record's title field.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1.) The rules seem fuzzy here. Allen K's Inhuman Magazine and The Magazine of Bizaro Fiction are both considered magazines, and which I contributed entries to, despite their rather rocky publication dates and their format. Shock Totem follows the format of The Magazine of Bizaro Fiction, and if these publications weren't print-on-demand I don't think that there would be any question, as you can't subscribe to them. That's an open question as to what a magazine is or isn't for another day.

Besides on page 4, in the editorial of the first issue, in the fifth paragraph we get ". . . I began researching the possibility of Shock Totem becoming a magazine . . ." and in the sixth paragraph editor/publisher K. Allen Wood states that "It was Apex Digest . . . that sent my mind racing.", and in the twelth paragraph Wood states that Shock Totem is a " . . . a magazine of dark fiction . . . ".

There we go, the rest is up to you.

2.) The essays that have quotation marks have them because I just reproduced the essay titles as they are printed. Didn't know the rules, I can remove them.

3.) I have no idea what Rex Zachary did for this magazine, he is stated as having " . . . worked in the printing industry for about 10 years as a graphic designer and freelance artist at night." in the two line Artist Bio at the end of the magazine. To give him positive credit as the creator of the uncredited artwork didn't seem right, so I gave the suggestion that he might have done the photo-illustrations in the Note field, especially since he is listed as the layout and designer of Shock Totem on the publication's credit page and he is the only artist beside cover artist Peter Høyem mentioned on the Artist Bio page. Any more questions? I am here to serve. :-) MLB 20:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

1.) If it quacks like a magazine, it's a magazine. I'll change its type, correct the editor record, and disambiguate the title.

2.) When most people refer to a story in the body of a text, they will add quotes around the title to offset it from the surrounding text. For example, if I wanted to talk about Michael Bishop's "The Samurai and the Willows" I have placed quotes around it, even though we both know the quotes aren't part of the title. Looking at the Amazon "Look Inside" for this publication, I see that was also the intent of the person who designed the magazine. So I'll remove the quotes and then disambiguate the titles to keep them from being merged with the fiction titles.

3.) The "Look Inside" shows that Rex Zachary did the layout/design work. That can be credited in the note field, but not in a separate content record. I'll change the note to reflect that. Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"John Huff's Leavetaking"

Can you give me the first sentence or two of this story (as narrated)? I would like to determine the chapter of Dandelion Wine from which this was excerpted. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I can, but it will take a day or two for me to get a hold of a cassette player. It's actually listed as an "excerpt" on the shellcase. MLB 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No rush. I think it might be the same as a previously excerpted selection which was titled Statues, because this was the last chapter in which the character John Huff appeared. Mhhutchins 22:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay now, I jotted this down while in a car with a cassette deck, and I may have gotten a word or two wrong as driving and writing can be a tricky thing. The British drive on one side of the road, and we Yanks drive on the other, and the writing of this often caused me to break driving protocols and to drive on the British side of our American roads. Causing much consternation amongst other drivers and the creative use of words not commonly found in proper dictionaries, that is when they weren’t happily bragging about their birthdays. I thought it amusing that so many people were only just now turning one. MLB 20:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but using only their middle finger! You didn't know there were such dangers when it comes to the world of bibliography? :) Mhhutchins 20:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the beginning of “John Huff's Leavetaking” goes as so — “The facts about John Huff age 12 are simple. He could pathfind more trails than any Choctaw or Cherokee since time began. He could leap from the sky like a chimpanzee, could live under water for two minutes and slide downstream from where you last saw him . . .” I hope this helps, because I have to confess that while I mercilessly read, and re-read all of his collections during the sixties while growing up, I just couldn't get through this fix-up novel. Sadly, he died on my birthday. MLB 20:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed the same story as the two chapters that were previously excerpted as "Statues". Thanks for taking the time (and the terrible risks) of helping me out here. I've made the story into a variant. Mhhutchins 20:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Rewind publisher

I changed the publisher on Rewind from "Apple" to "Apple / Scholastic". We didn't have any bare "Apple" but do have "Apple / Scholastic", and the Look Inside on Amazon showed "An Apple Paperback" over "Scholastic, Inc." on the title page (plus the Scholastic logo on the cover). --MartyD 11:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. MLB 11:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you confirm that the year of publication is given as 1998? The first printing was in November 1998, so it's likely the second was the following year. What are the numbers to the far right of the printing number? For instance: "9/9" would be 1999. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 15:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This makes this the second printing from 1998 if I read Scholastic's numberline correctly, and I probably aren't (ain't?). MLB 23:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You are, although are there really two nines (...9/9 9...)? I'd expect "8 9/9 0 1 2 3/0". See this if you're interested in more details about Scholastic's number lines. You might add the date part of this number line to the notes, too. --MartyD 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are two nines (...9/9 9...). About adding the dateline to the notes, okay. MLB 08:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Standards for entering nongenre magazines

are given here. I'm going to accept the submission to add the Summer 1998 issue of Story, but will make the following changes:

• Editor field changed to "Editors of Story" (to avoid the creation of author summary pages for individuals who have no spec-fic credits)
• Removing the credit in the Cover art field (unless the art illustrates the spec-fic story)
• Removing and deleting the "Contributors" content (we only add fiction contents of nongenre magazines)

Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. MLB 00:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Cold Streak

I could find no spec-fic elements in any description of this novel. Have you read it and can confirm that it should belong in the ISFDB? Mhhutchins 16:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just found a review saying that near the end of the novel "a supernatural element seeps its way into the plot making you question everything that once appeared so clear." I'll accept the submission but will remove the "poem" content entry. Looking at the Amazon "Look Inside" feature, I see it's part of the novel, so a separate entry should not be created. Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I read the reviews on Amazon, and several mention that the lead character becomes possessed by "something", which is why I entered this book. About the poem. Now I know. I think. MLB 00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Some would say I'm obsessed about the ISFDB, but I hope that doesn't imply the involvement of any supernatural forces. :) Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not Broken, Not Belonging

I accepted the submission updating this record, but restored Alan Clark's credit to the author field. This case is different from the one we discussed earlier. Clark is given full credit on the front cover (and I'm assuming on the title page), without qualifications ("Illustrated by..."). More importantly the story was written based on the paintings which gives the artist a role in the creation of the story. This is different than the earlier situation in which an artist illustrated a story and is given credit only as the illustrator. I know there's a fine line here, but the distinction seems clear to me. If the title page credit is different, i.e. Clark is only credited for the illustrations, I'll gladly remove the credit from the publication record, and make a note about how the title page credit differs from the cover credit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 17:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the title page is as you say. Still learning, your job-still very, very safe. MLB 07:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

At 250+ topics, your talk page is becoming increasingly unmanageable. Now is a good time to archive some of the older topics. If you wish, I could set it up for you. It should only take a minute. Just ask if you need assistance. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized I had made so many mistakes. Yeah, let's archive this stuff. MLB 07:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I created an Archive page to link to the individual pages which will gather the messages. Then I created an Archive page for the first six months of messages (Archives: February - July 2012). When you feel it necessary to remove more postings do this:

1. Go to your browser's address window and enter http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/User_talk:MLB/Archive/YYYYMMM-MMM but replace the last part with the year and range of months, e.g. "2012Aug-Dec". You'll get a message that no page exists and will be asked if you want to "edit this page". Choose to do so and a blank data entry box will appear (just as if you were posting on a wiki page.)
2. Open a new window in your browser, and go back to your User Talk page.
3. Click on the "Edit" tab.
4. Highlight with your mouse all of the messages you want to remove from your talk page. Then copy them (CTRL-C). Now delete them. (Make sure that you've actually copied them before deleting them. If not, don't worry. You can always "undo" the deletion and try again.)
5. Go back to the open data entry box in the first window and paste the messages you just copied (CTRL-V). Then "Save page".
6. Copy the URL of this new archive page from your browser's address window.
7. Go to your Archive page, and click on the "Edit" tab.
8. Paste the URL of the archive page you just made, and create a link, naming it the range of months which the messages cover. Then "Save page".

If you need assistance when the time to do this arrives, just ask. Mhhutchins 15:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. MLB 10:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cover images for nongenre magazines

The rules currently frown upon the uploading and linking of cover images for nongenre magazines. I suppose we don't want covers of Playboy and Sports Illustrated in the db. I made an exception for the cover of Story (it looks kind of skiffy), but keep that in mind in the future. Mhhutchins 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Katie's Angel

I'm holding the submission to add a record for this title. Are you certain that "Rainbow Bridge" is the publisher? According to the OCLC record, the publisher is "Troll Associates". According to Amazon, it's "Troll Communications". Perhaps "Rainbow Bridge" is a publication series. How does it appear in the book? I only ask because we have no other books in the db with this publisher name. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Title page states Rainbow Bridge, with a rainbow connecting the "w" and the "B". This title is over the Troll Associates credit. I shortened "Troll Associates" to just "Troll", as the few Troll books that I own just list them by that shortened form. I took a quick look, but couldn't fine any product placements with the Forever Angels moniker (of which this is the first in about a five-to-seven book series). MLB 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Variants to Bloodrights

I have two of your submissions on hold that propose to make Brothers Grimm short stories variants of the novel Bloodrights. That's clearly not right, but I couldn't figure out what you meant to do, so I've left them for your reference. Please cancel and resubmit. Thanks. --MartyD 11:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to make The Brothers Grimm a variant of Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm. Clearly I failed. MLB 13:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Gee, interesting. I'm not sure what happened to you (I was guessing publication IDs used instead of title IDs for the "Parent ID", but that wasn't it, either). I looked up the titles and made the variants. See The Goose-Girl and The Golden Mermaid. Hopefully that's what you wanted. I will reject those other submissions. --MartyD 16:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. MLB 10:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited "Dorani" variant

I took your note to the moderator and added it as the Notes for the uncredited Dorani record. I don't know how stable the link is, but permanently capturing secondary sources used for identifications is a good idea, should conflicting information arise in the future. --MartyD 11:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with these fairy tales is that they have been written and re-written so many times over the last couple of hundred years that finding out who wrote what, and holding some writers accountable for literary theft is near impossible. Andrew Lang is given the credit for many of these stories, but he gives credit to others, some of whom we may never prove really existed. This is all above my pay grade, I can only do the best I can. If only an academic with a large collection would get involved with this site. Advice: go on vacation that week. MLB 13:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bone Marrow Stew

Submission for this record accepted, but I changed the publisher to Tasmaniac Publications, and made The Asylum Projects into a publication series. (See this publisher's page). Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kingfisher Treasury of Spooky Stories

You said in the "Note to Moderator" that you changed "Anonymous" to "Traditional" in this record. You should record the author as credited in the publication. And, please check the spelling of the author credit for "Shiver and Shake". Also, your HTML list lines have slipped near the end of the list. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Merlin's Legacy

You may think about making Merlin's Legacy into a title series, with Daughter Of Camelot (which should be regularized to Daughter of Camelot according to our rules) being the new title for this individual part of the series. Thanks, Stonecreek 10:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sacrificial Magic

According to the Amazon Look Inside the publisher of this book is Ballantine under the Del Rey imprint. So I changed to record from "Del Rey" to "Del Rey / Ballantine". If you copy doesn't give Ballantine as the publisher on the title page, please let me know and I'll reverse the edit. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Gifts of Love

Shouldn't this be an anthology (as you did with Christmas Love Stories), instead of an omnibus? No need to resubmit -- I can change it upon acceptance. Going with partial contents and further information in the notes, as you did, seems like a good approach to me. --MartyD 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: you're correct, Marty. A book with two shorter-than-novel-length works by different authors is typed as ANTHOLOGY. Mhhutchins 17:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm easy with whatever you decide. I just thought that two novels combined would be considered an omnibus. But call it an anthology if you want. MLB 10:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If they were novels, yes. But the one piece of content you entered is a novella. That's what led me to ask. Is the one you did not include a novella as well? Thanks. --MartyD 11:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I will accept it and change it to anthology. If the other work is a novel, I will change it back. --MartyD 11:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When I was growing up 150 page stories were considered novels, but in anthologies they are considered novellas. The other story is 183 pages long. Stephen King would consider them short stories, I consider them novels, but if you want to call them novellas go ahead. If you want, I'll go back and change the original from novella to novel, I only listed it as a novella originally because it was part of an anthology. I don't have the original, just the "Gifts of Love" reprint. Weren't the Ace Doubles omnibuses?, and those novels were just as short. These page lengths confuse me. MLB 11:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Look Out for Space

Can you confirm the LCCN stated in this record? I tried to link it to the Library of Congress website's record, but it comes up as not in the system. This is not to say the record is incorrect. Sometimes publisher's just make a mistake when printing the number in the book. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 23:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the copyright page I have "Library of Congress Card Catalog No. 84-80780". This is the LCCN number, right? Or was I wrong? MLB 10:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I was just asking that you confirm the number of the record matches the number in the book. Since they match I'll remove the link and note that there is currently no record for this number on the Library of Congress website. Thanks for confirming the information. Mhhutchins 18:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Sons of Glory (extract)"

If the excerpt is from a non-genre novel, we don't include it in the contents section of the publication record. Can you confirm if the excerpt in this book is spec-fic? Mhhutchins 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. But the other book in this series is listed on this site, not by me, so I thought that I would list the extract. I can move it to the Note field if you want. MLB 13:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hawke is above the threshold, so his nongenre novels are eligible for the database. But since we currently have no way of designating nongenre shortfiction we've been asked to avoid entering it until that type has been created. Moving it to the Note field is the best solution. (That's how you noted nongenre excerpts in other records without creating a separate content record.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Best Television Plays

I accepted this submission, but changed the price from "$.35" to "$0.35", and added the catalog number to the proper field (you'd given it in the notes.) I also changed the date of the record for the content play to 1956-09-00, which was the date it was first published. Where did the March 1956 date come from? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Each play is given the date in which it was first aired on television. I gave that date. I figured, maybe wrongly, that the first airing of the teleplay would be considered the play's first "publishing" date. MLB 13:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, double checked, don't know where the March date came from, on page 220 the first televised date is given as 1955-05-08. Sorry, it was a long night, but that's no excuse. MLB 13:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Being a literary database, we consider the date of a work to be the date it is first published. This is the same for novelizations of films, published screenplays, television scripts, etc. (Sometimes it takes decades for a work to be published, e. g. Twilight Zone scripts.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Now I know. Thanks. MLB 18:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-genre stories in the Houghton Mifflin anthology

I'm uncertain why you included several obviously non-genre stories by non-genre authors, including O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard to Find", Cather's "Paul's Case", James' "The Beast in the Jungle", Capote's "Children on Their Birthdays", Conrad's "An Outpost of Progress", and Lawrence's "The Prussian Officer". There may be others, but I'm familiar with these and know they have no spec-fic content. Do you believe otherwise? Mhhutchins 21:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No. I included them only because they were otherwise already on this site. If you feel they need to be deleted, please do so. I was familiar with several of these, and I was suspicious of many of them, but they were on this site, and if they are listed here, then I listed them. I skimmed many and found them non-speculative, although I read Circe, which one of two stories by this author in this collection, and only this one was fantasy, and kinda sorta reminded me Thomas Burnett Swann (but then it's been twenty-five years since I read this man). Again, my background is not in literary short fiction, so I used this site as a guide. If they are here and they shouldn't be, then the sloppiness to properly check them is mine, but I can't read everything, so delete those you know to be false entries. MLB 21:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use the fact that they're already in the database as evidence that they're eligible for the database. Editors make mistakes, as do moderators. There are probably thousands of records for stories that just shouldn't be in the database, but are here because they were part of an anthology that included both spec-fic and non-spec-fic stories, and the editor (and moderator) never took the time to determine their eligibility. You have to be more careful with a general anthology than you would with a genre anthology. That's why there are so few general anthologies in the database. No one, not you, not I, wants to read every story to determine it's eligibility. So they just let it slide. In the future, when you're entering general anthologies (which as a rule I try to discourage), please make certain that only those stories that you're 100% positive are spec-fic are included in the contents. I'll accept the submission this time, but will have to go through it to delete the non-genre records. Please consider the burden this puts on the moderator when adding general fiction anthologies in the future. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed and deleted the title records of the six stories that I know have no spec-fic content. The others will have to remain until someone else can determine if they belong in the db. Mhhutchins 22:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very embarrassed by this, I'll try harder next time. MLB 22:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Three Bags Full

Please check the stated ISBN of this record. That number is for a trade paperback printing of the same title by another publisher. Also, it's an ISBN-10 at a time when ISBN-13 is the standard. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Undead to the World'"

When you created this parent record, the submission to change the name of the variant record had not been handled. That's why the "(excerpt)" isn't part of the parent record as it should be, and would have been if you'd waited until the first submission was accepted. Keep in mind: do not make sequential changes to a record in different submissions. You must wait until the first submission to change it has been accepted before making a subsequent submission to change it. Mhhutchins 14:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing data

I may not have mentioned it in the past day or so, but it's still a rule that you must record the source for any data you're adding or changing in a publication record in the record's "Note" field...unless you're working from the actual publication, in which case you should make the moderator aware of that fact in the "Note to Moderator" field or have done a primary verification of the record (which basically tells us the same thing). This should have become second nature by now. Mhhutchins 14:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Kidnapped by Cannibals

In the notes of this record you give Amazon.com as the source of the date. Actually the listing on Amazon.com gives the date as March 1999, while the listing on Amazon.co.uk gives the date as November 19, 1998. Also both give the publisher as "Pulp Publications" as does the OCLC record. Can you check again the source of the date, and the publisher as given on the title page? There are about a dozen or so records for this publisher (unverified) and I'm think "Pulp Fictions" may be a publication series (publisher names usually don't appear so boldly on a book's cover). Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the date is wrong, I'll fix it. However, the title page does say Pulp Fictions, copyright page state that "Pulp Fictions: A Division of Pulp Publications Ltd." The bolding of Pulp Fictions is theirs, as is the capitalizations. Still, I keep being told that what is on the title page is what counts, so that's what I put down. MLB 05:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked because of the conflict between the record and the OCLC record. Your answer confirmed that the proper publisher was given in the submission. If I ask the same question in the future about another submission, it's not because I doubt your knowledge of the ISFDB standards, but because I simply need confirmation that the information is entered as stated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 07:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you had a right to doubt me. If I got the date wrong, I might very well have gotten the publisher wrong. MLB 07:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Dark Truth

If Dan Schmidt is credited as the author of this book (regardless of the page on which he is credited), you should credit him as the author as well. It is ISFDB standard to record credit from the title page, but if the author is not credited there, you go to the next best place, usually the cover, and if not there, to the copyright page. Only use "uncredited" if there is no credit at all in the book. Mhhutchins 15:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I misunderstood the title page rules about this. Now I know. Sorry. MLB 05:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Submissions accepted, but you failed to change the author credit of the title record. Mhhutchins 07:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Dates and Amazon

I accepted your modifications to Blood on the Bayou, but your date change and note about Amazon as the source caught my eye. Does the book include no statement of publication date? If there's a number line, I'd expect a date.... Anyway, if the book does have a stated date, we should use that, not Amazon's date. Amazon's dates are not reliable -- they come from publishers' pre-announcements -- and may or may not reflect actual publication dates. --MartyD 12:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I started this discussion about which dates to use. --MartyD 19:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. When I started this I saw that most entries used Amazon.com as their gold standard for their official date of publishing, so that’s what I’ve been doing. I can correct this. On the other hand, everybody once danced the Macarena, and that was wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels. You don’t have to convince me that Amazon.com can be inaccurate, but sometimes it is all some of us have. I’ll change the entry. MLB 22:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read again: "if the book does have a stated date, we should use that, not Amazon's date." We only use Amazon's date when there is no stated date of publication, even if that statement is not day-dated. The only ISFDB records that use Amazon's day-dating are for books a) which are based on data collected from Amazon by one of the ISFDB robots, or b) that have no stated date of publication whatsoever and Amazon was the only source. Nothing gold about that standard, just something to fall back on until the book is either primary verified or a more reliable secondary source can be found. Mhhutchins 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Covenant of Genesis

Do the roman-numeraled pages follow the last numbered page as this record would indicate? Also, concerning your note to the moderator, there is no discussion about using the Amazon date when there is no stated date, as long as you note that there is no stated date and give the source of the record's date. The discussion concerns adding a day date to a record based on the Amazon listing when it conflicts with a stated date. Mhhutchins 23:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Roman numerals" defect now corrected. MLB 00:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If the pages are roman-numeraled, then they should not be bracketed. You only bracket the page count when the pages aren't numbered, and you give the page count in standard numbers. Mhhutchins 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ever have one of those days . . . I'll correct it, then I'll hit myself with a hammer. MLB 00:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Gallery of Tiffany Prothero

Is this essay credited to both authors? If not, you should create a separate entry for the artwork as shown in the similar case with Haber and Brom in this issue. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected. MLB 07:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Page entry standard

The page numbering for the contents appears to be non-standard in this record. If there is a work of art on page 16 for a story whose text starts on page 17, the page numbers for both would be 16. We consider the art as part of the story, thus the story and art have the same starting page. This standard is explained here. Mhhutchins 15:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. MLB 07:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Story in Brave New Love

Hi, in the copy of Brave New Love I have, the title of the story on p. 138 is "Berserker Eyes" not "Berserker's Eyes." Mine is a first printing like yours. I've made a correction -- if your copy is different, please make some sort of note. Thanks! BungalowBarbara 04:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have put mine in storage, and it'll take a while to check it out. I'll take your word for it. This is what I get for reading too many Fred Saberhagen stories. MLB 06:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Shining Sword

Please check the spelling of the publisher as given in this record, and add 0 to indicate the dollar in the price field. Mhhutchins 16:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Also check the author credit. The OCLC record doesn't give the "Jr." in the credit. Mhhutchins 16:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If you check out the cover image that I have posted you will see that he was indeed Charles G. Coleman, Jr. MLB 06:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You've worked on the ISFDB long enough to know that we don't use the cover credit. If we did, then I would have no need to ask you to "check the author credit". Please remember in the future, anytime I ask for author credit, I'm asking that you look on the book's title page, something to which I don't have access. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

When a father dies, it’s not unusual for somebody to drop the “Jr.”, although my father rarely did. His nickname was “Junior” so he kept it. But, be that as it may, somewhere along the way Coleman dropped the “Jr.”, so I made Charles G. Coleman, Jr. a variant of Charles G. Coleman, as he now signs his name. When this is okayed, I will then add the series name (The Land of Man) to his two books, if that is okay. MLB 06:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I will accept the submission to make a variant of the title record, once it's determined that the first book is correctly credited. BTW, you don't make variants of name. You can only make a name into a pseudonym. Varianting the title record doesn't do that automatically. You'll need to make this author into a pseudonym. (Once it's determined that the first book is correctly credited.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And I still need you to confirm the spelling of the publisher credit. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 18:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Quinn's Weird Crimes...

You should record the second ISBN in the note field of this record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. MLB 06:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication that one is used for another edition, either a hardcover or limited one? Mhhutchins 16:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Seabury Quinn essay merge

You wan't to merge Swiatek, The Beggar with Swiatek, the Begger and retain the last title. So can you confirm that the spelling of the first title record is incorrect and that the piece was published in Weird Tales as "Swiatek, the Begger"? Mhhutchins 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's Swiatek, the Beggar, I misspelled the word Beggar and stupidly just didn't see it. I'll correct it. MLB 07:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Great Tales of Terror by Poe

I have your submission to add this collection to the db. The ISBN you give is an invalid number (0-39375-397-1). Also, we currently have other books in the db published by Watermill Press with "Watermill Classics" as a series. Could that be the same as your book? Also, the date you give in the notes for the Amazon listing is suspect. When Amazon can't pin down the day of publication, they default to January 1 of the year (usually the copyright year). I couldn't find this listing on Amazon. There was one with an ISBN of 0-89375-397-1 but it was published by Troll Communications and dated September 1993. There's an oclc record that's close to your submission that gives a 1994 copyright but not a stated date of publication (for the first printing). Almost every listing on Abebooks.com matches the date and publisher given on Amazon. This makes sense when you realize that ever since Amazon bought Abebooks it's becoming harder and harder to find book dealers who aren't too lazy to enter the data directly from their books but use Amazon's database, as mistake prone as it is bound to be for books published before it was founded. I'll accept the submission and let you make the necessary changes. Mhhutchins 18:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

On the back cover over the barcode is “ISBN 0-39375-397-1”. If it is invalid, then that’s not my fault, I just record what I see.

On the title page it states “A Watermill Classic”, so that’s what I recorded. On the copyright page it states “Copyright © by Troll Communications L.L.C.” and then “Published by Watermill Press, an imprint and registered trademark of Troll Communications L.L.C.” so it seems that Watermill and its various incarnations are part of the Troll publishing corporation. When I used the url that was on another Troll book I ended up on the Scholastic website. Go figure. Troll part of Scholastic or bought out by Scholastic, I don’t know.

It’s enough to tear your hair out. On Amazon there are two dates for this book. One is January 1, 1994 and is here: http://www.amazon.com/Great-Tales-of-Terror/dp/B0010KQ2RO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354692351&sr=1-1&keywords=Great+Tales+of+Terror+%2C+watermill and its ASIN is B0010KQ2RO the other is here http://www.amazon.com/Great-Tales-Terror-Edgar-Allan/dp/B003FS6V1G/ref=sr_1_2_title_1_mas?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354692351&sr=1-2&keywords=Great+Tales+of+Terror+%2C+watermill and its ASIN is B003FS6V1G. Mine has neither. I only used one for the first edition, which I don’t own. I’ve seen this book in numerous used book stores over the years, and they’ve all been the sixth edition. This book may possibly have been a Scholastic Book Club Edition. MLB 07:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there an ISBN stated on the copyright page? Mhhutchins 07:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, nothing. ISBN is only on the back cover. Sorry for the confusion. MLB 07:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be an ISBN on the cover scan you just uploaded and linked to the record. Mhhutchins 08:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

PaperQuake: A Puzzle

Since the publisher 'Harcourt, Inc.' is unknown it seems more likely that it should be 'Harcourt' instead. What do you think? (And if so, please correct.) Stonecreek 15:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a record for this edition already in the database. The major difference is that the original is given as "pb" (18 cm according to OCLC) and yours is a "tp". You'll have to decide which one to keep. Also, by using the "Add New Novel" function, you created a new title, so now there are two title records for this title in the db. (Look at the author's summary page.) They will have to be merged. Does your copy give a publication date? According to OCLC the paperback edition was published in 2002 (the hardcover in 1998). Mhhutchins 19:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No exact date. "Copyright 1998 by Kathryn Reiss". I'm just not very good at hyperlinks, but if you go here: http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Quake-Puzzle-Kathryn-Reiss/dp/0152047077/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354786738&sr=1-1&keywords=0152047077 on Amazon you will see my edition. It lists Harcourt, Inc., which is what I see on the title page, lists this as a "Time Travel Mystery" edition, which is what comes before Harcourt, Inc. on the title page. Looking up other Reiss books, I saw "Time Travel Mystery" associated with one other of her books. I suspect that my entry is a special Scholastic Book Club edition. Hence the "Scholastic Book Fairs Edition" note on this book's back cover.

I remember there being a discussion as to whether or not prestige paperbacks were to be considered trade paperbacks. This is a half inch taller and wider than most mass-market paperbacks. I thought trade paperback, but will bow to others. Peronally I would keep my entry, it has a more complete Note field. MLB 07:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncertain of the term "prestige". But if it's more than 7 inches you've correctly given it as a "tp". But I'm not certain that a paperback would have been released in the same year as the hardcover edition. Please update the record to indicate that there is no stated date of publication and that you've had to resort to the copyright date. You should also change the publisher field to "Harcourt" (the regularized name used for this publisher). I'll delete the old record.

There are a couple of unresponded concerns in previous topics above. I need to know if you've checked the title page for the author credit and spelling of the publisher of The Shining Sword. And did you notice the ISBN on the cover of Great Tales of Terror. BTW you can learn how to hyperlink by looking at the two above examples in the raw edit window of this message. Mhhutchins 16:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I though I had answered the The Shining Sword question. On the title page it reads Charles G. Coleman, Jr.. Later editions, according to Amazon, Coleman dropped the "Jr.", and his later sequel to this novel he didn't use the "Jr." either. This is why I thought that Charles G. Coleman, Jr. should be used as a varient. After all, if he doesn't use the "Jr." anymore for any of the later printings and later novel(s) the "Jr." has become obsolete. Still, I'll leave it to you to decide.

Oh, about the Great Tales of Terror ISBN. Sorry, the front cover reads 0-89375-397-1, the back cover ISBN must be a misprint. I'll change the record immediately. MLB 08:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

[unindent] And what about the spelling of the publisher as given in the record for The Shining Sword? Also, you'll need to make Coleman, Jr. into a pseudonym of Coleman. (And again, names can not be made into variants of another. You can make one into a pseudonym of another.) Mhhutchins 14:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Fate's Edge by Ilona Andrews

I added some information to the "notes" portion of this publication -- nothing major, just stuff it's good to put in when verifying.

• "Ace mass-market edition / December 2011"
• first printing per number line on copyright page
• cover artist per copyright page
• Canada price $8.99
• OCLC <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/706024134">706024134</a> Worldcat

BungalowBarbara 23:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This was one of my early entries into putting things on this database. I'm doing much better now, I did my first in March. Quite frankly, I don't know how I missed the artist credit. No excuse. Thanks. MLB 06:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Outcast

Katherine Tegen is an imprint, not a publication series. I've made the correction in this record. Mhhutchins 14:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Cover image file for PaperQuake

You used the wrong method to upload this cover image. You can see it has a non-unique file name (one you must have given it), it doesn't link back to the publication record, and there is no license tag that protects us from charges of copyright infringement by claiming fair use. You should go back to the publication record and use the "Upload new cover scan" function. Then link the newly uploaded image to the record, and delete the first uploaded image (linked above). Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the image from the pub record. In the future, wait until the pub record is created and don't use the "direct upload" method to upload cover images (don't use the "Upload File" link on the wiki.) Only use that method if you're uploading any other image file. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 15:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

2nd printing of Nightshifted

Is this printing explicitly dated? Mhhutchins 15:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

First printing: June 2012. Second printing must be 2012 as 2012 has yet to end. Second printing cannot be 2011 as that would have been the year before' the first printing, and it could not have been printed in 2013 as time travel has yet to be invented, I think (I just got the March 2013 issues of some of my sf magazines, so maybe time travel has been invented). When I verify this, the year of printing will be obvious. Perhaps a note in the Note field should have been done mentioning this? MLB 07:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. When I cloned I forgot to change the original date. Sorry. Changed the date. Again, sorry. MLB 09:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now. Please add a note concerning this before the end of the year. Otherwise the point will be missed. Mhhutchins 15:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. MLB 08:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Beneath Ceaseless Skies #10

I'm holding your submission to update this record. It appears that you want to change this webzine into an ebook. Unlike the former type, the second one is downloadable, making it an ebook instead of a webzine. I went to their website and could not find the pdf of this issue. Could you please give me the URL or link it here? BTW, webzines with few exceptions are not eligible for inclusion in the database. I'm not sure what makes Beneath Ceaseless Skies exceptional (based on the rules, not the quality of the publication for which we don't make value judgments). I see that some of the issues are downloadable, making them ebooks, thus eligible for the database. The editor creating the records must have entered the webzine issues for completeness. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

When I updated this entry, I didn't do the original, this is what I saw: Beneath Ceaseless Skies #12 only it was issue #10. I swear it. I didn't make it up. Now I can't get it back up. I find it hard to believe that they cancelled the PDF overnight. This is the first webzine I have ever bothered to look at. Foolish me, I should have kept the address. I only found this while looking up Erin Cashier, who seems to be author Cassie Alexander. MLB 10:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If they post the PDF again, download it to your computer. That's proof enough that it exists as an ebook. You shouldn't be surprised that something that was on the internet yesterday is not today. (Books on a bookshelf disappear as well.) I'll do a search and try to find a back door. They may have moved it to a location which isn't linked to main index. If I can't find it, I'll cancel the submission. Mhhutchins 15:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I found PDFs for #1, #2, and then it jumps to #12 and then all issues following. Those issues before #29 had the same cover art: "Endless Skies" by Rick Sardinha. The first issue that I've been able to find with "Spring Sunset" by Andres Rocha is issue #46 (this is the art you gave as the cover of issue #10.) Mhhutchins 15:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Serpent's Shadow

Why did you remove the date and the source of the date from this record? Also, is the "Glossary" more than a glossary that would justify creating a content record for it? Ordinarily such lists are not given separate content records, but can be noted in the Note field. Mhhutchins 16:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the source of the date from this record because I just bought it for my niece and it has no exact publishing date other than it was published this year. The publisher's website was of no help, and since the date on the copyright page was definite (2012) and, as it has been pointed out to me, Amazon is unreliable. So I used the most definite date possible, which was 2012. I’ll put in the Note field what date Amazon.com uses.

I listed the glossary because the glossary also references and lists the hieroglyphics that are used in the book, and reprints them with their meanings, and since these are given a special credit on the copyright page I thought listing it was important? MLB 08:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

When a book is only year-dated, then you are encouraged to give a month- or day-date from a reliable secondary source. That's the ISFDB standard and Amazon's dating is used quite frequently in these cases. You've done it yourself in numerous records. I would not use Amazon dating for books that were published before 2000, but they are quite reliable for day-dates since then. The only circumstance to not use Amazon's day-date is when the publication is month-dated, which takes precedence over all secondary sources, unless it's been proven that the publisher's date is incorrect. Mhhutchins 16:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a correction is on the way. MLB 07:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

G-8 and His Battle Aces

I have approved your latest G-8 and His Battle Aces submissions, but now that I am looking at Robert J. Hogan's summary page, I wonder if that's how we want to present the data.

I haven't read any G-8 stories, but as far as I know (and SFE3 agrees), many of the novels were SF. My thinking is that we will want to enter all 110 magazines issues (bare bones data at first if we can't easily find the details) with novel length texts set up as "(Complete Novel)" Serials. We can then turn these Serials into VTs of Novel records and enter any reprints via "Add Publication". Various 1970s-2010s reprints will have different numbering schemes, which we will capture as Publication Series, so there will be no conflicts between them.

What do you think? Ahasuerus 02:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This all works for me. Separating different publisher’s series makes sense. Whatever the consensus decides. Somewhere around here I have the Adventure House reprints from issues 8 through 43 and I'm filling in the earlier ones in my collection. All the ones that I own have a fantastic premise to them. Check out these two reviews on Amazon.com Adventure House reprint #18 and Adventure House reprint #30. There used to be a site on the Internet that had a chart showing the novels, the order of publication, what continuing villains were in each novel (these were unique in that, like comic books, G-8 had reoccurring villains), and what the fantasy content was in each of the novels.

It also might help that Adventure House is reprinting these fantasy pulp novels in the exact order in which they were originally published. Not having any of the pulps, I don’t know exactly how much they were edited for facsimile reprinting. I’m sure the novels aren’t, but I know that the features seem to be at times, and that they don’t reprint the, then current, ads that most of these facsimiles have. Although later issues edited out less and less of the ads. Perhaps because the pulps were shrinking in size by then. Somebody with the pulps will have to, at least, spot check them and find out how much the reprints were edited, if at all. Maybe I should refrain from posting anymore of my facsimiles until the matter is resolved? MLB 08:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the title "G-8 and His Battle Aces: Adventure House Reprints" should be applied to the whole magazine/anthology instead of just the novel itself. MLB 11:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the series and the novel series. Is this more in line with what you think may be better? I'm wondering if the date of the magazine should be substituted for the novel's title for "Anthologies"? Let me know how this looks to you now. MLB 15:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted the other day. I had a somewhat different approach in mind -- give me another 12-24 hours and I will try to reshuffle things a bit. Ahasuerus 13:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is what I have done:

• Moved the G-8 novels to the G-8 Fiction series. At first I wanted to call it "G-8 Novels", but then it occurred to me that there may also be short fiction that will need to be added, hence "G-8 Fiction" rather than "G-8 Novels". We can always change the name if we think of a better one.
• Converted the reprint anthologies from a separate series to a publication series. We can also set up a separate publication series for the Berkley Medallion reprints which appeared in 1969; ditto any other reprints. "Publication (or publisher) series" let us organize unrelated (or tentatively related) books presented by a publisher as a series (e.g. Ace Doubles) without affecting regular title grouping.
• Kept G-8 and His Battle Aces as a regular series for EDITOR records, which also lets you view the pulps as a grid.

What do you think? If it looks OK, then we just need to add the rest of the pulps and reprints, but hey, what's a couple hundred pubs, right? :-) Ahasuerus 07:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. The problem, I think, is that this site has no hard and fast rules for how to treat either novel or magazine facsimiles. This all above my pay grade, I'm just a lowly contributor who is a fan of popular literature. Back to work. MLB 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose once somebody with all the pulps decides to enter them, everything will have to be revised. But that's then, not now. MLB 17:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Fearsome Island

Your verified The Fearsome Island is listed as a CHAPTERBOOK publication containing a NOVEL. This should either be a NOVEL publication containing a NOVEL or a CHAPTERBOOK publication containing a SHORTSTORY. Can you please double check and revise correspondingly? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. This was a novella and I have revised the entry. MLB 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Fearsome Island"

I accepted your changes to The Fearsome Island and fixed up the content records (removing the Novel, adding a Chapterbook), but I'm not convinced this and the "novel" are two different things. Seems more likely it's a borderline novella / novel, and we might be best off treating it as the latter. I don't really know, and I'm not telling you to change anything -- It's just an observation. --MartyD 15:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just going to take somebody that owns the original and the reprint and then to compare the two editions to truly answer the question to this. MLB 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Last Planet / A Man Obsessed

Modified cover artist 1 from Barton to Harry Barton, cover artist 2 from Peyton to Bernard Barton, for this Ace Double. The Bernard Barton credit comes from this auction house. Horzel 14:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary source credits

For the artist credit on the various The Death Cure publications, the standard practice for making a determination based on another book would be to treat that identification as a "secondary" source and record it in the notes. Something along the lines of "Artist credit based on match to cover of xxx, where yyy is credited." For these particular ones, the Amazon Look Inside shows the Straub credit, and Amazon is listed as a source of the data, so it's not necessary. Just wanted you to keep it in mind for the future. Thanks. --MartyD 12:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Interiorart records for cover art

I'm holding the submissions to make variants of the interiorart records in this publication to the records for the original cover art. The problem is the titles and artist credit are identical, so there is no need to create variants. The question then becomes how are the interiorart pieces titled in the reprint anthology? I doubt that the piece you've entered as "Cover: Amazing Stories, March 1939" is the actual title given in the publication. If it's only "Amazing Stories, March 1939", then I can justify varianting it to this record. (Some editors have chosen to enter such interiorart pieces in the format "Amazing Stories, March 1939 (cover)", but I personally feel the disambiguation isn't necessary if you're going to variant it to the cover art record.) I'll keep the submissions on hold, if you decide that the titles you've given to the interiorart records should be changed. Mhhutchins 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to imitate the format that I saw on other cover reprints. These images in this book have no titles, there is an image of the cover, a paragraph detailing what the cover is about, and then the magazine's title, date, and artist is given at the end of the paragraph. They should have been listed as something, I guess I got it wrong. Sorry. MLB 01:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

When a piece of interiorart isn't captioned, and you want to create a content record for it, you can use any other internal evidence. In this case, the magazine title and date in the paragraph data appears to be the best way to title them, using the method I describe above. Don't enter a title in the format of "Cover: TITLE", because it will be confused with a COVERART title record which is automatically generated when a publication with cover art is accepted into the database. (This format is restricted to COVERART title records, while INTERIORART title records are manually titled as they're given in the publication.) I will change the title of these records and then accept the submissions to create variants. Mhhutchins 01:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A question: is the cover art by Easley reprinted as an interioart piece on page 1? Mhhutchins 01:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

One last thing: you should count the number of unpaginated pages on which the covers appear and add them (in brackets) to the page count field. Thanks. Mhhutchins 01:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

About the above, thanks, now I know. The interior artwork by Jeff Easley is a black and white reproduction of the cover art. MLB 19:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A question. How did the cover of Amazing Stories, July 1946 end up being a variant of something by by Harlan Ellison? Wasn't 1946 long before he made any professional sales? And I don't think that he has ever done any artwork other than a cartoon or two. MLB 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it was varianted to the number of the pub record (56412) in stead of the title record for the cover (146821). Corrected now. --Willem H. 20:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)