User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2015May-Aug

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Replacing already uploaded cover artwork

I've been having issues with replacing the cover art already uploaded for editions that have wraparound art where the uploaded version is only the front portion - for example the Corgi editions of Piers Anthony's Omnivore, Orn and Ox. Any suggestions ? --Mavmaramis 11:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to this file? It appears to be OK. Are you remembering to clear your browser's cache? If you don't hit "F5" (on most browsers) you'll see the previous version of the file. Can you be more specific about the problem you're having? Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Eric Schaller

I saw that you fixed my first correction on another discussion page, so I am going directly to you. Eric Schaller would like his story "To Assume the Writer's Crown: Notes on the Craft" (from Shadows and Tall Trees 6, 2014) listed as a story and NOT as an essay (He states "it is a story written in the form of an essay") also for Mr. Schaller, his story "Automata" (listed as unpublished on his page due to the non-publication of Polyphony 7) was published in A Capella Zoo, Spring 2014. this can be confirmed on the A Capella Zoo website. My apologies for this contact, I have a great eye for bibliography and minimal computer skills to actually edit isfdb. Roger S —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogerSSS (talk • contribs) .

No problem at all. If you need for any further assistance, or have a request to add data, please post it on ISFDB:Help desk. That will get a quicker response in case I'm away from the database for a few days (as possibly Chavey is now). Don't forget to "sign" your name at the end of each post with four tildes (~~~~), which automatically gives your user name and dates the post. Thanks for contributing. Mhhutchins 03:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Immortals of Science Fiction

In reference to this book. Cover artwork is credited to Tony Roberts in this book. I was unaware of another edition other than the Pierrot softcover. Entry in this reference states "was printed but never released (although apparently copies have been circulated)" --Mavmaramis 12:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess my only response can be "I have a copy of it in my hands." Mhhutchins 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Essays on Simak in Locus

Michael, there are two essays on Simak in Algol, Summer-Fall 1977. The piece by Heinlein is in fact a letter, which begins "Dear Cliff, Or should I address you as 'Mr. Simak'?". It is a congratulation on Simak receiving the Grand Master Nebula Award. Later on there are some musings on Simak's writing technique and ends with what Heinlein likes best about Simak's stories. Last lines: "So it gives me great pleasure to join in this celebration. With admiration and respect, I remain Sincerely yours, Robert A. Heinlein." There is a possibility that it was varianted as this essay on p. 75 of Locus, #329 June 1988.

The piece by Williamson could be reprinted as this essay on p. 45 of Locus, #330 July 1988. It is also a letter, rather short (about 250 words) and begins "Dear Cliff: I'm completely delighted that you are getting the Grand Master Nebula". Do you have access to the issues in question? Christian Stonecreek 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Both Locus pieces are exactly as you describe. Please proceed to make the necessary varianting or merging as needed. Mhhutchins 01:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for checking, Michael! Christian Stonecreek 07:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong cover art uploaded

In regards to this image is incorrect - blame too many Lovecraft bibliographies. I got the two I put in last night mixed up. I have uploaded the same file for the correct book. Sorry about that.--Mavmaramis 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

David G. Hartwell in The New York Review of Science Fiction, January 2010

I have put a Title Update submission that would have changed "David G. Harwell" to "David G. Hartwell" in your verified The New York Review of Science Fiction, January 2010 on hold pending your return. Ahasuerus 00:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It was an obvious typo. I see common sense has prevailed and the submission has been accepted. Mhhutchins 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Now it has been :) Ahasuerus 02:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I see now. Because you linked to the pub record, I was looking at the publication's editor credit, and not to the content title in question. Thanks for straightening it out. Mhhutchins 03:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

SF Commentary #89

I've finished adding the most recent issue of SF Commentary here. As you may already know, Bruce has included Michael Bishop's essay 'How I Both Wrote...', but there is also A Necessary Postscript' (which I hasten to add is all about you ;) ). Was it included with the essay's original appearance in NYRSF? If not, it's there; if it was and is part of the original essay feel free to delete it. There's currently no ebook version available, but I expect Bruce will put it up on efanzines.com in the near future. PeteYoung 09:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I received my copy of SFC #89 in Saturday's mail and saw that someone had already started entering its many contents, assuming it was you. Yes, the PS is in all three appearances: NYRSF, the afterword to the Fairwood edition of Who Made Stevie Crye?, and now SFC #89. (The first printing of the second appearance has a typo or two which were corrected in later printings.) So it was OK to merge all appearances. Thanks. Mhhutchins 14:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I just noticed that you created a separate record for the PS. Since it was part of all publications, it should be removed and deleted. Mhhutchins 14:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My question about Series

Hi, I asked a question on the help desk about ISFDB:Help_desk#A_few_more_possible_series, but so far got no answer. Is it because, the question is not clear enough (eg reference to fantlab.ru) in that case i can give more details, or you just didn't have time to look at it yet. Thanks, Qshadow 10:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Answered there. BTW, when adding a new post to a wiki page, use the plus tab to create a separate message. This was piggybacked onto the previous message and I almost missed it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! (btw i didn't know about the plus) Qshadow 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Orbit Science Fiction Yearbook Two

Cover artist for this book is Brian Waugh, he's credited in Sztuka Science Fiction Art. Horzel 20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with the Arabian Nights books

I'm glad they are finally all in there. I appreciate all your help with them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Etchison's "It Will Be Here Soon"

I am trying to determine whether Dennis Etchison's "It Will Be Here Soon" is a part of the Jack Martin continuity. When you get a chance, could you please check your verified The Dark Country to see if the name "Jack Martin" appears in the story? TIA! (I should probably note that "Jack Martin" is also one of Etchison's pseudonyms, but there is no known relationship between the pen name and the series.) Ahasuerus 00:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The protagonist of this story is named Jack Martin. So I've placed it into the series. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Ahasuerus 23:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

TriQuarterly #49

I added content items for the interior artwork (essentially frontispieces for each story) for your verified publication, along with one minor note. (The artwork included a new misspelling of "Frank Kelly Freas"!) The poem on p. 77 is currently listed as by Thomas M. Disch, but is actually bylined as by "Tom Disch", which seems odd since a later contribution by him is credited using his canonical name. Anyway, that should be corrected and varianted, but I'll leave that to you. Chavey 10:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not unusual byline, since his poems are almost always credited to "Tom Disch", the name by which he is more known outside of his spec-fic work. I'll make the correction. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 19:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hugo Winners, Volumes One and Two

When you find the time, could you please have a look at this verification request, you are one of the primary verifiers of the book in question. Thanks, Patrick -- Herzbube Talk 14:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Weirdbook Disambiguation

After your advice in the helpdesk I thought I'd go through some of the publications for mags I'm interested in to see how they handled the interior art disambiguation. While going through Weirdbook I noticed in some of those you are prime verifier on there were instances where the disambiguation seemed unnecessary. Am I missing something? The issues were Weirdbook 19, 20, 21, 22, 23/24, 25 and 26. If these indeed need adjustment, I'd be happy to do it for you if you're too busy. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Look again at those records and you'll find that after my initial verification, another editor came along and did a second. As I said in my original response to your question on the Help Desk, some editors are more zealous when it comes to recording the contents, sometimes even zealously wrong. In most of the cases where the interiorart was disambiguated unnecessarily, the records should be corrected. If I recall correctly, I did not enter those interiorart records, some of which may be spot illustrations or space fillers which have no direct connection to surrounding text. It was always hard to tell with Weirdbook because the illustrations rarely seemed to illustrate the actual story. I think Ganly obtained the art and then tried to match it with a story in inventory.
Looking at this record (which you list above but which I did not primary verify, even though I have a copy of that issue), you can see the pattern of unnecessary disambiguation from the primary verifier is similar to the that done in my records. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to go back and correct these mistakes, even though they should have been caught by the moderator or at least brought to my attention as the PV editor. I have decided to limit my time on the ISFDB in order to pursue more important things. Feel free to make the corrections based on the rules as I explained them on the Help Desk, including the rule about unattached illustrations. Mhhutchins 20:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I sort of figured that was what was going on but I didn't want to be accusatory. I've seen how meticulous you are with your entries and actually have used your work as a pattern for a lot of the stuff that I do, that's why I was somewhat taken aback by these so I was pretty sure you hadn't done them. Just wanted to check anyway and get your approval to fix them. I'm retired and have lots of time on my hands so that's not an issue with me. I can perfectly understand that a person still working would have to limit his input here. Thanks again, Doug / Vornoff 21:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Repairs submitted. Doug / Vornoff 22:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hospital Station (Corgi SF Collectors Library)

I wanted to check with you the colour of the cover of this book. These SF collector's Library editions were published with either a blue or a purple cover. The image for Hospital Station looks blue to me but my 1976 (reissued) edition definately has a purple cover. Thanks. --Mavmaramis 18:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My copy is also purple, closer to this edition than the current image. You can upload a better scan if you wish, or I could scan my copy which is mint condition. Let me know. Mhhutchins 19:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I can add mine which is also in great condition. I noticed when looking that this book and Star Surgon they have the same ship. Almost certainly the dsame artist but due to the nature of the 'stippled' covers Corgi used for them magnification = pixellation. Thanks for checking. --Mavmaramis 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of Exposé 9 in February 2012 Locus

The February 2012 issue of Locus contains an ESSAY record for the review of Exposé 9. I've just added the subject of this review due to it's inclusion in the Locus Poll Award for Best Art Book for 2012. Would you either like to replace the ESSAY with a review record or, I can do that if you'd prefer. I'll let Hervé know as well. I would guess that an essay was used due to the review's mention that the book includes non-genre artwork in addition to genre art. However, I felt that since it placed in the Locus poll, it merited inclusion. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the review, the work isn't spec-fic. That's why I chose to make it into an ESSAY and not a REVIEW, to prevent someone from creating a record for a work which by itself wouldn't be eligible for the database. Feel free to change it yourself, but I stand by my decision. Let's hope its existence in the database won't prompt other editors to add other volumes in the series. (But that's likely to happen now that you've created a series for it.) Mhhutchins 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Same position here, there's really too much material in the db that don't belong here (packs of audio cassettes of pure romance!).IMHO we're already spread too thin and quite swamped by data from illustration amators (probably 75% of human submissions that I moderate are for artwork).Hauck 06:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Since the reviewer mentions three parts of the book that are "not strictly SFnal", one has to assume that the other sections she mentions are. She even cites several pieces in a "Fantasy" section. So I guess I really don't see how the book isn't spec-fic, or more precisely about spec-fic which is how I understand that art books are eligible under the ROA. Regardless, Locus found it of enough interest to review and the Locus Poll voters found it enough related to vote for it. Of course, their rules are not necessarily ours. At worst, this book would be an edge case and until last year's rules change there would have been no question on its inclusion based on the review alone. In any case, since you've said I can proceed, I will. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem with your decision. It's just a question of proportions. As I understand it, we allow NONFICTION which is "about" sf, I always read this as being more than 50% about sf (e.g. more than half the pages, more than 5 chapters out of 10). If there's one chapter about SF in the whole book, I tend to consider that it's not eligible (like a book on 20th century literature that has a signle chapter about genre, e.g. this one). In this case, we simply lack the data to gauge precisely. Hauck 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The "thin edge of the wedge" concerning art in this database is becoming thicker every day. In the next few years I can see the push for adding all sf-related graphic novels. As Hervé brings up, there are more submissions in the queue about art than there are about fiction. I hate that this situation wasn't handled better from the start, but now there's no way of controlling it. It's one of the reasons I'm cutting back in my time and efforts here. ISF&ADB, anyone? Mhhutchins 16:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gladiator-at-Law

Cover art for this book is by Patrick Woodroffe as per his website here. Record amended accordingly. --Mavmaramis 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this attribution. The work is very much in Woodroffe's style and I should have recognized it. Mhhutchins 19:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Cordwainer Smith - Planet Buyer/Underpeople

Cover artist for The Planet Buyer and The Underpeople is Bruce Pennington from his Facebook page here and here respectively. Records amended accordingly. --Mavmaramis 18:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How authoritative is this Facebook page? It appears to be maintained by fans, and not the artist himself. What proof do we have that the data is correct? It appears that anyone who is a member of the group can post an image and claim it as Pennington's work. At the very least the note should say that the credit is from his "fan" page and not his Facebook page. There's a big difference or at least big enough to question the validity of the data. If anyone told me that the same artist who did such intricately detailed work as this was also responsible for a work as crudely drawn as this, I would only believe it if it were the artist himself. Mhhutchins 04:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You make a fair point, but considering artists styles change over time and if you look through the gallery of his work you do see some cruder work. However, I do tke on board you scepticism and I have asked about the validity of images posted thereon. I'll let you know what (if any) reply I get. This publication has a checklist of covers done by Pennington. BP himself approved this publication and The Planet Buyer is listed. I have also spoken to one of the people (Steve Lines) who runs the site and knows Pennington personally. --Mavmaramis 17:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Please update the two records and give the more reliable source. I would also suggest refraining from using the Facebook fan page as an authoritative source in the future now that you have a more reliable one. Mhhutchins 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(unindent)I can only do it for those two as I do not own copies of Marriott volumes. --Mavmaramis 04:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Super Science Stories (Canadian), December 1942

Hi there.

I have just made an entry into the database for Super Science Stories (UK), September 1952, which has the same cover as Super Science Stories (Canadian), December 1942.

The cover artist is uncredited in the UK edition, so I took it from the original US edition, Super Science Stories, August 1942. The US edition credits the cover to Hubert Rogers, but the Canadian edition shows it by Leo Morey.

Unfortunately, neither the US or Canadian editions have a primary verification, but I noticed you verified the Canadian edition against Miller/Contento.

Do you have any reference books in your collection which could identify which cover artist is correct?

I have Mike Ashley's 'The Time Machines: The Story of the Science Fiction Pulp Magazines', and the cover artist appendix in this book attributes the cover to Hubert Rogers.

Any help to clear up the confusion would be appreciated.

Cheers. Wobber 08:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It appears that someone after my Miller/Contento verification added the cover art credit since they don't give it in their database. I suspect Miller/Contento didn't credit it since it appears to be a knock-off of the original artwork. It was common practice for overseas publishers to have another artist copy the original cover since they didn't have access to the original art. Nevertheless, I went ahead and credited the Canadian edition to Rogers and made it into a variant. Thanks again. Mhhutchins 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the US, UK and Canadian covers next to each other, they do all appear to be different. I wasn't aware that overseas publishers repainted covers, I always assumed they used the original US cover. You learn something new everyday! Wobber 14:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Cover to ERB-dom #45 April 1971

Hi. I made a variant of the interior art credit of "ERB-Dom, April 1971 (cover) (p.46) from your verified The Science Fiction Book: An Illustrated History to the cover record for ERB-dom #45. Also, I've entered two issues of ERB-dom as "ERB-dom" and I notice you've entered the record as "ERB-Dom" with a capital "D". All the references in the publication that I've seen so far use the small "d". Is it all right that I continue that way or should they be changed? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Another primary verifier entered those interior art records (I usually don't create such content records.) My copy of the book is packed away but I'll check if you want. I can only assume that the other verifier entered the titles as published. If so, there's no reason to change them. Please continue as you've been doing. Mhhutchins 20:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No need for you to root the book out, the content was pretty specific so it must be the right one. Thanks for the advice, Doug / Vornoff 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thrust

Hi. I've been looking through various magazine records trying to see how different methods of titling the issues affects how they are displayed on the grids and whether I can see if there are preferred methods. Looking through the fanzine Thrust, and on its grid,  I notice that for your verifications up through #25 Winter you place the "#25" along with the season, but thereafter you use only the season (except for #32) and make a note of the number, with the result that the grid changes appearance after #25. Was this done deliberately for some reason I can't figure out? Is there a preferred way between the two? If so, would you like me to change them for consistency? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The preferred method is to record the title as published. When an issue number is prominently given on the front cover, the format is "Title, Number Date". I'm not sure exactly why there's an inconsistency in these titles, but it could be for several reasons. Most likely, I just accepted the way the records were entered by another party without question. (Back in 2007, after first starting to edit the ISFDB, I wasn't about to start rocking the boat.) But unless the publisher changed its method of recording the dates and issue numbers, I agree there should be consistency in how they're titled. Give me a few days to dig these issues out to see if they should be corrected. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mhhutchins 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you can further clarify this - I looked on the New Pub Help Screen under Missing or Variant Dates, it says "If there is no apparent date, or the date is incomplete, a volume/issue number may be substituted. The date is always preferable, even if the magazine typically gives the issue number". To me, this means that if there is a date, even if it's not on the cover, it should be used instead of the number. The question, then, for me is what constitutes an incomplete date (because that would allow a #) - if it has no month or year, obviously there is no date. If it has a month and year it is obviously not missing. So, if it has just a year, is that incomplete? Does a season (Spring etc) count the same as a month so that that would be a complete date? Vornoff 05:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That rules applies only "If there is no apparent date, or the date is incomplete". So it should not be used if there is a date, whether that be a year, a month/year, or a season/year. I suppose in this context an "incomplete date" would mean just the year, but that may need clarification. You're the first person I can recall to ever ask this question. Preferably, all periodicals should be dated in the title, but unfortunately some can not be. The only fall back is the volume/issue numbering. Mhhutchins 07:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
If this could be clarified, wouldn't everyone then know exactly how to title an issue? Let's say that an incomplete date is one in which there is only a year and no month or season. Then you would have:
Use the date only and not the # if there is a month/season AND a year.
Use the Vol and/or # if there is no date at all OR if there is ONLY a year.
If it is desired that editors put in #'s (sometimes along with the dates even) at their discretion despite their being full dates, maybe the Help should be changed to reflect that. Sorry I'm carrying on so long with this but I'm more comfortable when there are rules that cover all the bases for me so I don't have to guess about what's right. Thanks for your patience. Doug / Vornoff 05:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand your dilemma and have the same feelings about having a standard spelled out and set in stone. But sometimes, that just can't be the case and exceptions must be made.
If a periodical makes a point of putting the issue number on its cover, it is recommended that the number be given in the title. But nothing actually requires it. If the issue number is only provided on the inside, then only the date should be given in the title. An ISFDB editor shouldn't dig around the interior of a publication to find the volume and issue data to add it to the title field. In most cases, the title of a periodical should be easily determined by the data given on its front cover. Some periodicals, like Asimov's, provide the whole issue numbers in small print on the inside, but that should not be given in the title. In relatively rare cases, it's a subjective decision in determining whether to give the issue number in the title and that should be discussed by the primary verifiers. Sometimes publishers change the way they title a periodical, and that should be reflected in the ISFDB record. In other words, we should be flexible, but not enough to break the standards. Mhhutchins 07:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this. If this results in further clarification in the Help, then it's all to the good. Some of what you've said here should probably be in the Help. I have a better idea now of how to title. As you may have noticed, I've started entering my ERB-dom's, which typically have the numbers and no dates on the covers, but the dates are on the publisher page. I've been entering the titles as: ERB-dom, April 1971 which will show the date on the grid, but that doesn't reflect the number, prominently shown on the cover, but not part of the title, as say, Weirdbook 17. By what you've said I should probably enter them as "ERB-dom, #45 April 1971", similar to what you've done on Locus. What do you think? Thanks again for your input on this - it helps a lot. Doug / Vornoff 14:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
If the issue number is prominently displayed on the front cover of ERB-dom, you should enter the title in the format suggested, e.g. "ERB-dom, #45 April 1971". That way, both the issue number and the date are displayed on the magazine grid. If you enter the comma after the issue number, then only the date is displayed. Mhhutchins
OK, will do. Thanks again, Michael. Doug / Vornoff 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Naked Lunch: The Restored Text

I cloned from your verified pub to create a new pub because the matching contents have identical page numbers, indicating that they probably used the same galleys for printing. The one discrepancy is 'Editors' Notes", which in my pub appears as "Editors' Note". Can you please check – if it is "Notes" in your pub I'll make the variant. Thanks. PeteYoung 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's "Note". I've made the correction. Thanks for finding the error. Mhhutchins 16:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Chris King {I}

Hello, as you're working on the cleanup reports, I've no doubt that you'll see this soon. I was just wondering if there was a particular reason for such a typography {I} or if it's just a typo in place of (I). Thanks. Hauck 16:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it should have been parentheses instead of brackets. Thanks for finding it. I'll make the correction. Mhhutchins 19:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Under Heaven's Bridge

Cover art for this book is Peter Jones. Confirmed from the artist himself via his Facebook page. I've also replaced the cover with the full wraparound. --Mavmaramis 20:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this credit. Mhhutchins 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Black Oxen", by Gertrude Atherton

You did a Tuck verification of this edition of Black Oxen (back in 2007), which was listed as an 11th printing. That book is listed as a July 1923 printing, but as an 11th printing I'm guessing it's really an "unknown date", and that the date from Tuck referred to the first printing, which I just did a primary verification on. So my guess is that your Tuck verification should be moved to my first printing, and the 11th printing should be an "unknown" date. Or, if this guess is wrong, it may be that we really don't know the month of my first printing, and it should just be listed as "1923". Chavey 22:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

When I verified the record, I'm pretty certain there was no note for the "11th printing" since that's not part of the Tuck listing. In fact, the month wasn't part of the original listing as well. I'll remove my Tuck verification and you can do whatever you need to correct the record, even to the point of deleting it. Mhhutchins 02:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Presumably someone had an 11th printing, and there's value in knowing it went through that many printings, but they erred in simply adding it to the record you had verified. But it seems you should go to the first printing and put your Tuck verification there. Chavey 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've done that, but you need to remove the note about the month of publication being from Tuck. As I said above, Tuck only gives the year. Thanks. Mhhutchins 15:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've also removed the publication date from the record I originally Tuck-verified and someone turned into the 11th printing. Mhhutchins 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I checked my first printing again to make sure it did not include a month. It doesn't, so as you suggested, I removed the publication month from the record. Chavey 01:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Light on Sound

In Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, April 1980, Fabian illustrated the story "Light on Sound". Would you please tell me which two-page illustration shows 4 floating robots in some sort of tunnel or cavern, with a standing woman and man on his knees on the right-hand page? Both pages appear in Art Folio No. 1. Bob 19:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be the title page illustration which spans pages 84 and 85 of the August issue. Mhhutchins 19:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael. Much appreciated. Bob 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Fabian Illustrations in Destinies

You show three Fabian illustrations for the story "The Pilot" in April-June 1979 Would you please tell me which one shows a woman in a space suit, apparently in a ship, fingering a control panel? Bob 22:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be this one. Mhhutchins 23:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise the story "Domino Domine" in January-February 1979 also has three Fabian illustrations. Please tell me which one shows a bearded man's face looming over a battle of spearmen, a castle tower on the right. Bob 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be this one. Mhhutchins 23:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And for the story "Recessional" in Fall 1980, please tell me which illustrations show (1) a nude woman under water floating face up, and (2) a scientist standing over a woman lying unconscious on a table, lab gear on the right with an ape-like creature in the left background. Bob 22:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The first one (floating woman) is this one. The second one (looming ape) is here. Mhhutchins 23:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the variants. Mhhutchins 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael. Bob 17:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lyrical Press?

Just a heads-up since you worked on "Lyrical Press" and separated its two incarnations earlier this year. Checking submission history, I see that Kraang merged "Lyrical Press" and "Lyrical Press / Kensington Publishing Corp." on 2015-07-31 (21:55:26 server time.) If you agree with the decision, I will adjust Fixer's logic accordingly. If we decide to go back to the original scheme, it shouldn't be hard to do since only ~45 pubs were affected. Ahasuerus 23:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, please change it back to the way it was. You should recall the discussion on the Moderator Noticeboard to keep it separate. I'm thinking I even left notes in each of the publisher records that they are not the same and should not be merged. Maybe I was wrong. Please direct Kraang to that discussion. All records after the summer of 2014 should be "Lyrical Press / Kensington Publishing Corp.". Will that have to be done manually? If so, tell Kraang to have fun. Thanks for informing me. Mhhutchins 00:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There was no note not to merge. I've moved all pre 2014 pubs back to Lyrical Press. Did Lyrical ever do any ebooks or are they all by Kensington? Kensington's name is on the 2008 - 2013 ebooks. If all by Kensington then we should re-date them to 2014 or 2015 to match the amazon date in notes. Thanks!Kraang 02:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Those ebooks published before 2014 which credit Kensington are a) either dated incorrectly (because the publisher chose to use the print publication date when reprinting them as ebooks) or b) the publisher credit as been retrofitted for those pre-acquisition publications. I'd go with a) but wouldn't feel comfortable changing the records until we have a more definitive answer. Mhhutchins 03:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed some ebooks that were entered before 2014 and found mention of a Lyrical ebook in a look inside 2009 book. Any with a Amazon 2015 or Kensington mention I've left. I'll leave some notes on the publishers page about the retro-dated ebooks.Kraang 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) A quick note about automated changes. Although it's usually possible to automate "mass change" projects, even a trivial change requires at least 15 steps on my side: software changes, testing, repository commits, etc. Some steps are very straightforward, some are less so, but typically it's faster to change <100 records manually than programmatically, especially when you consider the likelihood of something going wrong with software changes. Ahasuerus 05:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Ways of Love and Party Line

In Destinies, Jan-Feb 1979, Fabian illustrated the story "The Ways of Love". Six of the illustrations are in More Fantasy by Fabian. In order these are: (1) a spaceship flying up nearly vertical, (2) a man in a spacesuit screaming as he exits a doorway with two other creatures in the foreground, (3) s Darth Vader-like alien in a spacesuit carrying a man into a doorway, (4) a spacesuited alien behind a masked man or creature with a pistol in his hand and (5)the same alien in a space suit and a mad seen though an opening in leafy plants. Would you please enter the variants or let me know which illustrations match those in "More Fantasy"? Bob 19:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

None of the eight pieces are like your description of (1), but there is one similar (the second piece) which has a spaceship almost horizontal with Fabian's "SF" signature in the lower right corner of it; (2) is the first piece; (3) is the third piece; (4) is the seventh piece; (5) is the eighth piece. You didn't describe the sixth piece in More Fantasy by Fabian. And I didn't see any contents in that publication for this story. Mhhutchins 22:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael. I said six illos, but there were only five; sorry. The first one must be the same as the magazine's second; the one in "More" has SF in the lower left corner, which would become the lower right if the ship were horizontal. Why it was rotated in the book I don't know. Perhaps to fit better on the page. Bob 01:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In Destinies, Nov-Dec 1978, Fabian illustrated the story "Party Line". Four of these illustrations are in More Fantasy. In order these are (1) the head of a man with a weird head dress that includes an aerial from the forehead, (2) a more or less vertical woman with a stripe from foot to shoulder and a sunset over the sea, (3) a seated nude woman with stripes around her leg, arm and torso and (4) a number of many-legged creatures under a number of domes. Would you please enter the variants or let me know which illustrations match these? Bob 19:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(1) is the first piece; (2) is the second piece; (3) is the fourth piece; (4) is the third piece. As above I didn't see any contents in More Fantasy that matched these titles, so I'll leave it to you to do the varianting. Mhhutchins 22:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your trouble. Much appreciated.
I just accepted the submission to add more contents to More Fantasy. You can now make the variants. Mhhutchins 22:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
A request: before adding more contents in publications credited to Stephen E. Fabian would you first create variants for those titles which are currently credited to the pseudonym. It would be much appreciated. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
My problem with this is that if I variant the content to Stephen Fabian, then I can't tell the items I have completed from those I have not. Until I click on the content item, it's blue. After, it becomes purple. This is very useful to me as I work my way through the content because I can't always move through them in order. I click on merged items to force the color change and keep track. Also, of course, the items that I can variant to other pubs eliminate the need for the simple name change, meaning there are more edits than need be. Is there some reason that it is important to remove the pseudonym credit as quickly as possible? Bob 01:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No pressing need, except that they keep showing up on the nightly clean-up reports as errors. My point was that it would be better to clean up one publication at a time. You were still adding new publications under the "Stephen E. Fabian" credit while there were many titles from previous publications that hadn't been cleared. My suggestion was that you complete the work on one publication before adding another one. Mhhutchins 02:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand and will try to avoid this in future. There was a legitimate reason I was working this way; I wanted to be certain that when I created variants, I used the first publication of the item as the base. But I can see that it's annoying to work that way and will not do so again. Thanks for mentioning this. Bob 21:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Death Chants" by Craig Strete

I corrected a typo in your verified publication: In entering the ToC, you had copied a page number for one story from the story above, resulting in two stories being listed on p. 38. There's another change I believe is necessary, but per your wishes I'll mention it here and let you correct it. The author on the cover is "Craig Strete", and the book is listed by him. But the author on the title page is "Craig Kee Strete", and hence it should be listed "as by" that name. Chavey 22:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd only been here at the ISFDB a couple of months when I primary verified that record, probably from previously entered data and unaware of the title page credit policy. Please go ahead and make the correction. You'll also have to change the credits for each story and then create variants for all titles to the canonical author. Thanks for finding this. Mhhutchins 22:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I figured it was from your early verifications. I fixed the book and the stories. Chavey 02:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

One Immortal Man

In Science Fiction Review, May 1978 and several subsequent issues, the serial "One Immortal Man" is illustrated by Fabian. Would you please tell me which illustrations in those magazines show (1) a man with a gun in one hand and a knife in the other with a woman sitting on his right and another woman kneeling on his left, all surrounded by leaves, and (2) a black man and woman holding hands, flames behind them? These are in More Fantasy by Fabian, pp. 92 and 93, respectively. Bob 22:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The first one is the cover art for Issue #25. The second is the title page art for the second installment in Issue #26. I'll variant them. Mhhutchins 22:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you confirm the title given for this piece? The work illustrated is One Immortal Man. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael. I fixed the title about the same time I left you this note. Bob 17:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sand wars

You say: "Different titles should be varianted. I’ll do it.". But they are NOT different. It's one cover with three titles which are named. From the dual books it's established that the cover title gets the name of the actual book it refers too. So here the three covers get three different names and these three names are identical to the original books, so they should be merged. Thus I submitted the merge request. --Stoecker 17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Same art but with different titles or different art credit must be varianted, not merged. You can only merge when the titles and artist credit are identical. In this case, the three cover records attached to this publication must have the same title as the publication itself, not its contents. You're confusing the publication (the "book") with its contents (the "works"). Mhhutchins 17:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
No. I'm not confusing this: E.g. this pub http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?7351 has two titles: "Cover: Ghost Breaker" and "Cover: Clockwork's Pirates". The Sand Wars pub we're talking about has 3 covers. Each of them is indicated by name directly on the combined cover. Where's the difference, that for the Ace Double it should be handled one way but for the combined cover another way? --Stoecker 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
When the record for that Ace Double was created there would be one cover record with one title: "Cover: Clockwork's Pirates / Ghost Breaker" credited to Karel Thole. It was only through manipulating the software (as I explain on your talk page) that we are able to have two records with two different titles credited to the same artist. (This procedure hasn't been done for every Ace Double. I started on that project a while back when the software was changed to create multiple cover art records and I only did a few hundred of them. There are undoubtedly hundreds more that need to be fixed in the database.)
Ace Doubles are not handled the same way that ordinary omnibus publications are handled. There is no single title page representing both titles (like the publication for The Sand Wars, Volume 1.) The Ace Double has two title separate title pages so each of those titles are recognized in the title field of the single publication record. The Sand Wars omnibus has a single title because that's how the book was published. If it was titled Solar Kill / Lasertown Blue / Celestial Hit List (like this omnibus) then I would understand that each of the cover records would have separate titles. But since the Sand Wars publication has only one title, then the title of the cover records should match that title, and then be varianted to the original cover record. Mhhutchins 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Makes no sense to me. This looses the proper name attribution without any good reason. Anyway I'll submit it as variants even if I still think that's wrong. --Stoecker 19:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What's "wrong" about following the ISFDB standards? It is a basic tenant of the database that a cover art record should have the same title as the publication for which it is used. If the standards are "wrong", then work to change them, but in the meantime, accept them. Mhhutchins 21:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Twilight River

Fabian did the interiorart for Twilight River; one illustration in Women & Wonders. It shows what looks like a woman vampire on top of a coffin with a man, a woman and a wizard in the background. Would you enter the individual art works in the book and identify this one (or variant yourself; p. 62). Bob 19:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I did it just to help you clear the Stephen E. Fabian page, but ordinarily wouldn't enter multiple records for the interior art of a book publication. I feel it clutters the publication record, and dilutes the purpose of the ISFDB, a speculative fiction database, not an art database. Mhhutchins 20:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael. Bob 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Michael, there are two more illustrations from this pub in Ladies and Legends. The one on p. 62 shows a wizard, sword in hand, standing over a woman unconscious on a table or altar, and the one on p. 63 shows a man throwing a punch at a hooded man with a lantern (the same wizard?), a young, scantily-clad woman in the foreground. Would you variant these two please? Bob 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you once again, Michael. Bob 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hot Sleep

I can't remember any discussion, but in my memory, and my personal database the title of this publication was 'Hot Sleep: The Worthing Chronicle', as stated on the titlepage. Do you remember changing it? Thanks, --Willem 09:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember changing it, but if that's how it is on the title page then it should be recorded that way in the title field of the publication record. (Not necessarily in the canonical title.) My copy is packed away, but I'll pull it out if you wish. Otherwise, feel free to change it. Thanks. Mhhutchins 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I asked the verifiers of the first edition to check before changing anything. Thanks, --Willem 20:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I pulled out my copy and made the changes in the title field of the publication record. Again, I don't believe the canonical title should be changed since it is already entered into the series. I also believe the series should be removed from the title field of Capitol as well. Mhhutchins 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I can live with that. I removed the series from 'Capitol' --Willem 09:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2015May-Aug&oldid=410589"