User talk:Mvhetzel

Welcome!

Hello, Mvhetzel, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Help pages
• Help:Getting Started
• What the ISFDB Wiki is for
• ISFDB FAQ
• Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
• Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.
• Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mhhutchins 16:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Lovecraft's Supernatural Horror in Literature

I'm holding your submission to add a new edition of this title. I believe it's the same as this record which shows the book was published as by "Howard Phillips Lovecraft". Can you confirm that your copy is the same as this record? You can respond here on your user talk page. Click on the [edit] link to the right of this message, write your response in the dialogue that opens, end your message with four tildes (~~~~) which will sign and date it, and then click "Save page". Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct -- I did not see an entry for the Dover edition under the title (only the 1945 ed), thus tried to enter it as a new publication. Thank you for tying the two together so as to be available uniformly. I have verified the newly added Dover addition. Mvhetzel 10:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the Dover printing to my attention, which made me see that it had not been varianted to the original title. Mhhutchins 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Keith Laumer's story The Secret

A question: Laumer's story [1] is shown as present in two titles (correctly). What is not indicated is that they are vastly different VERSIONS of the story. Neither is specifically mentioned or dated in the "previously published" section facing the TP, but the version in Retief: Diplomat at Arms is nearly incomprehensible -- to me, characteristic of later Laumer, whereas the version in The Return of Retief is MUCH more intelligible -- more nearly earlier Laumer (though neither version is his best work). Whole paragraphs and pages are changed, deleted, or added between versions -- nearly every other page is different. Both titles are Baen publications, and Diplomat at Arms is LATER, which I would think would indicate the revision -- but to make it much worse??? The question: should this major variation be indicated somehow? I don't know how to figure out respective dates for the versions, or indicate such in editing. Mvhetzel 11:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'll bring this topic to the attention of two of the primary verifiers, who happen to have both the two editions. They'll probably shed some light into this. You can always post questions like this on the page for verification requests. Stonecreek 13:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I would probably never have noticed the difference. The best way to make it clear, is to add a note to the title record explaining the difference between the two versions. Do you want to try this?

One other thing, the Timescape edition of Retief": Diplomat at Arms was published in 1982, before The Return of Retief (1984), so it's possible Laumer received some comments on the first version and decided to rewrite it. The edition of The Return of Retief I own doesn't mention anything about this (or the previous publication), only that it's a "bonus Retief novelette". Thanks again, --Willem H. 14:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I had not noticed the earlier printing of the Timescape edition, good point. I did think of simply adding a note to the title as you suggest, but had previously noticed several publications of revised titles with notations like (revised) or (rev 1982) appended to the title (such as Sheffield's Transvergence [2] and Laumer's Knight of Delusions [3] so wasn't sure if there was a preferred method of making such differences clear. One concern with simply adding a note to the title: I only have the two editions I mentioned -- wouldn't this method imply that the differences absolutely apply to all publications with those titles? Although this is almost certainly true, I cannot verify it. If you feel the simple note on the title record is adequate, I would be happy to make such a note. Mvhetzel 15:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I have one of the Timescape editions, and you have the Baen, I think it's safe to assume all editions of Retief": Diplomat at Arms have the first version of the story. I'm not completely sure, but I think we use the "(revised)" notation when it's noted in the publication itself. If the difference between the versions is too great, they are treated as two different stories, but I don't think that's the case here. If you think otherwise, we might ask Bill (Bluesman) for his opinion. I think a note should be enough. --Willem H. 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I have added a short note to the title record as you suggested, which I hope is adequate. Thank you for your prompt feedback. Mvhetzel 18:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)