User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 2017

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks for following up with my notes

The moderator note is the only place I can put a note for myself as well - and I've noticed that you usually follow them and variant/change language where noted (so I do not need to send a second submission). I am verifying after every approval to make sure I did not miss something and noticed that it seems to happen all the time when you are approving. Feel free not to if the queue is in a bad shape - I will get the second updates in. Annie 01:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, you make it easy. Thanks for doing all this clean-up. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Side effect of the fact that I need to wait for an approval before I submit the next step - and that can take a bit. Thus putting notes everywhere. Plus I get easily distracted and this way I do not leave messes in the DB when I need to run and then forget I had something in the middle of getting fixed. :) Annie 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess it is time again to say thanks for following my "next steps" notes - I was just going to do my imports once the records were accepted and saw you had them done. Again :) Annie 22:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well again, you made it easy. :-) With the numbers in the moderator notes, it was easy to just copy and paste them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for the explanation of why you rejected my edit. I'm brand new, and working my way through the various FAQs and so forth. I expect to get better at this as I go, KarenHunt 17:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, it's fine. We understand there is a bit of a learning curve. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for the primer on initials! I'll do better next time. Zinnia 01:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about "The Mysterious Stranger"

In an anthology you verified, Dracula's Guest, there's a story called "The Mysterious Stranger" which has the date in the database of 1823. Now, the editor of Dracula's Precursors says that this story was "originally published in German in 1823 and translated into English soon after" and in Dracula's Guest Michael Sims says it was first published in English in 1860. If this is true, then the story should have the date of 1860 in the database (and should be merged with this record). By the way, according to Douglas A. Anderson, this story is a translation of Karl von Wachsmann's "Der Fremde", whose earliest known publication date is 1844, but that doesn't affect the question of its earliest publication in English.

Anyhow, my point is, after I collect responses from other verifiers who have this story in various anthologies, I intend to change the date of this record -- any objection? --Vasha 19:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No objection. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Just found more info. Here's Mike Ashley, in his 2013 Vampires: Classic Tales, where the author is given as Karl von Wachsmann: "When this story first appeared in translation in England, in Chambers's Repository for February 1854, it bore no author credit and has remained anonymous until now. [Footnote: I am indebted to Douglas A. Anderson and Thomas Honegger for tracing the identity of the author of this story and for providing background details.] Its original source was unknown and when Montague Summers included it in his anthology Victorian Ghost Stories in 1934, he wrongly dated it 1860. As a consequence, the story has been robbed of its true importance. It first appeared in Germany in 1844 and is therefore the earliest known vampire story to be est in the Carpathian mountains, the setting for Dracula's castle." --Vasha 00:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Strange Brew

I've replaced the Amazon cover art for Strange Brew with a scan of my copy. --AndyjMo 14:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Variant etiquette

Title 929551. Is this legitimate use of variant when cover illus is used also as interior illus. --Pwendt

Yes, if cover art is reprinted as interior art, the interior art record is varianted to the cover art record. And vice versa. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I think 'twere best that INTERIORART title disambiguation "(cover)" were temporary, valid only while the original is not in the database. --Pwendt|talk 19:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Making a variant for A Ghost of Glory

Hi, looking into Fantasy an Terror, Number 10, I think the editor has mistakenly entered all words beginning with capitals (and looking in fictionmags I think he stopped at three-quarter of the way).--Dirk P Broer 14:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I will take it up with her. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I had no idea he was a she. How did you know?--Dirk P Broer 14:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
She's Vonnie Winslow Crist per her moderator notes & I've seen no reason to doubt it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RE rejection of Addition and other notes

Thank you for the information you wrote on my addition/edit on "One in 300". When I was checking the dB for information the Ace D-113 did not show up so that is why I attempted an addition. Of course I did not know at the time you used the Title Page title rather than the cover. If I had searched the ISBN field for D-113 I would have found it. Anyway, no loss, and good lessons learned for starting out.

As I am retired as of last Dec. I will have time to pursue edits and additions as I find stuff and will be a little more savvy after reading the many help files.

I found listings on The Dark Man: Journal of Robert E. Howard studies. I have been on the board of this academic journal since 2001 and cover artist and have copies of all issues from the start. There are a few notes I can make and verify the information as one project.

I was also a member of REHupa for 14 years and have copies either digital (1-200) or physical (154-233) of this APA fanzine, properly named Robert E. Howard United Press Association. I have already created a spreadsheet of the relevant data for each issue so this would be a good project to add into the dB. I did an all files search and only 4 listings showed up under REHupa but the strange thing is that none of the fanzines or books listed in 4 entries really have anything to do with REHupa, except one which is an essay. I will review these and post some questions to see if some information should be changed.

I've updated my email in preferences but there was a typo at first, corrected now but now I can't seem to get it to re-send a confirmation email. How long does it take to reset? that's enough for now. Look forward to your comments. Cheers Scotty

No problem. We would appreciate any information you can add. There is a bit of a learning curve, but hopefully it's not too bad and moderators will be glad to assist. If you have any questions, please ask. Not sure about the email confirmation. It's possible that your service provide is not accepting the emails - sometimes canned messages get flagged as spam. I would try again tomorrow if you still don't receive it. We don't use the email feature frequently. Most conversations occur on the wiki. It's more useful if you don't visit the site often. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The Witch Doctor

I've added a reference to the excerpt at the end of The Witch Doctor. --AndyjMo 15:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've also added the excerpt in The Secular Wizard. --AndyjMo 15:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Mrs. Midnight"

In your verified publication Ghosts: Recent Hauntings, "Mrs. Midnight" is recorded as a short story. However, the author's bibliography indicates it as a novelette, and indeed, I have counted the words as it appears in The Best Horror of the Year Vol. 2, and it is 10,000 words long. I've changed the record; please let me know if you disagree. --Vasha 18:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Price of Power

I added a note with the LCCN to your verified pub 16040. TracyPoff 16:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

HellBound Books Publishing

I changed the name of the older HellBound Books publisher because the newer one states on their website that they are a "new, independent publisher", thus not the same as the old one. You can see on the back of cover of this that the older company did in fact call itself HellBound Books Publishing. --Vasha 21:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I accepted the edits and added notes to the publisher records. This is a case where using the notes to moderator field would be a help. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, do you think that the older and newer editions fo Nightly Visits are different enough for separate title records? --Vasha 21:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Different editors have different opinions. For the collection, since it has two new stories, I would consider it a new record and leave it unmerged with the note you have. For the stories, it depends how much they have been revised. If extensively, than I would leave them separate. If not, merge them. If you don't know, I would merge them. Either way, there should be a note. Which ever way you choose works as long as you add notes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Changed title of 2nd edition collection to "Nightly Visits (second edition)"; merged stories with a note, since I don't know how much they're revised. Thanks! --Vasha 22:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comet, May and July 1941 facsimile reprints

Hello, regarding these two issues of the facsimile reprints of Comet: I've received an OK from the verifier of the reprints to change the attributions for the editorials to "The Editor" in both issues. Thus both original magazine and reprint will use this form. I'll cancel my held submission and submit these changes. Thanks, Ldb001 04:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A batch of nongenre stories - if you disagree please comment

Currently there are numerous non-genre horror stories that are in the database because it's natural to just enter a book of horror or "tales of terror" without figuring out which stories are supernatural. I don't intend to systematically hunt for them, but when I spot one, I like to mark it nongenre. (In the case of classic stories, marking is better than removing it from the database because it'll just get re-added with some new anthology.) At the moment, I've spotted the following stories that I think need such a change, and I'm consulting people who have them in their verified pubs.

Firstly, there's Great Tales of Terror and the Supernatural (verified copies: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7)), which contains "A Terribly Strange Bed," "The Three Strangers," "The Most Dangerous Game," "Leiningen Versus the Ants," "A Rose for Emily," "Taboo," and undoubtedly other non-supernatural ones that I'm not noticing at the moment. Here are verified publications for those and some other stories:

Are there any of those stories you think ARE genre? Vasha 15:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Discussion moved to the Community Portal. --Vasha 01:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


Added cover scan and external IDs to your verified Summerland.SFJuggler 04:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Night Birds on Nantucket

Sorry about that - I tend to click on the links once I submit to make sure they are viable (and cancel if they are not) but apparently missed that one. Annie 00:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to all of us. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nihonjoe's nomination

When you have a moment, could you please review this discussion? As I wrote earlier today:

It's been 5 days since the nomination. Normally (and as per the standard process), it would be enough to determine if we have consensus. However, only 4 votes have been cast so far: 3 in favor and 1 against. I worked with Nihonjoe last year, when he was learning the ropes, but I have processed only 14 of his submissions in 2017, so I hesitate to cast a vote.
I have compiled a list of moderators who have approved more than 50 of Nihonjoe's submissions in 2017 and who haven't voted. I will ask them to chime in based on their experience.

Since you have approved 423 of Nihonjoe's submissions this year, you are on the hit list :-) TIA! Ahasuerus 11:07, 22 July 2017 (EDT)


Why is here the content varianted and not the pub itself? --Zapp 02:15, 22 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't think I understand. The Dutch version is varianted, as a translation, to the German version. Is that not correct? -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2017 (EDT)
You are right, of course. But there was aparently a change in ISFDB. So I remember that in earlier times there was a line in publication page which linked to the title page. Wasn't it? --Zapp 07:00, 24 September 2017 (EDT)
It was Container Title. For example here. --Zapp 07:29, 24 September 2017 (EDT)
Yes, the display was changed. See this discussion. I'm not a big fan in the display inconsistency between publication types (some show the container type and some not), but that might be that I just haven't gotten used to it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2017 (EDT)

Pseudonym relation; BNF id

Hi. You approved my subordination of "Sir Frank Brangwyn" as pseudonym of "Frank Brangwyn" 202406 (LC records also show credits as Frank Brangwyn, R.A., altho not for titles in our database, at my glance). I copied all our Author data for "Sir" to the new parent record but I did not cut that from the new child record. Did you? Or is migration automated when a new pseudonym relation is created?

I removed it. We don't duplicate information on the pseudonym page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2017 (EDT)

P.S. In the queue I have one with too-short note "try another ID format" [1]. Let me confirm that it works. Yesterday I used "33486743s" for one BNF record, as at Wikidata; today "cb33486743s". --Pwendt|talk 20:14, 4 October 2017 (EDT)

Approved. Looks like it works. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2017 (EDT)

The Planeteer

Hi. You approved my submittal of The Planeteer December 1935 and then did title updates and merging of the EDITOR records. On the Planeteer (fanzine) series page, here, the series view shows both 'Jim Blish' and 'James Blish [only as by Jim Blish]'. Is that right? I was thinking it should only be the latter? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 14:58, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

Fixed. Series entry should only be filled in on parents; the variants 'inherit' it from the parent. When using Option 2 of "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work", it will automatically move the series from the variant to the parent. However, since I merged the new record into the existing variant, I should have deleted the series entry (it was already present in the existing parent). Thanks for letting me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2017 (EDT)
Thank you! Doug / Vornoff 15:58, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

Ambrose Bierce

I hope that I am not causing you too many headaches with all the edits to Bierce's Fables. The problem was that the titles previously used for the first edition publication record were often incorrect. So I have done the following: find out what the correct 1st edition story titles are (done); declare that these shall be the canonical titles; create canonical title records by correcting existing records, creating new ones, or unlinking the records if they are varianted to another (edits submitted); unlink all titles that are varianted to the wrong parent (edits submitted). Once you approve everything I will relink it all correctly. For what is pending at the moment, it should be okay to approve things in any order. --Vasha 17:45, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

No problems. We seem to have a slow-down in moderation at the moment. The queue is longer than normal lately. If no one else gets to them, I should have time later tonight. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

The Fantast / The Satellite

Hi. Can you tell me why, in this case The Fantast - 1939 is on a single line by "John Christopher [only as by C.S. Youd] for the seven issues it encompasses, but in this case The Satellite - 1939 has a list of variants, each having its own "as by". Shouldn't the latter look like the former? Did something happen in the merge? Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:48, 6 December 2017 (EST)

Because when I merged the parents, I forgot to merge the variants. With magazines where the editor is a pseudonym, both the variants and the parents need to be merged into a single record for the year. I just merged them. Thanks for pointing that out. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2017 (EST)
Ahh, yes. That makes sense. Thanks. Doug / Vornoff 20:31, 6 December 2017 (EST)

Rejected submission

I see you rejected my deletion of the Tolkien box set. The rules indicate “Boxed sets. A boxed set will typically contain books that have their own ISBNs. In such cases the boxed set is not of interest, as it is only a form of packaging; a note can be made in note field for the books contained in the boxed set, but the boxed set itself does not need a separate entity. If a boxed set or other packaging format does not have separately identifiable publications, however, then the whole package is an omnibus, anthology, or collection, as appropriate.”. Based on the amazon link, it’s just a collection of books. What am I missing?TAWeiss 22:14, 10 December 2017 (EST)

That boxed set has its own ISBN. The help seems out-of-date with current practice as we have many boxed sets. I will raise the issue on Rules and standards discussions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2017 (EST)

Queen Zixi of Ix

With profusely illustrated serials where the art is a big deal, like this, does one also make the interiorart part 1 of 6 etc variants of the interiorart for the novel published as a book, like we do for the text? thanks. gzuckier 21:42, 28 December 2017 (EST)

No, we don't 'serialize' artwork. If we are certain the exact same artwork was used in a serialization and the book publication, than the individual artwork would be listed in the book (vs. a single record for all of them), and the individual serial artworks varianted to the individual book artworks. However, without being able to compare the two or having a secondary source, it's usually better to leave them separate. It's not unknown for artwork to be 'repackaged' (not all the serialized ones used or new ones inserted) in these cases. You could ask Rtrace his opinion as he 'specializes' in Baum's works. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2017 (EST)
opk thanks. gzuckier 14:05, 29 December 2017 (EST)