User talk:Rtrace/Archive

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Rtrace/Archive, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ahasuerus 15:13, 5 Jan 2007 (CST)

Skull-Face and Others

The new collection you added, Skull-Face and Others, looks good but I'm wondering since you did not enter page numbers if this was from a secondary source. If so, what's the source so that we can cite that? --Marc Kupper|talk 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed enter this from secondary sources, primarily The Arkham House Companion by Sheldon Jaffery, Starmount House, 1989. I have other sources (Sixty Years of Arkham House, by S.T. Joshi, Arkham House Books, A Collector's Guide, by Leon Nielsen, and the Tuck Encyclopedia) which agree with the contents. I entered dates where I could find them for the individual stories from the online Contento index which unfortunately has no entry for this collection. Should I be citing the source in the Note field? How many sources are appropriate to cite? --Rtrace 00:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as # of sources go one source is fine. If you used multiple sources and they agree it'd be great, but I think not essential, that they all get listed in the notes. The process should not be viewed as burdensome.
What I do is to note the source for each field. For example, if most of the information comes from a catalog I'll cite the catalog as the source for the overall record and then note the exceptions that I got from other sources.
For often used sources you can add them to Sources of Bibliographic Information#Print Bibliographies which will allow to cite The Arkham House Companion (1989) in the publication notes rather than needing to spell out "The Arkham House Companion by Sheldon Jaffery, Starmount House, 1989" every time. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI - I went ahead and used your reply in the notes for Skull-Face and Others. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

At first I thought Ahasuerus had welcomed you earlier this month but I see that was two years ago. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Travelling Grave and Other Stories

The Travelling Grave and Other Stories has been approved, but keep in mind that the first entry in the Contents section is usually set to ANTHOLOGY by default, so it needs to be changed to SHORTFICTION. All fixed now :) Ahasuerus 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Avow?l by Clark Ashton Smith

In The Arkham Sampler, Winter 1949 — other online sources have the CAS poem as "Avowal". Could you doublecheck your source?

The Arkham Sampler, Summer 1949

Your first submission for this pub must be accepted before you're able to update it. I see you added a few more reviews to a subsequent submission. In the future wait until your first submission has been accepted. Then you can update that record. If you create a new submission, you would be creating two records for the same pub. I added those reviews from your second submission to the record that was created from your first. (Normally, I would have just accepted the second and deleted the first pub, but I had already merge several titles from the first pub.) Please determine if the record contains all the updates from the second submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SERIALs and dates

I have approved your "short fiction -> serial" correction, but please note that, as per Help:Screen:NewPub, "Serial installments of a work are always given the date of the magazine in which they appear even if the work has been published previously in book or serial form", so I changed the date to 1949-00-00. Serials are somewhat special for a number of reasons, so we have somewhat special rules for them :) Ahasuerus 03:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Arkham Sampler wiki page

I've created a Wiki page for The Arkham Sampler with links to the pub records for each of the eight issues. Please feel free to update it, add pertinent notes, or work on any of the bibliographic tasks. I also created an editor series, grouping the issues by years. BTW, I was checking out the entry for this magazine in Tymn and Ashley and saw they made a couple of errors. They don't equivocate about Derleth being the editor (normally they would make it clear that he wasn't actually credited in the pub itself.) They also say that the last two issues were 128 pages, and it's clear from your entries that only the last issue had 128 pages. It proves that even the best reference books will occasionally make an error. It also proves we're all human. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arkham House anthology The Shuttered Room

In your submission updating the contents of this pub, you added a piece by T. G. L. Cockcrof. We have a listing for works by T. G. L. Cockcroft, and I wondered if perhaps they was a typo in you submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Bloch's Pleasant Dreams

I accepted your submission updating this pub, but had to revert the changes you made in the title of "The Light-House" (from "The Lighthouse"). Keep in mind that whenever you make a change in a pub's contents, every publication that contains that content record will also be changed. Unless you're quite certain that every publication of this story was published exactly as you've changed it to, it's best to use the change contents method (see this help page). I dropped the original content record (for "The Lighthouse") from the pub record, added a new content record (for "The Light-House"), and then merged the newly created record for "The Light-House" with the existing record for that title. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

C. A. Smith's Poems in Prose

Many of the dates you gave for the poems in this collection did not match up with the records already in the database. Are these dates of first publication, or dates of composition? The Eldritch Dark (a Clark Ashton Smith bibliography) gives this as the first publication of many of these poems, which is how they should be recorded in the database. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I entered the dates from the copyright page, using the earliest date given for each poem (several were listed multiple times). If a magazine was mentioned, I used the cover date listed on the copyright page. If only a copyright date was mentioned, I used that.--Rtrace 05:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That's good. It appears that the website that I usually reference for C. A. Smith information is incorrect in this case. Thanks for the verification. BTW, would you be open to doing a primary verification on the Arkham House pubs that you've been submitting? (Well those that you actually have on hand, and it appears to be quite a lot!) It would be nice to have someone to go to if anyone has questions about those Arkham editions that you can physically verify. The only drawback is that you have to answer questions about those Arkham editions that... well, you get the picture. :) MHHutchins 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Happy to. This page seemed to suggest that I shouldn't verify my own edits ("Editing the publication might be more appropriate"). I also have most of the bibliographic references for verification (missing Reginald 1, and the magazine references), so I can verify with those if need be. I'll always jump at the chance to pull my books down and talk about them.--Rtrace 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That help page is ambiguous at best (not much help really, it looks like a good candidate for updating itself!) What it's trying to say (I think) is that before verifying the pub you should make sure that all the information is correct by first editing the record. The primary verification pretty much trumps any reference verification. But feel free to do those as well. Every once in awhile Tuck, Reginald, Contento et al make mistakes, so it's good to place that or any discrepancies in the pub's note field. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Burks' Black Medicine

Can you tell me if there's a hyphen in the title of the first story in this collection? We have the record of it being published as "A Broken Lamp-Chimney" in Weird Tales, February 1925. I have to determine whether we need to create a variant if there isn't a hyphen in your copy. Just a reminder: use the title as it appears on the first page of the story, not as it is shown on the contents page. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a typo on my part. It's "A Broken Lamp-Chimney" in both the TOC and on the first page of the story. I would guess that the way to correct this is to correct the title in the collection publication since it's the only occurrence of the story without the hyphen. I'm not sure, however, if that messes things up further with linking the stories, so I'll hold off. --Rtrace 06:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I could do it for you, but in case you'd like some practice, here's how. Do an advanced search for "broken lamp" (if you did a search for "broken lamp chimney" only one record would result.) The two title records will be returned. Check the box beside both and click "Merge Selected Records". The next page will show there's several discrepancies between the two records. You must reconcile this by choosing one of the bullets for each area that doesn't match. Then click "Complete Merge". There's another (simpler) way of merging records if the titles match exactly, but I'll get to that the next time you upload a collection in which you add new content. If you need further assistance, just ask. MHHutchins 06:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bond's Nightmares and Daydreams

Is the author credited on the title page of this collection "Nelson Bond" or "Nelson S. Bond"? The cover shows "Nelson Bond" but we have to go by the title page. As it stands now the book is credited to "Nelson S. Bond" and most of the stories are as well. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I went back and forth about this one. He's listed as Nelson Bond on the title page and I originally started to change it in the pub update. However, I thought the title data listed the title as "as by Nelson Bond" though the pub didn't say this. It appears to be different now (or my memory is just bad). I was assuming that the records in the pub were displaying the canonical author name. I'll go ahead and try to fix it. I assume that I update the author name for the collection, and any story that is not contained elsewhere. And for those that are, I would do the two stage swap as I did with the title variants that I discovered. I apologize that I keep making mistakes with entering these items.--Rtrace 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries. That's how we all learned. Heaven knows those help pages are not as good as we'd like. And this is a complicated database for the newcomer. It took me months to figure out the connections. One day somebody (Bill Longley?) is going to diagram how title records and pub records connect. The best way I can describe it (without pictures) is that pub records represent the physical object that you hold in you hand (let's not get into e-books!) Title records are the names we give those objects (without getting into semiotics, after all I'm not Samuel R. Delany!) Title records can represent one or many pub records, after all, books can be reprinted to create another "object". The only way we can represent these connections is to tie them together with a title. Funny thing is, sometimes the names given to the same object (the author's work) can change - either the name of the work or the author's name under which the work is credited. Both will create a variant. The database tries to pull all of the records together by assigning a canonical name, the one "ideal" name that represents the work (novel, story, essay, it doesn't matter.) Others are variants - they're the same work but something is different. Once that canonical name has been assigned, every publication of that work can be connected to it. How do we assign the canonical name? Easy, it's usually the first record entered the database. We can change that if it's determined later that there was an earlier publication under a different title or under a different author, or leave it alone if the later name has become the more popularly used title. At that point, it becomes somewhat objective.
Now to Nelson Bond. Someone has determined that "Nelson S. Bond" is the canonical name, and that "Nelson Bond" is a pseudonym (he used the middle initial in most of his publications so it was easy to determine that it be the canonical name.) Late in his career Arkham House publishes a collection reprinting some of his stories. He (or his publisher) decides to drop the "S". That's fine, but it has created a variant for each story because they were all originally published as by "S". Someone first entered this collection into the database without knowing or considering that the "S" was not used in the book's credits. This makes it harder for someone who has the book to update it. This would take several submissions: change the pub record's authorship, unmerge it from the title record, drop all of the contents, add new contents with the correct authorship, create variants for all of the content records and the pub's title record. The simplest way would be just to delete the current record. Create an entirely new pub record, make the titles variants, and voila! If you want to go ahead and create a new record, I'll accept it and create the variants for you. (Or you can, if you feel up to the task.) Just let me know. I hope this lesson didn't bore you to tears! MHHutchins 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Not boring at all. I'm happy to give it a try myself (so I'll know how going forward). However, I have somewhere I need to be soon, so it will likely be tomorrow.--Rtrace 23:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've recreated the record and corrected the delete. I'd like to go ahead and do the records for the stories myself, i.e. making them variant titles.--Rtrace 20:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was too fast on the trigger. When I saw the first submission creating the new record, I went ahead and made variants. But if you'd like to practice some variants, we're in the middle of a data consistency project creating variants for pseudonymous records. Try doing a few of this person's records. You see this is a pseudonym of Doug Beekman. Try creating variants of some of these records from "Douglas Beekman" to "Doug Beekman". Thanks. MHHutchins 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I noticed that you were working them, so I went on to my next task. I submitted the Beekmans, but actually I'm happy to continue working through my Arkhams and eventually other small press books.--Rtrace 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please continue working on the Arkhams. Just wanted you to get some practice at creating variants and they all were fine. Next project: merging. When you enter another anthology or collection, I'll let you do the merging for contents that already have records in the database. MHHutchins 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mycroft & Moran publications spec-fic?

I recall that this imprint was used for mysteries. Would you say any of these publications contain any speculative fiction (horror, science fiction, fantasy)? If not, we can change them to non-genre, just to keep them in the db (because the authors are mainly known for their spec-fic). Thanks. MHHutchins 22:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Some are. A number of the titles are about supernatural detectives (Hodgson's "Carnacki The Ghost Finder", Quinn's "The Phantom Fighter"). The Derleth Solar Pons are primarily a Sherlock Holmes pastiche, though I believe two of the stories are considered SF. Derleth's "Wisconsin Murders" is true crime, however. The one I thought might be a problem is Harrison's "The Exploits of Chevalier Dupin" since I believe he is primarily a mystery author. However, those are pastiches of a Poe character, and I'm not sure how much, if any supernatural content they contain.--Rtrace 22:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't have to worry about Wisconsin Murders because it's nonfiction. Any fiction that we're certain isn't spec-fic can be changed to non-genre, but only on the book level. Leave short fiction as it is, because the database hasn't been designed to display non-genre short fiction. Of course, leave the supernatural detectives. Don't you love it when genres collide? MHHutchins 23:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating a variant for the Campbell piece

Just to give you idea about how variants work: you just entered this pub, The Arkham Collector, Summer 1968. I see among the contents a piece by J. Ramsey Campbell. Look at this summary page, and you see that this has been determined to be a pseudonym for Ramsey Campbell. You'll also see that the essay you created by entering this pub is the only item listed on his page. Where are all of the other titles that were obviously published as by "J. Ramsey Campbell"? They're all on Ramsey Campbell's page with the extra byline [as by J. Ramsey Campbell]. Go back and click on Cthulhu on Celluloid, you'll go to its title page which will list all publications under which it was published. As it's new, the only publication is the one you just entered. On the left side menu, choose "Make This Title a Variant Title or Pseudonymous Work". On the bottom half of the next page you'll see fields with the title, author, date, and type. You can create a variant by changing any of these fields. We want to make a this a pseudonymous work, so we're going to change "J. Ramsey Campbell" in the author field to "Ramsey Campbell" and submit it. If we knew that this work already has a title record with "Ramsey Campbell" as the author, we would enter that title record's number in the upper portion of the submit page. If we didn't know, and it turned out there was already a record in the db with that title and authorship, it would be very easy to simply merge the two titles. (But if you know the title record you save this extra submission.) Try this out for practice. MHHutchins 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Keller's The Folsom Flint

I'm going to let you create variants and merge these titles. Here's a shortcut to create variants for some of the stories:

  1. Go to the summary page for David H. Keller
  2. Click on the Titles link in the Editing Tools menu
  3. All of the titles in the book you just entered will be listed here, and some should have a corresponding variant already in the system. Check the box for the corresponding pairs, click "Merge Selected Records" and then reconcile the differences. You should keep the original story date (not the collection date), and make sure to keep the variant record number is also bulleted.
  4. After all of the pairs have been merged go back to the page for David H. Keller. For every title left, create a variant as "David H. Keller, M.D." (there is no space between M and D, just the period.).
  5. After these submissions have been accepted, go to the summary page for David H. Keller, M.D..
  6. Click on the Titles link in the Editing Tools menu.
  7. From this list find the pairs of matching titles from the book you just entered. Be sure that they are the same type (in this case SHORTFICTION). Don't merge pairs if the TYPE doesn't match, e.g. don't match SHORTFICTION with NOVEL, SERIAL, etc.

MHHutchins 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see I didn't get to you in time, so that you could avoid a couple of steps, but it's good to see you've learned how to create variants. Several of the stories already had variants (remember once variants are created, the titles no longer show up on the pseudonymous summary page.) You'll have to go to the Titles page to merge those (Step 1 above). Everything else in my list still applies. Good luck! MHHutchins 23:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess I was a little over eager, but it wasn't that much work looking up the variants. I'll try the way you recommend the next time I encounter one like this.--Rtrace 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Margery Lawrence's Number Seven, Queer Street

I've been holding your submission updating this record, because it's going to take a few steps to get it back into shape. When you added contents you overwrote the first content record, which happened to be the title reference record. This doesn't show up in collections or anthologies, but it will be the first content record for novels. In this case, it was incorrectly typed as a NOVEL. You correctly changed the type to COLLECTION in the main header fields, but when you started adding contents you overwrote that very important link to the title record. Just keep in mind, never overwrite any content records, whether you're working on novel, collection or anthology. There are exceptions that you will learn as you become more familiar with the database's structure. Until then, it's best just to leave it alone. Once the submission has been accepted you can always drop any unnecessary contents using the editing tool on the pub record page's menu. Because you made some changes and added the contents I wouldn't want you to have to go through the trouble again. So I'm going to accept the submission, but I'll have to go back in and create a title record so that the pub will appear on the author's summary page. Otherwise it's what we refer to as a "stray publication", that is a pub that is not linked to a title. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's back! Just took one small edit. No big deal. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I got a note from Ahasuerus above for The Travelling Grave and Other Stories which covered a similar (though apparently not identical) situation. In that case it was a collection where I added the contents. However, I just looked at another title in that situation and it doesn't have a full record the first contents item, though it does default it to ANTHOLOGY (which is what Ahasuerus was pointing out. Anyway, that was the source of my confusion and I'll make sure I don't overwrite any real content records going forward.--Rtrace 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lovecraft's Beyond the Wall of Sleep

Do you have a copy of this pub in hand? I thought I'd do a little cleaning on the Lovecraft page and there's two spellings for his collaborator's name: Elizabeth Berkely in this pub, and Elizabeth Berkeley in the collection you just added. I'm hoping it's just a typo in the database. That would be so much easier than having to create another variant! Thanks. MHHutchins 03:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't own a copy, but all of the following secondary sources list the name in that collection as "Elizabeth Berkeley":
  • The Arkham House Companion, by Sheldon Jaffery, Starmont House, 1989
  • Thirty Years of Arkham House, by August Derleth, Arkham House, 1970
  • Sixty Years of Arkham House, by S. T. Joshi, Arkham House, 1999
  • Arkham House Books: A Collector's Guide, by Leon Nielsen, McFarland, 2004
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, by Donald H. Tuck, Advent, 1974
Wikipedia has it as Berkeley as well, but I'm the one who created that article from the above sources. However, no one has corrected it, so I would guess that Berkely is a typo.--Rtrace 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That settles that! Now about 749 more to figure out. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

D. Sidney-Fryer, Donald S. Fryer or Donald Sidney-Fryer

I'm asking your assistance in determining which of the three forms of this author's name should be considered the canonical name. "Donald S. Fryer" appears to have only been used on the Arkham House collection you just entered. And "D. Sidney-Fryer" is used on this 2003 collection. His only other book was the 1978 Donald M. Grant publication of his Clark Ashton Smith bibligraphy which is credited to "Donald Sidney-Fryer". This last was used in several non-fiction pieces throughout the eighties and a couple of poems in the nineties. This is also the name of his Wikipedia article. What's your opinion on which should be pseudonyms and which one is the canonical name? Thanks. MHHutchins 06:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed that he also has a poem in the collection that I just entered credited to Master Donald Sidney-Fryer and he used the pseudonym Dr. Ibid M. Andor for the introduction and notes. He has a web site at and appears to go by Donald Sidney-Fryer for most of his recent publications, so I'd go with that. I have his Smith bibliography and the cover art is one of my favorites.--Rtrace 06:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable decision. Are you up to creating variants for the other two pubs and their contents? You'd also need to make Andor and "Master" a pseudonym. MHHutchins 06:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I can handle it, though probably tomorrow. I basically follow the instruction you gave for the Keller collection above, except that there won't be any existing titles under the alternate name.--Rtrace 07:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Arkham Collector, Summer 1971

The last entry (on page 340) appears to be an essay but it is typed as shortfiction. And congratulations on the Arkham Collector wiki page. Great job. The only thing I can point out is the order in which they're listed. If I had my way, starting from the first issue and preceding down is the best method. For some reason that no one has been able to explain to me, it's in reverse order here on the ISFDB. It started way before I got here and without any input from most of the people who are working the magazines now. The one advantage would be for those titles that are still in print (very few these days!), it's easier to add new issues at the top than having to scroll down to the bottom. But, my god, how long does that take? Two seconds? Anyway, good job. When you've physically verified each issue, you can note that in the bibliographic tasks table. I merged titles for some of the earlier issues when I was accepting the submissions, but it wouldn't hurt to do a second run to see if there's any I didn't catch. I also noticed an entry for "Meade Frierson III". For another inexplicable reason, we enter commas in names with "II" or "III" just like it was a "Jr." So it should be "Meade Frierson, III". Thanks. MHHutchins 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll fix the first two, but I'll ask further about "Meade Frierson III". There is no comma listed in the Summer 1971 issue. Nor was there one for his other poem in the Winter 1970 issue. However, the index at the end of Summer, 1971 does include the comma "Frierson, Meade, III". I was sticking with the name as it appeared at the end of the poem. However, I'll happily change it if you still think I should.--Rtrace 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Guest in the House

Hi, I put this on hold because the variant already exists. The way to link "Guest in the House" with the existing variant is to do a search of the title using "Advanced Search" and to then merge the identical shortstories. I had a look and the parent conflict appears to be set right. If the variant didn't exist your submission would have been fine.Kraang 04:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I got it wrong.--Rtrace 04:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really , your first submission would have worked. You just have to merge the two identical variants. The way we did it is quicker and has potentially less problems.Kraang 04:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles of Solar Pons

On your update to this pub (adding the stories) you placed a "delete" note for the NONGENRE title record entry. Unfortunately, you can't delete this, and shouldn't because it's the record that links this pub to the title record. The only reason this shows up in the collection is because the system doesn't handle NONGENRE collections very well. In most collections this record is hidden so there's no possibility of someone removing it. In NONGENRE publications it appears as a separate entry under the contents. Don't ask me why. Just another bug that hasn't been worked out yet, I suppose. NONGENRE collections will even show up on the author's summary page under a series, which wouldn't happen if it were a NONGENRE novel. For instance if Derleth had written a Solar Pons novel and you had marked the title as NONGENRE it would not be displayed in the "Fiction Series" category along with the other titles in the series, but would be displayed in the "Nongenre" category further down on the summary page. I think the software was designed for a single genre (spec-fic) and only after it was decided that it would be nice to include those works of spec-fic authors that fall outside the genre did it become clear that there would be display problems for those records. Hopefully a future software change will resolve the issue. MHHutchins 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I always seem to get into trouble when I try to extrapolate from an earlier mistake. In this case I was marking it as delete based on what was done with Margery Lawrence's Number Seven, Queer Street above. Oh well, I keep learning.--Rtrace 06:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dark Mind, Dark Heart

Can you check the pages for the stories that are shown to begin on page 161 in this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 06:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. I don't know if that mistake was from my original edit, or the correction that I just made with the story "Witches' Hollow" to add Derleth's name. Fixed now though.--Rtrace 06:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Watchers Out of Time (1974 Arkham House collection)

Something strange happened to this pub when you updated. You added a content for page 3 which isn't displayed in the pub record. The problem may have been caused by adding a collection to a collection. Do pages 3 - 147 contain the contents of a previously published collection titled The Lurker at the Threshold (as your submission stated) or is it the 1945 short novel with the same title? It looks as though you wanted to change the pub so that the short novel is attributed to Lovecraft and Derleth. That's why you deleted the original content record which was only attributed to Lovecraft. Right? So perhaps you meant to type the new content as NOVEL instead of COLLECTION? Just let me know and I'll correct the problem. MHHutchins 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They're both really the same thing. The Lurker at the Threshold was first published in 1945 and all my secondary sources (Joshi, Jaffery & Nielsen) consider it a novel. However, this record listed it as a collection and I didn't think to change it when I added the cover image. The book does have three sections with individual titles, but I don't think they're meant to stand alone.--Rtrace 06:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If the 1945 "collection" is a novel with only titled parts, I think we should change it to a novel. I looked around and most sources call it a novel. I'll go ahead and make it a novel, and then make the necessary changes to get The Watchers... back into shape. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Berkeley stories

I'm holding a submission that wishes to make The Green Meadow a variant of The Crawling Chaos. Aren't these two different stories? MHHutchins 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

yup, it was a mistake on my part. I left a note on your talk page. Go ahead and reject it.--Rtrace 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Variant or merge

I'm holding a submission that wants to make this record ("Deaf, Dumb, and Blind" by Eddy, with two commas) a variant of this one ("Deaf, Dumb, and Blind" by Eddy, with two commas). They both have exactly the same title and author, and the second record is already a variant of this record.("Deaf, Dumb and Blind" by Eddy & Lovecraft, with one comma). Perhaps merging would be the best option here, and keeping the record a variant of the Eddy & Lovecraft title record. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted the merge that you suggested. I agree that my original edit would have made things worse. It's already quite confusing with the various permutations of commas and author's names.--Rtrace 03:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Variant based on quotation marks

I hope it doesn't come to it, but for now, I don't think it's necessary to create variants based on the use of single or double quotation marks within the title. That's a stylistic choice based on the printer's preference, not the author. (I think the British prefer the single quotes, but I could be wrong.) If you can find anything in the help pages that contradict this let me know, and we'll bring the discussion to the rules and standards page. I understand that there will be variants based solely on punctuation marks (especially question marks and exclamation points at the end of titles). But I've seen variants based on the number of periods in an ellipsis. And don't get me started about the use of dashes! Sometimes I think we spend too much time and energy toiling over variants. Here are links to the two titles of your submission: Discarded Draft of "The Shadows Over Innsmouth" and Discarded Draft of 'The Shadows Over Innsmouth'. You can merge the two, or you can bring it to the rules and standards page, so that a dozen people can argue over it without ever coming to a decision. (Just joking!) MHHutchins 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heavens No. I was just trying to stick with the title exactly as printed on the title page of the story in the book (I did double check that the single quotes existed). I'm happy to ignore punctuation variations.--Rtrace 06:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, not all punctuation variations. Just the use of single or double quotation marks. I don't want the other moderators to come down on me for leading an editor astray. :-) Thanks. MHHutchins 06:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor credit for a collection

I'm assuming that George A. Vanderburgh is the editor of this collection, but the author credit should be August Derleth. Editors are only credited as the author of anthologies, non-fiction works and magazines. I wish there were fields for secondary roles, and there's been some discussion about adding them some time in the future. Till then... Thanks. MHHutchins 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You may also notice there is no reference title for this pub. If you go to George A. Vanderburgh's summary page you'll see this pub listed as a "Stray Publication". This was caused by the title record's authorship no matching the current pub. When you try to remove the content records you marked as "del", you'll get a warning that the title reference is missing. Usually when you get this warning you should back off because the pub is in a "dangerous state". That sounds more dire than it really is. Once the author has been changed back to August Derleth, we may have to add a title record. Then we can remove the "del" contents. If you feel uncomfortable about making these changes, just ask and I'll do it. I don't mind taking a whack at it. MHHutchins 07:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You seem to recommend doing this in several steps, so I've left the content records alone and just changed the Author to start. Sorry I missed that, the help page is actually clear on who gets the author credit. There may, however, still be a problem with the title record. I changed the pub type to omnibus from the pub that I cloned... I just noticed when I grabbed that URL that the title record (the one from the pub I cloned) is the parent title for the new pub. This makes sense because of the cloning which I did to save myself data entry. My intent was that the "Original Text Omnibus" would be a separate title of type omnibus (it presents the books as they were published before). The earlier title would remain a collection (it reorders the stories by internal chronology). An argument could be made that these two are the same title (there is a larger question here of how much does a book have to change to warrant becoming a new title). In any case, I'll wait until the author change is approved before preceding with the content deletes. I would appreciate any advice you could give about whether this is a new title, and, if so, how one accomplishes getting the pub to a new title. Thanks.--Rtrace 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Your submission to change the author to Derleth has been accepted. This didn't reconnect it to the original title, but I recommend that we consider this a new title. Here's more steps to get the pub into shape:
  1. The first submission will be to create a title record for the pub. Edit the pub, adding the following record under contents (not in the pub header): The Original Text Solar Pons Omnibus Edition (as title), 2000-06-00 (as date), Omnibus (as entry type), leave length field blank, August Derleth (as author).
  2. Once that's accepted, you can delete those content entries that you marked "del". Also delete the entry titled "The Solar Pons Omnibus" dated 1982 with the collection type.
  3. After that submission has been accepted, we might consider making this title a variant of the 1982 edition. And for now let's disregard the non-genre part of this. Because the books are part of a series, they wouldn't show up under the NON-GENRE category on Derleth's summary page anyway.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that this is an omnibus of collections, something the database doesn't handle very well. Let's see what the collection looks like after we've made the changes listed here. MHHutchins 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Worse Things Waiting

I have approved your clone of Worse Things Waiting, but it would appear that the cloned record is the same as the original one except for the addition of page numbers. Did you mean to edit the original record rather than clone it? Or did the submission get away from you before you could make more changes? Also, 5 of the stories in this collection are currently listed as by Wellman's pseudonyms, but I suspect that they were reprinted as by "Manly Wade Wellman" and not as by "Levi Crow" or "Gans T. Field". Could you please double check? Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I could have sworn I hit edit rather than clone. I'll submit a delete of the duplicate. I just checked one of the stories and the pseudonym is not listed in the book. I noticed the same thing with another Carcosa publication that I just edited, but apparently didn't catch this one.--Rtrace 04:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Look good, thanks! We had a lot of incorrectly attributed stories in reprint collections/anthologies at one point and although we have cleaned up many of them, some are still wrong. And some can get quite weird, e.g. Wollheim's "Ajax of Ajax" first appeared in Future Combined with Science Fiction, August 1942 as by "Martin Pearson", his standard pseudonym, and was reprinted in Blue Moon as by "Martin Barrow". Go figure! Ahasuerus 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Solar Pons Omnibus

After our massaging this pub is in pretty good shape. I do have a few questions though.

  1. Where do the dates from the interior artwork come from? Were they the original illustrations from each of the constituent collections? The dates don't match up, and for three of the four artists this is their only entry.
  2. Were all of the stories from The Final Adventures of Solar Pons first published in 1998?
  3. Are the "abeviations" at the end of each volume a typo or some word outside of my vocabulary?
  4. Comparing this pub with the 1982 Solar Pons Omnibus, it appears that this one is truly an omnibus and the 1982 pub was actually a collection. I think we can remove the note you left on that pub and keep it as a collection. It doesn't matter if we called these NON-GENRE. Placing them into a series makes that moot.
  5. And last. Do you have plans to move all of the Solar Pons stories into the series? I see that currently there are a few short pieces (with the SF designation) along with the larger works (collections, omnibus, and novels). MHHutchins 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. The artwork dates are from the copyright page. Aside from the Frank Utpatel comics, and the Jean Pierre Cagnat cover, that is the only place that the artists are identified. Each of the original book jackets is reproduced within the collection, so I didn't use the 1982 date for his Interior Artwork title, but only for the comics.
  2. I skimmed the introduction from The Final Adventures of Solar Pons and it appears that the stories were previously unpublished manuscripts that April Derleth gave to the editor Peter Ruber at a 25th memorial for August Derleth.
  3. submitted the edit, sorry, my typo
  4. submitted the edit
  5. I hadn't considered this, but it seems like a good idea, though a daunting task. It almost makes me wish there was some sort of "gang edit", though good user interfaces for such a thing are hard to come up with. Happily, there is mostly a pattern to the titles. Would you recommend the essays (introductions, etc.) as well?
Thanks again for all your help.--Rtrace 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, some of the Solar Pons stories were speculative in nature, e.g. one of the cases involved a client from a parallel universe. Ahasuerus 14:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally do not like putting nonfiction pieces into a series, but there is nothing in the standards that say you can't. I believe it pollutes the series listing, and because the titles appear in random order (unless you number each item) it becomes impossible to sort out the fiction from the nonfiction (unless you create a subseries for the nonfiction, but that opens another can of worms.) MHHutchins 05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bottled in Blonde

Hi Rtrace, I've turned the title type back to "Collection" only novels can have the "Nongenre" type. Novels will display the right way at the moment as non-genre, the rest of the title types won't. What I've done to signify its non-genre status is this[1] and on the authors page it appears under collections this way[2]. If you have any questions about this leave it here and I'll get back to you. Thanks!Kraang 03:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That all makes perfect sense. I'll keep it in mind for the future, although, I believe I've gotten through all my mystery titles by genre authors.--Rtrace 04:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

De Camp's Heroes and Hobgoblins

Can you please check to see if everything you updated to [279038 the pub] was included? Strangely, after I approved the submission, it remained in the queue. Either it was a duplicate (everything looks identical to the first one) or the system is acting wonky. I want to see if everything is OK before I reject the second one. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm at work, so I haven't verified against the book. However, it looks like it's all there. I'm going to do another pass on the record anyway, to add the dates. With the way the acknowledgments page is written, it would have taken forever to look up each title, so I decided to wait until after I'd merged the poems. Then I'll update the remaining (or incorrect) dates when I have them all in a nice alphabetized list.
In any case, go ahead and reject the duplicate.--Rtrace 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
p.s. There appears to be only one copy of the edit. It still shows in my pending edits, and does not show in my recent edits. Nor can I find it in the list of everyone's recent edits. I'm just mentioning this in case it gives more evidence as to where the system hiccup is occurring.--Rtrace 20:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This gets freakier the more I look at it. The submission that I accepted did not even show up on the "recent integrations" list. I'll go ahead and reject the duplicate. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears that I was hasty. The last several poems were truncated. I've added them back in and verified the dates.--Rtrace 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors of single author collections

Just a note that editors of single author collections, e.g. John Pelan, get credited in Notes rather than in the Author field. Ahasuerus 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually intended to look further into this one. The editor was already listed as author before my edits (and there is another edit in my queue, that is in an identical state). To fix this, does one simply blank the erroneous author on the pub edit? Thanks.--Rtrace 19:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's right, authors can be deleted by blanking. It's only erroneous Titles that require the use of Remove Title. Ahasuerus 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange Ports of Call and "At the Mountains of Madness"

I accepted your submission updating this pub, but it appears that you put the page count into the cover artist field. Also you changed "At the Mountains of Madness" from novella to novel. Which is OK, if you're willing to change every record in which the story appeared and that it is the same version. You may recall a previous discussion about how changing a content record in one pub will change every pub in which that content record appears. I'm not familiar with the story and can't attest to its length. But it does appear in many anthologies. Is it possible that there is a novella-length version and that it was later expanded into a novel? This record of the same title is dated 1936. The record you changed is dated 1931, and it appears in many anthologies. I'll leave the record as it stands if you believe these are the same stories, and if so, the records should be merged with a single date. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain they are all the the same and it was my intention to try to merge the titles. I have at least 3 books that give the date as 1936 TTHMNTNSFM1975, TTHMNTNSFB1985 and the Derleth anthology just edited. I've got a paperback Del Rey reprint also, but I'll have to dig for it. The Contento and Locus sites give the 1936 date for THTSDRNDTH1939, ATMTNSOM1971 and THTHNGNTHD2001. They also list it as a novel as opposed to novella. I'll fix the page count now, and try to do some more research, but I think we've only got one title here.--Rtrace 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I've found my paperback of 38413 which unfortunately doesn't have an acknowledgments page the Wikipedia article, gives 1931 as the date of composition and 1936 as the date of first publication. There is a chronology of Lovecraft's works in DGNNDTHRMC1986 which gives the 1931 date, however, since that list includes unpublished works, I'll assume they are giving dates of composition. The upshot of all this is that I'm certain that we're only talking about one title that was first published in 1936 (serialized in Astounding). Thus, I'm going to go ahead and submit a merge of the titles.--Rtrace 17:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Horror: The 100 Best Books

I approved the addition/cloning of the 1998 edition of Horror: The 100 Best Books, but the review of The White Devil by John Webster doesn't have an author associated with it. If you happen to have the book handy, could you please add the review author? TIA! Ahasuerus 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I cloned it from the NEL edition, and didn't notice that the reviewer was missing for that one. I've submitted the edit. I'll submit an edit for the other edition too, with a note to the verifier.--Rtrace 05:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The edit was approved by another moderator overnight, so everything looks fine. Also, keep in mind that changing a Title in the Contents section of a Publication affects the underlying Title record and therefore all other Publication records, so there is no need to change the other edition. In this case, this is exactly what we wanted to happen, but in other cases it can be dangerous, e.g. if you change the author's name/pseudonym. That's when we use the add/remove/merge method discussed earlier. Ahasuerus 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


I accepted the submission for this pub, but changed the quotation marks in the title from double to single. Double quotes are known to be unstable when editing. The original submission works OK, but subsequent edits will cause everything after the quotes to be dropped from the edit. Also, are the quotes used on the title page? They're not on the cover scan. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The double quotes are actually used on the title page. The inside cover also refers to the title, but inconsistently, both with and without double quotes. That's why I went with the title page.--Rtrace 06:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

100 Must Read Science Fiction Novels

Please re-check the ISBN submitted for this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Walter C. DeBill, Jr.

Could you check the contents of this pub again? Is the poem "Night Sounds" by Walter C. DeBill or by Walter C. DeBill, Jr.? Thanks Willem H. 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted an edit to make it a variant. There is no table of contents. The name is listed as "Walter C. DeBill" at the end of the poem. However, there is an index to the entire run of the magazine that also happens to be in that issue, and he is listed as Walter C. DeBill, Jr. ("DEBILL, WALTER C., JR."). Thus I think we are talking about the same person.--Rtrace 01:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

URL for images

I accepted your update to this pub before noticing that the URL that you gave is for the file's wiki page, not the file itself. Once an image has been uploaded, it will appear on the wiki page. To get the URL of the file itself, click on the image and copy the URL from your browser's address window, then paste this into the updated submission. Thanks.

Sorry about that. I've been uploading images to Amazon, but they didn't have this pamphlet, so this was my first stab at placing something on the ISFDB wiki. Is there a preference as to where images should be located? The help pages that detail where it is ok to link from seem to ignore the wiki.--Rtrace 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Except for the URL you placed in the pub record, you did everything correctly. The pub record and the image are not automatically linked. In fact, any image can be linked to any pub record. It must be done manually by editing the pub record. The upload tool just happens to be on the Wiki pages. The image you upload is assigned a URL to which anyone can link -- our database, our wiki, or for that matter, anyone on the internet. MHHutchins 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I just updated the help page for image upload. Hopefully, it will make it more clear about how to get the URL which goes into the pub's data field. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I should have known better. I've uploaded hundreds of images to Wikipedia and know how it works. I just wasn't thinking when I edited (perhaps I shouldn't edit before my first cup of coffee in the morning!). My only question comes from this help page, which goes into great detail about linking to external sources (Amazon, Fantastic Fiction) for images, but is silent about linking from the wiki. I assume the help page was set up before the wiki. I'm just curious if it is preferred to add images to Amazon, or the wiki.--Rtrace 01:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right. That page was created before we had the ability to upload images to our own website, and was intended to help link to images on other websites. Hope you've had the chance to see our help pages for uploading. I added information about how to link database records with the images uploaded to the wiki. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Smith's Galactic Patrol

Tuck dates the Golden SF Library edition of this title as 1957. He doesn't specify that it's a paperback edition, but everything else matches the record you created. Does your copy have any indication that it is a different printing? Thanks. MHHutchins 04:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I got the 1956 date from Lloyd Eshbach's memoir "Over My Shoulder". The book is a paperback binding of the first edition signatures, so it even has the 1st edition statement. It's definitely a paperback as are all the Golden SF Library, I believe. Chalker and Owings also give the date as 1957, however, I went with Eshbach's date since he ran Fantasy Press. Though I know Chalker and Owings have pointed out other instances where they think he was inaccurate. I hadn't checked Tuck when I entered it. It's not in Currey. --Rtrace 04:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I only asked because you've zeroed out the date. Was that in error? MHHutchins 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hadn't intended to. I may have forgotten it in my cutting and pasting. The only reason I was re-entering it, was that I noticed the Ph.D. when I went in to verify it. I'll stick with the 56 date then and expand the note.--Rtrace 05:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Farthest Shores of Ursula K. Le Guin

Your submission adding a new publication of this title is almost identical to this record. The only difference is the binding type, pamphlet or trade paperback. I personally distinguish the two depending upon whether it's saddle-stapled (with visible staples), or glued and/or stapled and perfect-bound (staples/binding hidden by an attached outer cover). I should check to see what definition is used here! MHHutchins 04:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The ISBN is different too and the existing one checks out with world cat. My copy is saddle stapled. Noting the difference in binding and ISBN, I thought perhaps I had a variant binding. However, I just tried my ISBN (0-87877-205-7) and it's not found in in worldcat. My ISBN is both on the back cover and the copyright page.--Rtrace 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice the different ISBN. Your copy carries the same ISBN prefix used by Newcastle Publishing, for whom Robert Reginald was an editor before he established Borgo Press which had the prefix 0-89370 of the other edition. Maybe yours is a variant. I've accepted the submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Newcastle is listed on the back cover, right under Borgo. However, it's not mentioned on the title page.--Rtrace 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Moore's Black God's Shadow

You've made a submission changing the price of this pub from $15 to $20. The current info is from the Locus listing. Does the book have the printed price? If so, I'll accept the submission and make a note of the Locus error. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The jacket is not priced. I got the price from Chalker and Owings. However, I subsequently noticed an ad for BGS on the jacket flap of Alicia Austin's Age of Dreams, so I intended to change it back after the first edit was approved. Alas, Chalker and Owings is incorrect more than I'd like. I forgot to add the cover image, so I needed to go in again on this one anyway. Thanks for being so careful when looking at these.--Rtrace 04:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any Donald Grant publications, but I had some suspicions that his books weren't priced (gives a private publisher some flexibility when moving books over a longer time period). Perhaps Chalker & Owings got their price from a later catalog? Anyway, I accepted the submission because you added page numbers, etc. Feel free to make any further changes. And thank you for adding these publications from the specialty publishers. When I was collecting back in my younger days these were books out of my price range (especially those from the specialty houses of the 40s and 50s). If I'd only known then what I know now, I'd have sacrificed to pick up what are now bargain-basement prices. When recently entering the contents from Megavore 11 (a fanzine from 1980), I noticed an ad offering the following items: All 17 volumes of the Burton Club limited edition of The Arabian Knights, all 30 volumes of the Hyperion Press reprint series, 37 volumes in the Garland Press reprint series, the first 22 volumes of the Gregg Press reprint series, 37 Avalon Press titles, all ten issues of The Arkham House Collector, 83 Arkham House first editions, 22 Gerry de la Ree art books (11 of which were the hardcover editions), 18 volumes from Fantasy Press, 13 from FPCI, 36 from Gnome Press, 8 from FAX Collectors, 2 from Mirage Press, 26 from Donald Grant, 25 titles from various other specialty publishers (Carcosa, Underwood/Miller, Hadley, Whispers, Shasta) and a complete run of Unknown in fine to near mint condition. The asking price: $4300 including postage and insurance. I didn't want to spoil your night, but it makes me dizzy thinking about how much the set would be worth now. That doesn't mean I even think about selling it. I'd have to build an addition to my house! MHHutchins 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alicia Austin's Age of Dreams

The submission adding a pub to this title appears to be identical to a record already in the database, or is there some difference in edition or printing I'm missing? Thanks. MHHutchins 04:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I realized this mistake as soon as I saw it in the queue. I mistakenly hit the clone link instead of the edit link. I'll submit a delete for the duplicate.--Rtrace 04:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I accepted the submission, so you can delete the first record (without the cover art.) MHHutchins 05:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Through the Ice

The change you made in the ISBN of this pub made the ISBN an invalid number. If an invalid number is printed in the book, place a number sing [#] before it and make a statement about the error in the pub notes. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the ISBN listed on both the jacket and the copyright page. I'll submit the edit you suggest.--Rtrace 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragon's Teeth

This appears to be a poetry collection which should be categorized as COLLECTION instead of NONFICTION. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine and I've submitted the change per your suggestion. It's presented as more of an artwork collection with poetry added (at least the notes by Grant make it look that way), so I went with how other artwork collection had been entered (i.e. NONFICTION)--Rtrace 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pandora by Anne Rice

The submission of this title has a shortened ISBN. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, I fat fingered the enter key in mid edit. I'll fix it.--Rtrace 22:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Servant of the Bones

Your submission of this pub is almost identical to this one except for the page count. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I must have hit clone by mistake (while intending edit). I know I've done that a bunch of times, no matter how careful I intend to be. I've submitted a delete of the record with the incorrect page count.--Rtrace 22:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lord Dunsany's Unhappy Far-Off Things

The NONGENRE type shouldn't be used for shortfiction (as in this pub), simply because the software's design doesn't display it very well. If you look at Lord Dunsany's page you'll see the stories in this collection are listed under the NONGENRE category instead of short stories, and there's no way of knowing if these are novels, short stories, poems, etc. just by looking at the list. Since the whole book is non-genre, then you could change the title record from COLLECTION to NONGENRE, but then it wouldn't be displayed with other collections. In either case, it's awkward. You can see that a database created for one genre isn't as flexible when it comes to adding items that basically shouldn't be here but as an associational item should be listed anyway. Maybe a future update can correct these issues. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the stories to SHORTFICTION. I noticed that the software hadn't keep the story lengths (which I had entered) with NONGENRE. This help page seemed to indicate that I should have marked them as I did and even indicated that story lengths were appropriate in some instances. --Rtrace 23:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem isn't with the entry of non-genre items, it's with how the software displays them, which the help page doesn't deal with. Perhaps a warning should be placed there. Thanks. MHHutchins 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Grass for His Pillow

With your new submission there now appears to be three identical pubs for this title. It's my understanding that both Firebird and Puffin are Penguin imprints. Any suggestions? MHHutchins 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My copy states that Firebird is a Penguin imprint, and I know with certainty that Puffin is one. I can't find Puffin mentioned anywhere on the book. Locus agrees with my copy. However, Amazon lists only under Puffin. If I had to guess, I'd say Amazon has the wrong imprint listed. If you agree, I'll submit the deletions.--Rtrace 23:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Go ahead and delete the Puffins and I'll accept the submissions. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rime Isle

There's two more submissions needed to complete the changes for this title. You have to change the two pubs from novels into collections. Great job! MHHutchins 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Case of the Coup de Grace and the White Space

I had to reject your submission for this pub, because a "white space" in the artist field wouldn't let me accept it. Bill Longley was able to recreate your submission and the pub has been entered (as you already know, because you've already merged its contents). For further info see this discussion. Thanks. I wondered if "Alfreds Ark" and "Flutie" are original to this collection, but I noticed a record for "Alfred's Ark" by Vance. Does the title in your collection drop the apostrophe? Again, thanks. MHHutchins 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Flutie" should be "Flutic" a chapter of Cugel's Saga? MHHutchins 18:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I did get both those wrong and have submitted corrections. Sorry for being so sloppy. I have a tendency to continue editing far beyond when I should have gone to bed!
"Flutic" appears to be a Cugel story and indeed the introduction bears this out and in fact dates the story as 1983. It makes no mention of it being an excerpt. I've compared the first lines with Cugel's Saga (from the Tales of the Dying Earth omnibus), and it does appear to be the same. Should I mark it as an excerpt with a date of 1983? --Rtrace 01:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If it isn't listed as an excerpt on that publication's title page, don't change the title itself. Just add it to the note field of the title record. MHHutchins 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Asimov's Fantasy

I've merged the contents of this anthology with the original IASFM publications, but the artwork for "Closing Time" doesn't match the original. In IASFM, Nov 1982 the credit is "Odbert". Could you double-check that credit? Thanks. MHHutchins 15:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mistyped that one. I've submitted a correction.--Rtrace 02:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I also meant to ask: The title record contains a note that the title includes an exclamation point i.e. "Isaac Asimov's Fantasy!". Since that was included in a note, and not the title field, my assumption was that exclamation points may cause problems with the database or editing, so I didn't add it in in my pub. Was that the correct course of action?--Rtrace 03:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of the exclamation point causing a problem, so that note doesn't really make sense. Ever who wrote it should have just placed the mark there. Go ahead and try it, and we'll get our answer. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Marjorie Bowen's Kecksies

Can you see if the story in this collection is credited as "The Scoured Silk" or simply "Scoured Silk"? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is just "Scoured Silk"--Rtrace 02:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Silverlock by John Myers Myers

Can you check to see if Gordon R. Dickson's contribution to this volume is credited as "Gordon Dickson"? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is "Gordon Dickson". However, the credit in the book if for music composition, and I think I read a discussion about sheet music somewhere in the wiki where it sounded like it was frowned upon. The 5 "poems" at the end are in fact sheet music settings of Myers' poems (I missed him on one, which I've just submitted a correction for) I should probably, at least, write notes for each song stating what the credits are for. Do you have any suggestions on how it should be handled?--Rtrace 02:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we can get by with calling them poems. If you like you can place a note in each of the title records explaining the credits. I'll make the Dickson piece a variant. Thanks for the responses. MHHutchins 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Reluctant Dragon

I'm holding a submission in which you want to update this pub, but it's obvious you meant to clone it. Say the word, and I'll accept it or zap it. Either way, I can help reconstruct the old one, or resubmit the new one. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and zap it. I noticed that I hit the wrong link as soon as it submitted. I put a notice here in the hopes of catching it before approval (though you all seem to be good about questioning anything that looks fishy). It won't be any trouble for me to re-enter it. Unfortunately the Clone vs. Edit mistake is one I seem to make more often than I'd like.--Rtrace 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It's happened to me more than I dare to share. MHHutchins 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unmerging pubs

When a moderator gets a submission to unmerge, the display doesn't let us know which pub record is being unmerged, nor does it let us know the title record from which the pub is being unmerged. It becomes especially hard when there are duplicate titles for two different types of pubs. In the case of your submission, I can only assume that you want to unmerge pubs from The Eternal Champion which is a novel title record. I believe you want to unmerge the omnibuses which have the same name. Maybe this pub also named The Eternal Champion. Clicking on it you'll see that it's an omnibus type which includes the title record for a novel called The Eternal Champion. All publications of this novel AND omnibuses that include this novel will be listed under the novel's title record. It may look strange at first, but it's only because these omnibuses have the same exact name as a novel which they contain. So the three White Wolf pubs and the Millennium pub will appear on the pub listings of this title. Remember the title of a TITLE RECORD is not the same thing as the title of a PUBLICATION RECORD. This title record contains a listing of all pubs which reprints the novel titled The Eternal Champion. This publication record which is titled The Eternal Champion reprints several titles in Moorcock's series including a novel of the same name. I'm going to temporarily change the name of this pub from The Eternal Champion Vol. 1 to An Omnibus of Three Novels in Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion Series, just to give you a clearer idea about the difference between titles for publications as opposed to titles of title records. If you look at it now you'll see why the pubs should not be unmerged. Thanks. MHHutchins 01:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We cross posted again. I found the omnibus records further down on the summary page and realized that my unmerge was in error and left a note on the moderator board. I understand now that the title record shows all publications containing the title (in this case the novel)... rather than a list of titles that have been merged, which when one isn't mixing novels with omnibus that contain them is less important. I have found the title record for the omnibus in question under the White Wolf series. Again, sorry for the trouble. - Ron --Rtrace 02:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No trouble. I missed your message on the moderator board, so all my rambling there was for naught. You're already aware of the differences I spoke of. I hope my "educating" wasn't condescending. Sometimes I do tend to go on and on and on... MHHutchins 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. You've been a huge help with everything. I just worry that I keep making mistakes (I'm glad when I catch them myself, though I'm also emberassed). In any case, thanks again for all your advice and help.--Rtrace 02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dating of author-dated essays or stories

Often an author will record at the end of a story or essay the date on which it was written or completed, as in this case. We don't use that because it could be published months or years later. Because this is the first publication of this new introduction, it should be dated the same as the book in which it first appears (September 1994). Thanks. MHHutchins 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Milk and Blood

This is now empty[3] do you want to delete it?Kraang 02:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, and I'll go ahead and submit it. I have all the pubs that list the variants of this title, and they all have hyphens. Some also have the subtitle, which was the first publication, so I'll be using that as canonical and re-merging. Regardless, it was never published under the unhyphenated title and can be deleted. Thanks. - Ron --Rtrace 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Camber the Heretic, SFBC edition

This publication was the January 1982 selection of the SFBC. Hope this helps to date the pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've submitted the change. I'm curious as to your source. Does it have the price too? --Rtrace 12:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It was $5.98. Two sources: February 1982 issue of Locus (#253), and the SFBC monthly announcement flyer (I was a member then.) You might want to note that this is the first hardcover edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Shattered Goddess

Your submission of a new pub of this title is identical, except for cover credit and cover scan to one that one already in the database. Perhaps you missed it? MHHutchins 04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I hit the wrong link. Thanks for catching it. --Rtrace 04:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Publisher imprint

I couldn't tell you if it's spelled out in any of the help pages, but it has become a standard practice to record the publication that has both imprint and publisher as "Imprint / Publisher". A year or so ago there was a project to standardize publisher names, and one of the few things it accomplished was that Del Rey books would be entered as "Del Rey / Ballantine". So I've adjusted a few of your last submissions to "Del Rey Impact / Ballantine". Not a big deal, but it helps in searches. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I generally do a publisher search to see how other books have been entered, which is how I got "Ballantine Del Rey Impact" I certainly see the point of consistency.--Rtrace 05:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not in the help pages because it didn't become a standard practice and editors were in some cases actually working against each other to regularise in different directions. :-/ I prefer "Imprint / Publisher" to "Publisher / Imprint" myself, but do not like adding unnecessary Publishers. "Del Rey / Ballantine" is a particularly sore point as that is something I was happily entering as simply "Del Rey" (I don't believe there's ever been a Del Rey that hasn't also been a Ballantine), then somebody who shall remain nameless standardised the entire publisher name, overriding all my verified pubs without asking. I don't think I'd ever been so angry at somebody messing with my publications before, but when people started pointing at them as examples of the new "standard" and saying "see, that's how we've agreed to do it" I got even more angry and that's basically when I gave up on any more attempts at regularisation of existing publishers. Otherwise I'd be recommending that "Ballantine" be removed from all the Del Rey publishers and the ridiculous triple-barrelled abominations like "Del Rey / Ballantine / Random House" can be merged with "Del Rey / Ballantine" and simply be called "Del Rey". Maybe we can then get ONE wiki-page for the imprint actually used, and only have to look at ONE publisher record to see where their web-page is, what Wikipedia says about them, what they did in a particular year and such-like good things. BLongley 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, bit of a rant there. I think regularisation is good, and certainly don't encourage creating any extra unnecessary imprints and/or publishers, but I don't think there's much agreement on which way to go. And the number of redirect pages I had to create to even get Publishers and Imprints started can still be seen here - it'll be totally unmanageable if we split them too much more. BLongley 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No more ranting, but I think Talk:Publisher_Catalogs_and_Print_Series#Publisher_Naming_Standards was the start of the last round of discussions and activity. I don't particularly want to delve into where it all went wrong, but if somebody else wants to lead a new Rules and Standards discussion I'm sure I'll be forced to chime in at some point. BLongley 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cover scan mismatch

Can you double check the link for the cover of this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The actual title is in such small print I didn't see it. MHHutchins 03:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth-Told Tales

Sorry, I forgot that you'd mentioned how different the two pubs with this title actually are. Now looking at the contents, it's clear how different! I see that you left Dana (Dcarson) a note, but also saw that it's been six weeks since he's responded to his Wiki page. So I don't know how long we should wait, or if we should just go ahead and unmerge your pub. The official website calls the Ace version an expanded edition. So they're not really different books (they even have the same two introductions.) Unfortunately, the database can't currently handle a difference in content between pubs of the same title. The variant option only deals with a change in author or title, not the contents. Maybe one day we'll be able to assign relationship roles between pubs, i.e. "expansion of this title ", "based on this title", "rewritten version of this title", "abridgment of this title", "adaptation of this title", "novelization (fix-up) of these titles". One can dream, can't one? MHHutchins 03:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you fit 162 pages in a 144 page book?

You might want to check this pub again. BLongley 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I'm at work now, but I'll check when I get home.--Rtrace 18:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Garner's Red Shift

I tried scanning my copy and it was just as bad as the one we have. You wouldn't know that to look at it, but the scanner picks up every single mark on the foil, including two unnoticeable (until now!) lines going the length of the book. Thanks for destroying my illusion about how well I've kept my books. :) Maybe if I reduce the resolution... MHHutchins 00:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Schweitzer's Windows of the Imagination

Just to double check, does Schweitzer credit the editor of Cthulhu 2000 as James or Jim Turner in this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 22:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he uses both forms. The table of contents lists "Cthulhu 2000, edited by James Turner". The title of the essay on the page just lists "Cthulhu 2000" and within the body of the review, Schweitzer refers to him as "Jim Turner". I used James as I had originally copied it from the TOC.--Rtrace 04:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
We normally wouldn't use the TOC to establish credits. And because only "Jim" is used in the body of the review (and "Jim" is how the book under review is credited) I think we should change the title record of the review. That way the link from the pub's contents listing will go to directly to Jim Turner's page and not James Turner's. MHHutchins 05:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I went in to change the reviewee author, and it was already Jim. Either you beat me to it, or it gets changed when the review gets linked. Either way, it looks good now. --Rtrace 12:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't change it. I did have to link the review, which would have been done automatically if the system had found an exact match for the book's title and author. But linking doesn't change anything in the review's title record. In fact, you could link a review to any pub by just entering the pub's record number. Looking at the list of accepted submissions I saw that you later merged this review with the review published in the October 1996 issue of the NYRSF. In reconciling the merge, you must have chosen the "Jim" of the NYRSF record over the "James" of the Windows of the Imagination record. MHHutchins 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The link is to Title record, not Pub record actually. The other review makes this look an unsatisfactory setup still. It only shows if you look at 36687. Which looks weird, an award and two reviews but no publications. I'd either relink the SF Chronicle review (it will carry over to the variant happily, by the looks of the NYSRF record) or better still (IMO) merge the titles to just "Cthulhu 2000" and leave ": A Lovecraftian Anthology " as a subtitle on the publications only. BLongley 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right. I should have said you can link a review to any title record by entering that title record's number in the "Link Review" submission. And I agree with your strategy of merging the titles, which I'll do now. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I merged the titles and the new title record showed two listings for Schweitzer's review, but both in the NYRSF. I unmerged one of the pubs (Windows) from the review record and the pub's title record still displayed two NYRSF reviews and one from Windows, so I merged them again and now it shows three Schweitzer reviews in NYRSF. A system bug, or was it something I did? MHHutchins 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I suspect "Link Review to Title" doesn't work as well as it should, or title merges don't take it into account properly... let me experiment a little. BLongley 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, not sure what happened, and I don't have the backups available to see what the problem was, I couldn't recreate it. Something to do with multiple "title_relationships" entries I think, partly caused by merging reviews. Unlinking then relinking the review seems to have worked though? BLongley 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your efforts on this one.--Rtrace 00:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Collector's Annual - 1974

Is the piece by Charles McGill in this pub titled "Mary Shelly" or should it be "Mary Shelley"? Thanks. MHHutchins 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've submitted the correction.--Rtrace 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Confounding SF

I had to change the pub type to "Anthology" to make it display right. Does this ph[4] only contain one short story? If this is the case then we may want to change it to a "collection" or not. Thanks! :-)Kraang 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a single story. The Chicago 2012 Worldcon bid is publishing these in support of the bid. I was actually hesitant about entering, but since it is a real story by a well known author, I went ahead. It fits the definition of CHAPTERBOOK as presented on the help page, both in binding (1 sheet of paper cut and folded into a booklet), and because it contains a single story. Since there is no title page, I took the title from the cover, which differs from the contained story. I'm guessing that the difference in title, contents is why CHAPTERBOOK isn't working. I'll go ahead and submit the changes to make it a collection.--Rtrace 03:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The pub having a different title from the story and only one at that makes it difficult to classify. In this case labeling it a collection makes it fit better. This will take two edits one for the title and the other the pub. Thanks.Kraang 03:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

French translation of Lord Dunsany collection

I don't believe the database has been designed (or purposed) to handle foreign-language translations of original English written and published works. (Now if these were originally written in French, that's another story.) If this submission goes through you'll have to create variants of each of these stories which will appear along side the original titles on the author's summary page. Before long, this slippery slope will lead to pages with hundreds, even thousands of titles for popular writers whose works have been translated into a multitude of languages. Call me anglo-centric, but I don't think we want to go in that direction. I took a look at the Rules of Acquisition and was astonished that it declares such works were acceptable for the database. I'll start a discussion on the Rules and Standards page to see what other editors think. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had entered it because the Rules of Acquisition stated that it was acceptable/desirable. I did expect to merge the stories individually, after they were approved. Previously, I had entered a German translation of Lord of the Rings and I believe other translations have been entered aside from mine. I also entered a copy of Verne's De la Terre à la Lune, which is, of course, originally in French. However, I only entered the Verne after I posted to Rules and Standards since the Rules of Acquisition actually seem to be a little ambiguous about foreign language printings of works originally in a foreign language. I only received one response, so I went ahead and put it in. I have a couple more French Vernes that I haven't gotten to yet. I also have a Dutch Perry Rhodan magazine, but as I don't speak Dutch, I can't even determine who the author is, so I've already abandoned any plans to add it. Regardless, feel free to hold the Dunsany till after the R&S discussion.--Rtrace 05:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I see the ambiguity about works originally published in a foreign language, and feel that they should be entered into the database, regardless of whether it's the first edition or not. I'm not sure what you mean by merging the stories after acceptance, because you'd be changing them back into the English language title defeating the purpose of entering them in French to begin with. If you meant creating variants, that's where the problem begins IMHO. I'll hold onto the submission until there's been some discussion. Please feel free to voice your opinion as I feel all sides should state their case. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I mistyped. I did actually mean that I expected to make variants. I may chime in, but I'm not sure I feel strongly enough about the inclusion of foreign short fiction.--Rtrace 05:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Violin price question

Hi. I have a copy of Violin by Anne Rice that matches your verified VIOLIN1997B, except my copy has no price on it anywhere. It also has rough-cut page edges and says "First Trade Edition" at the bottom of the copyright page. I'm suspecting it's some sort of Book Club Edition. Does yours have a price on it? Thanks. --MartyD 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the price is in the upper right hand corner of the front inside flap of the dust-jacket. It additionally has the initials "FPT" immediately before the price "$25.95". The jacket flap also mentions that it is "A Book of the Month Club Main Selection" at the bottom. I'll also mention that my copy has red headbands, and the jacket has the ISBN on the back above the UPC. Hope this helps. But if you have any other points you want me to check, feel free to ask.--Rtrace 02:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Definitely different. No price or initials, no mention of BOMC selection, no price in the bar code on the back (but the ISBN is there). When I enter my copy, I'll also update the notes on the existing entry with some of what you list above. Thanks again for checking. --MartyD 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed while cloning that my book has an ISBN of 0-679-43302-3 (on back of dust jacket and on copyright page), which is the same as what Locus1 has for the 1st edition, but your entry has 0-676-53293-4. The entries on AbeBooks suggest that's the ISBN for a paperback edition? --MartyD 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I could have sworn that I double checked that, but in fact I did have an incorrect ISBN and I've submitted an edit to correct it. I worry that I stepped over an existing different publication. However, many of the paperback copies in your ABE search are described as "Advance Reading Copy", which I thought were outside the rules of acquisition. In any case, I do apologize for the confusion.--Rtrace 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Vaults of Voh-Vombis

I've accepted the submission for this pub. Now go to Smith's summary page, choose "Dup Candidates", find the two records for "The Vaults of Voh-Vombis", merge them (making sure you choose SHORTFICTION on the reconciliation page), submit. And that should do the job. MHHutchins 05:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that the title records have been merged you'll need to update the pub record to add the page number for the short fiction. MHHutchins 05:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Line of Love: Dizain des Mariages

Just an FYI that I approved the addition of the third printing of The Line of Love: Dizain des Mariages and then changed H. L. Mencken's "Introduction" from SHORTFICTION to ESSAY. Ahasuerus 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch.--Rtrace 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Land That Time Forgot and The Moon Maid omnibus

I'm holding your submissions for two new editions of this title, but they appear to be identical to the two Dover editions that are already in the database. Did you intend to update those but cloned instead? MHHutchins 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think those are OK. I imported contents (from The Moon Men to avoid having to merge more titles), and I know that in the past it has appeared as a new pub in the pending/recent edit lists. However, there is only one pub left when its done. --Rtrace 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. It had never occurred to me that when you import from another pub to an existing one that the submission appears as a new pub in the submission queue. They've been accepted, and I assume there's some more work you'll be doing to them. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Continent

Which title and where were you trying to unmerge it from? Unmerging from some variants can be a little bit tricky. Thanks.Kraang 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The author variant is incorrect. It should be "Cutcliffe Hyne" for THLSTCNTNB1974--Rtrace 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that I understand the issue. I need to un-merge from the variant (child) title, not the parent one as I had done previously. I'll resubmit, but please feel free to reject if this isn't the way this should be handled.--Rtrace 03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's now unmerged. You now need to change the "pub" & "title" record to "Cutcliffe Hyne", then make a new variant record.Kraang 03:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
After that you'll have to merge the two title records for "The Lost Continent".Kraang 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this.--Rtrace 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's a variant[5], hours of fun with Fanthorpe. :-)Kraang 04:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

French Jorkens

I rejected your submission adding short fiction titles to this pub based on the recent clarification of the Rules of Acquisition concerning foreign-language translations (books in, short works out). Nevertheless, I updated the record with the other changes made in your submission. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


I approved your addition of Amazon-hosted cover art to this publication, but the URL appears to be broken. A typo, perhaps? Ahasuerus 15:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK now and I can't find an edit since mine in the recent edits list. Perhaps Amazon was having a hiccup.--Rtrace 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Way of Ecban / Ecben

I accepted your change of the title record from novel to novella, and the new pub, but the titles are spelled differently. Also a chapbook of 209 pages? Lots of pictures and very large print perhaps? MHHutchins 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I believe Ecben is the correct one (at work now). I noticed while entering the pub, after I had made the title edit. I'm using chapbook in the sense here of containing a single work of short fiction (novella). It's a full size hardbound book (in a slipcase), with illustrations and not much text per page. I changed it from a novel to a novella based on its inclusion in this collection (and the page count there where the type is more typical). I also recall that it is included in one of the Ballantine Cabell reprints (which I'll eventually get to). I'll be working more on these when I get home tonight.--Rtrace 17:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Hills of Earth

Is [this] the correct image for [this]? The image that is there looks like it's for an earlier edition. --Bluesman 17:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mine definitely matches the currently posted [image]. It lists three lines on the copyright page:
Seventh Printing
Eighth Printing
Ninth Printing
I had assumed that the final line referred to the printing number. Though no dates are given. Mine also has "T3193" on the spine and right above the Signet medallion which also contains the 75¢ price. I can describe further if you need.--Rtrace 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
As with number-lines, printing lines tend to mean that they are the LOWEST of the remaining numbers - so yours is a Seventh printing not a Ninth. BLongley 10:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Then my copy would conflict with this one (the cover is different). It's possible that the other editor looked at it the same way that I did. I've submitted an edit to state exactly what is on the copyright page for my copy.--Rtrace 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tanith Lee's Madame Two Swords

I made a few changes in your verified pub, based on information from Locus1. Added notes about the lack of dustjacket and the month of publication. Also changed its length from novel to novella, changing it to a CHAPTERBOOK in the process. Let me know if any of this conflicts with your copy. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds fine.--Rtrace 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragon's Teeth

I added a limitation statement and added the month of publication to your verified record of this title based on info from Locus1. Please change if not correct. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was beginning to edit it, and then I checked Chalker/Owings and found:
Second printing: Grant, 1993 [says 1992]. A
note with ours says that this isn't a reprint
because of a sellout and promises a story to
come, but we don't have it yet. We can state that
it's signed and numbered as above but says "This
first edition is limited to 500 copies," and it's
neither the first nor is that the figure given on
the true first above. We are given to understand
that the bulk of the true first were destroyed for
reasons we still have not determined and that
the 500 figure is the true total.
Would you recommend making a second pub with the explanation? The limitation page on mine says 500 copies, so I have the copy Chalker & Owings describe.--Rtrace 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. Wonder if the "story to come" ever came? Do they (Chalker & Owings) still list the "first edition" of 750 or just this printing? Look at this note from an dealer: "First Edition. Signed/Numbered Edition of 750 Copies. The First Edition was Suppressed and Withdrawn by the Publisher. As a Result, Copies of the First Edition are Uncommon. Signed by Author and Illustrator." MHHutchins 19:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Leiber's Gummitch and Friends

I'm verifying Donald Grant pubs against the Locus1 listings and have a couple of questions about your verified copy of this title. Locus gives the date as February 1993. Does your copy give a publication date or copyright date? Also is there a print run statement on your copy, which I assume is the trade edition, even though several dealers show this ISBN as a 1000 copy signed edition? Locus has the signed limited edition's ISBN as -17-7 with 34 additional pages in tributes. Once you've responded I'll clone your pub's record for the limited edition. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have the trade, but it has both the price and ISBN for the Deluxe/slipcased (described both ways) edition ($60.00 -17-7). There is a copyright date of 1992, but no printing or limitation data. It is stated as a First Edition. Chalker and Owings mention the difference in dates and state that none of the deluxe are signed by Leiber. I'll paste their entry since it gives the tributes:
1993 [book says 1992], pp.34/224, 1000 copies
numbered and signed by Gerberding and Skinner,
$60.00; _____ copies trade, $30.00. Contents:
Fritz Leiber Tribute: Preface, by Ann R.
Howland/ Fritz Leiber, Felines & Son, by Justin
Leiber/ Fritz Leiber, by Poul Anderson/ Ballade
of a Loss: Fritz Leiber 1910–1992 [poem], by
Karen Anderson/ Fritz Leiber, by Robert Bloch/
Fritz Leiber, by Ray Bradbury/ Fritz Leiber, by
Ramsey Campbell/ Remembering Fritz Leiber,
by Catherine Crook deCamp/ The Leiber–
deCamp Duel, by L. Sprague deCamp/ ...And
Last Words, by Harlan Ellison/ A Few Too Few
Words, by Harlan Ellison/ Fritz Leiber, by
Dennis Etchison/ Fritz Leiber, by Stephen King/
Emancipation Proclamation, by Judith Merril/
Fritz Leiber, by Andre Norton/ Fritz Leiber, by
Frank M. Robinson/ Gummitch and Friends:
Introduction/ Cat Stories: Space–Time for
Springers/ Kreativity for Kats/ Cat's Cradle/ The
Cat Hotel/ Thrice the Brinded Cat/ The Lotus
Eaters/ Cat Three/ The Bump/ The Great San
Francisco Glacier/ Ship of Shadows/ Cat Poems:
Earthbound/ God and the Cat/ A Sinister of
Siamese/ Lullaby for a Cat/ Origin of the Species/
Sestina of the Cat in the Doorway/ Afterword, by
Margo Skinner. Jacket and illustrations by
Rodger Gerberding.
Point: A space for Leiber's signature remains,
but Leiber died before signing them. It is
rumored that Leiber in fact signed one sheet;
Grant Inc. is unsure of what its disposition will
What else? Leiber's short work about cats, or at
least his favorites of the batch. Excellent on its
own, the collection was held when Leiber died
during its production after printing but before
binding and the tributes were solicited at that
point and of necessity paginated and bound in
separately in the front of the book turning this
into a memorial volume. The Gerberding illustrations
are excellent as usual.
--Rtrace 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Great info (makes me want to pick up a copy of Chalker & Owings, and wonder why it isn't one of our secondary verification sources). I'll create a record for the limited edition, adding the tributes. This also explains why the book has a 1992 copyright, and the 1993 appearance. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It's frequently accused of being inaccurate, and I can certainly find examples of that, but I can with Tuck also. They were perhaps a little sloppy, but I really enjoy their essays on the history of each publisher. I've got an early edition, but I mainly work from the electronic edition which I've copied to my hard drive and and almost always have open. They used to do supplements annually, but that stopped after Chalker's death. If you want to look at the supplements, you can still get at them through the internet archive (if you play around enough with, you can eventually get to all the supplements I think) though Chalker's site doesn't contain them any longer. That should give you a sample of what the main guide is like. There does appear to be one copy of the electronic edition available on ABE. I know Owings sells there as well, but I've no idea if he still has CDs. In any case, feel free to have me look up anything you want.--Rtrace 02:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Stapledon's Far Future Calling

I've discovered that Donald Grant printed an edition of this title in 1986, and wondered if perhaps it was a reprint of the 1979 Oswald Train edition that you verified. Does Chalker and Owings list the Grant edition? Thanks. MHHutchins 22:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's the same as the Train edition. Train is covered by Chalker/Owings and they mention that he handled his production through Donald Grant for his later books. In fact, there are currently several Train books available through the DMG website, so it looks like Grant distributed them as well. There is no mention of the Stapledon in the DMG section of Chalker/Owings. It's only listed in the Train section but there is no specific mention of who did the production. Additionally, the Grant website has a list of out of print books which doesn't include the Stapledon. I've scrutinized my copy, and can't find any mention of Grant anywhere on it.--Rtrace 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought it was the Train edition being distributed by Grant, but OCLC and Amazon both have records that credit Grant and Amazon gives the date as December 1986. And the ISBN falls in with other Grant pubs. I created a record from that information but now have second thoughts. Perhaps he purchased Train's unsold copies, and simply gave it a new ISBN for distribution purposes? Clutching at straws here, I know. I know Amazon's not very reliable when it comes to publisher's credit, and looking again at the OCLC record, it looks incomplete compared to other records, as if it were created from a catalog listing instead of the actual book. I wonder what [S.I.] means in the OCLC record. Do you know? MHHutchins 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I googled [S.I.] to no avail. I also notice that worldcat didn't seem to have any copies actually in libraries. I also double checked the list on Grant's website against what is listed in Chalker/Owings The web site list is missing only the latest publications and the art portfolios. The wikipedia article lists the same pubs as Chalker/Owings (I created that article and C/O was my source). Anyway, I'm still fairly doubtful that a true Grant edition exists. One further point in favor of your theory of Grant using an ISBN to distribute: The Train edition doesn't have an ISBN (at least not that's listed on the book.--Rtrace 04:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Conan of the Isles

Your submission updating this pub changes the date from 1968 to 1969. Is the information from an actual copy of the book? Denholm's Lancer checklist dates this as 1968, as does OCLC, almost every dealer and SF Times (according to the current note.) MHHutchins 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am working from an actual copy, Lancer 73-800. The copyright page gives a copyright of 1968, but above that it states "A Lancer Book • 1969", which is why I changed it. Go ahead and reject it. Upon further inspection, both Currey and the Laughlin/Levack De Camp bibliography say that it should say "A Lancer Book • 1969". I must have a later printing.--Rtrace 05:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Denholm is usually very good at catching different printings with the same catalog number. I'm confused that Currey and the De Camp bibliography say that it "should say...1969" when you say it actually does. Is there a typo somewhere in that statement? Just checked Reginald1 who dates it as 1968. I'll accept the submission because you add further info, but revert the date. Thanks. MHHutchins 06:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a sure sign that I should be going to bed. Curry and Lauglhin/Levack both do say 1968. I copied the phrase so I didn't have to search for the bullet again and had intended to change the date to 1968. Incidentally, the De Camp biblio doesn't mention another printing with that catalog number either. Sorry to alarm you about sources! I'll go ahead and clone to make a second printing tomorrow--Rtrace 06:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you need to clone another record. Your pub appears to be the first printing. You might want to add a note that it states 1969, even though several sources (now including Tuck) give it a 1968 publication date. Time for me to hit the sack myself. Till tomorrow... MHHutchins 06:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deep Waters

Added a better image and a Currey note to[[6]] You have some VERY interesting books!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rtrace 04:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Horror from the Hills

Just to let you know that I approved the merge of the novel and the novella versions of The Horror from the Hills, but then changed the date from 1931 to 1963 since that was apparently its first book publication. As per Help, serializations do not count when dating novels since we are trying to placate the academic/first edition community :) Ahasuerus 03:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hemmed and hawed over submitting it and I'm going to put a note that it is sometimes classified as a novella.--Rtrace 03:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you beat me to it. Anyway, there is already a note there. I went with novel to avoid having to make the Arkham publication into a chapbook. Thanks again.--Rtrace 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My thinking exactly! :) Ahasuerus 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley's Who's Who in Horror

Can you check your copy of this pub again for the publication date? I have the hardcover version and it says "First published in the United States in 1978 by Taplinger" on the copyright page. Locus #215 (October 1978) has my hardcover published in July 1978 without any references to the softcover edition. Is it possible yours was published the year before? Thanks. MHHutchins 22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mine too says "First published in the United States in 1978 by Taplinger". It appears that I missed that statement and instead focused on the 1977 copyright and the LOC Catalog number which starts with a 77. I've submitted a correction.--Rtrace 02:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Three Suns of Amara / Battle on Venus

I see that you would like to replace the defunct Amazon URL in Bluesman's verified second printing of The Three Suns of Amara / Battle on Venus with this image. However, the new image is for the 1962 edition of The Automated Goliath / The Three Suns of Amara, a different Ace Double, which shares one of the Titles with the 1973 book. I have checked my collection and the covers are different. We can link the image that you have uploaded to the 1962 book (which currently links to Amazon), but we would need to scan the 1973 image separately. Ahasuerus 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain that you're correct, though I can't verify that until I get home tonight. Please go ahead and reject the edit. Is it actually preferable to have local (from the wiki) copies of images? With the number of broken images I'm finding in my stack of Ace Doubles, it would seem so. I don't have the 1973 double that has the broken image, but I can probably find/make an image for it. Unfortunately, I've now named the image for the wrong pub. It may be better to overwrite the image with a newly created one to keep the names in synch. Thanks for catching this.--Rtrace 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, as I think about it, don't reject the edit. I'll replace the file (THRSMBTLV1973.jpg) tonight and then the existing edit should be OK and can be approved at that time.--Rtrace 16:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that will work! As far as your question as to whether it's "actually preferable to have local (from the wiki) copies of images" goes, the answer is "yes, since that way we won't lose information when the hosting site disappears as has happened entirely too many times". We enabled local image hosting at some point in 2008 and we are up to 500Mb worth of images, which is manageable for now. If we grow another order of magnitude, we may have to consider using off-site hosting, e.g. S3, which we already use for our backups, but that's not something that we have to worry about yet. Ahasuerus
Ok the images should be correct now for both the doubles. I generally make the decision of where to upload an image based on whether I'm creating a new pub or editing an existing one. I'll upload to the wiki if it's an existing pub since I have an ID to name the image with. Otherwise I upload to Amazon, so I can include the image with the initial edit.--Rtrace 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Approved, thanks! Ahasuerus 03:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Image links

I corrected the link that you placed in the notes section of this pub. The one you gave was to the image's wiki page, not the image itself. Thanks. MHHutchins 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had copied the format from another Ace double that has split images and I guess I didn't look closely enough at how the link was constructed.--Rtrace 03:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Arkham Sampler Spring 49 - Jane Webb - The Mummy Review

In your verified pub Sampler Spring 49 the review for 'The Mummy' attributes authorship to Jane Webb. In Bleiler's 1978 Checklist, he attributes this title to Jane Webb Louden, and other sources state Jane (Webb) Louden. Could you please check this issue and see if there is any mention of the married name? - Thanks - Kevin 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a long review (8 pages) and he refers to her as Jane Webb or Miss Webb throughout the review with the exception of the final paragraph where he states that John Claudius Loudon was a fan of the book resulting in their meeting and eventual marriage in 1830. The final sentence states that she is more familiarly known as Mrs. Jane Loudon and spent the rest of her life writing gardening books. It would appear that the original publication of The Mummy (1827) was before she married.--Rtrace 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! - I will enter the book as written by Webb and Psuedonym it to Louden (Since many critical references reference Louden). Kevin 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Night's Black Agents

"Jr." on the title page of [[7]]??? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the title page is "Fritz Leiber, Jr.". I think this was his first published book. It looks like I did a bad job with getting the stories under the correct author name and I'll go ahead and fix those and make them variants. The Arkham House books are among the first ones that I entered, while I was first learning how things are done here.--Rtrace 18:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Poe's "Shadow and Silence" in Kingdoms of Sorcery

Hi. Would you do me a favor and see if the "Shadow and Silence" in Kingdoms of Sorcery is really one short story or if it might be two? I'm working on cleaning up and documenting the Poe titles, and I can't find any reference to that, but there's "Shadow" (starts with a quote from a Psalm and then "Ye who read are still among the living..." ending with "...familiar accents of many thousand departed friends.") and "Silence", originally "Siope", (starts with a quote and then "The mountain pinnacles slumber;..."). Thanks. --MartyD 14:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, they are two separate stories. I'll correct the pub. Thanks for catching that.--Rtrace 18:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I made the initial changes, but noticed the subtitles when I went to merge, which I missed on the initial edit. I used the merge to correct "Silence" to "Silence: A Fable". However, the title of "Shadow" troubles me a bit. I believe that subtitles are typically indicated with a colon, and I'll go ahead and correct the title in this anthology to that format (after the last edit is approved). I notice what appear to be titles with dashes in two different formats: "Shadow -- A Parable" and "Shadow—A Parable". One of those is in you're verified pub. Any thoughts on which title should be canonical? I'll make the correction as I've indicated but wait to hear back from you before merging or making variant titles.--Rtrace 19:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sort of in the middle of cleaning things up and merging and variantizing in Poe land. Michael Hutchins suggested swapping emdashes for two hyphens, so I replaced them. The colon vs. dash thing seems to be variations on the title. How does it look in your book? If it looks like a title and a subtitle, then colon is the way to go according to the help. I've been using the Edgar Allan Poe Society site to help me figure out what titles works have been published under. See this page for "Shadow". In my copy of Great Tales it is explicitly presented as "SHADOW — A PARABLE". Once my to-an-emdash edit is approved, I'll probably just merge in the other one that doesn't have the spaces. For "Sonnet — to Science" vs. "Sonnet: To Science", I made a variant. Technically, it's a minor punctuation difference as written, but it's actually a fully-written title vs. title-in-two-pieces IMO, so that's the way I went. --MartyD 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
See this discussion about dashes. Immediately below it is a raging discussion about title dates triggered by another question related to these titles. --MartyD 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Mine is definitely appears as a title/subtitle arrangement as described in this help page. It lists "SHADOW" on as line by itself followed by a couple of blank lines and then "A PARABLE" in a smaller font. I'll make mine the variant of yours with the double dash or with the emdash in whatever state it's in by the time I get to that edit. Then you can correct and merge the parent title at your leisure. Interestingly, I have a Poe collection coming up on my next shelf and it has "Silence — A Fable" with the emdash. I also skimmed the Poe entry in Tuck and can find examples of both variations for these two titles. Good luck with your Poe work and let me know if there is anything else I can do to help.--Rtrace 20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to remember to drop a note where when I consider myself substantially through (the dreaded "To ____" ones are still to come). It'll probably take me a couple of days. Your collection can be a review of that stuff. Lucky you. ;-) --MartyD 20:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I've completely finished going through all of the poem titles currently captured and have made a cursory pass through the short stories to get the titles and variants arranged. I'm going to go through the short stories in more detail, but let me know if you notice anything mis-connected. Thanks. --MartyD 20:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

QSpec Sampler 2007

Just a note that I approved QSpec Sampler 2007 and then changed the excerpt titles to the Title (excerpt) format. As Help:Screen:NewPub indicates:

  • Excerpts. Sometimes an excerpt from a forthcoming book will be printed at the back of a book. This should be treated as short fiction. If the excerpt has a title that makes it clear that it is only an excerpt, use that title. Otherwise, use the title given, but add " (excerpt)" to the end; e.g. "A Feast for Crows (excerpt)"

However, after I made the change, it occurred to me that perhaps the excerpts were explicitly titled that way and I shouldn't have changed them. Could you please clarify? Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They are in fact all titled, "excerpt from..." both on their title pages and in the table of contents. On the title pages, "excerpt from" is on a separate line above the title of the excerpted work and is in a smaller font, but I chose to look at it as a single title.--Rtrace 02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Change reverted and a Note added. Thanks! Ahasuerus 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The City of Wonder

I've put this on hold because a check of the title[8] appears to be fine. What did you have in mind with the unmerge? Thanks!Kraang 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My copy is titled simply "City of Wonder", so my intent was to correct the title after the unmerge and then make it a variant.--Rtrace 02:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks!Kraang 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Geoff Ryman's Was

I see that you would like to change the page count of this publication from 320 to 455. I have checked OCLC and 455 appears to be the page count of the special "overseas edition" published by Flamingo (ISBN 0586091793), but the Gollancz/"Fantasy masterworks" edition was apparently 320 pages long. Could you please double check your version? Thanks! Ahasuerus 16:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mine is definitely the Gollancz/Orion Fantasy Masterworks edition, ISBN 0-575-07669-0. The copyright page states "This edition published in Great Britain in 2005 by Gollancz". The last numbered page is 455, which is an Acknowledgments page which spills onto the last bound page which is unnumbered. I probably should have edited it to 456. Locus gives the page count as 454. Though, I have found errors in Locus with some of the Fantasy Masterworks. --Rtrace 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm, most peculiar! I'll see if I can do some more digging tonight... Ahasuerus 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
More digging strongly suggests that the OCLC record that claimed 320 pages for this ISBN is in error: all catalogs that it links to list 455-456 pages. I think it's safe to assume that OCLC's original data was based on an erroneous upload (pre-publication information?), which they failed to correct post-publication. Submission approved and notes added - thanks! Ahasuerus 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for researching it.--Rtrace 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Elegy for a Lost Star

Are the maps in this pub the same? If not, the titles should be disambiguated before someone tries to merge them. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They're different maps. I've submitted an attempt to disambiguate. Unfortunately, neither of them is titled.--Rtrace 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Horror from the Hills

Added a lengthy Currey note to [[9]] According to AbeBooks sellers there were 2000 copies without the copyright notice and 1900+ with. Might be worth two entries... ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got lots of sources to look up Arkham House books:
  • Derleth's Thirty Years of Arkham House makes no mention of it and gives the print run as 1,997.
  • Joshi's Sixty Years of Arkham House makes no mention of it, and gives the print run as 1,997.
  • Tuck makes no mention of it.
  • Leon Nielsen's Arkham House Books: A Collector's Guide makes no mention of it, and gives the print run as 1,997.
  • Sheldon Jaffery in both Horrors and Unpleasantries and The Arkham House Companion states: "The Strange thing, bibliographically, about this book is that it was printed with a blank verso page. As an apparent afterthought, a sticker with the copyright information was printed and affixed to the blank title page verso. Technically, a copy with a pasted down sticker would be considered a second issue of the book, the change obviously having been made after some copies had been placed in circulation." He then goes into a lengthy explanation of editions, printings, issues and states. He also gives the print run as 1,997.
  • Jack L. Chalker and Mark Owings' The Science Fantasy Publishers states "Points: Well, not really. Banta blew the copyright statement and so the copies had a pasted-in copyright notice. And, yes, they missed pasting in some, so there are copies about without it." and gives the print run as 2,000.
That all being said, it certainly appears that there are two issues, but I believe the total number of both issues is likely 1,997 and the ABE sellers are mistaken. The colophon gives the number as 2,000 but they are always a little off for Arkhams. I'm pretty sure the 2,000 number you are seeing is coming from the colophon. My copy doesn't have the sticker. I'm not sure that I think this rises to the level of a separate record, but I don't feel strongly about that. I look forward to seeing your note when it's approved and I hope I haven't bored you with too much information. I'm especially fond of Arkham House books and will talk about them at length if given the chance!--Rtrace 02:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ace Dbl D-242

Added artist credits for both covers, courtesy the ACE Image Library. I'm jealous!!! Been looking for this one for years!! [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] Three samples of different, yet thematic, ways to do doubles that have kind of evolved over the last year. Just an FYI. Since there are two separate yet joined pubs, it's good to have a way to put forward the information for both in a clear format. Check out some more. Happy editing! ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadows of Sanctuary

I approved it, but it wasn't entirely clear to what end you wanted to unmerge the earliest Shadows of Sanctuary from the title record. Care to hit me with the clue stick? (Gently... I'm still sore from the Ahasuerus‎'s blackjack) - Thanks Kevin 23:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm away from home tonight and won't get the other edits submitted until tomorrow afternoon. But the reason I unmerged is that the pub is under the incorrect variant of the name. We have it as Robert Asprin, but it's Robert Lynn Asprin on the title page. My intent is to correct the name and then make it a variant (or re-merge with the existing variant).--Rtrace 01:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! (I also understand about working from the road.. I'm on a plane tomorrow AM for 6 days and 5 nights) Kevin 02:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Basil Copper's Whispers in the Night

Stories were credited to Stephen Fabian in this collection. MHHutchins 22:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Heavens! That's incredibly wrong. I'll fix it. I assume I should submit deletes of the titles after the author has been changed.--Rtrace 22:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The White Hart

Hi, I've put this on hold because of the possibility this is a Canadian printing with a Canadian price. Here are two examples of a Pocket book from 1979, note the price difference on mine. Scott's[13] and mine[14]. If your copy is priced $2.25, is a first printing and is printed in the US the $2.50 priced 1st would probably be one of the Canadian editions. In this case it would be best to clone the $2.50 copy, change the price and leave a note about the country it was printed in. Thanks!Kraang 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we're OK here. When I went to enter this book, this pub existed with the $2.50 price, a 12/79 date and a note that it is the 4th printing. My copy has a full number line, a first printing date of 12/79 and a $2.25 cover price (also printed in USA on cover and copyright page). I assumed that whoever entered the 4th printing took the original printing date and zeroed it out for that pub. I also cloned the pub to make a record for my copy. Unfortunately, I forgot to alter the price when working from the cloned record and thus submitted a second edit to correct what I had missed from the newly created record.--Rtrace 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see how you got there, I'll approve the submission. One thing to keep in mind is some publishers(DAW, Ace, Pocket, Signet, Baen...) in the late 70's and early 80's printed separate covers and books for the CDN market with a higher cover price. Thanks!Kraang 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for being so vigilant. I'll keep that in mind if I see prices that don't match my copies.--Rtrace 02:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Whispers #9 - The Outisder in?

I approved this Whispers December 1976 but could you check the contents. Are those three artworks for 'The Outsider in' or 'The Outisder in'. - Thanks Kevin 05:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I originally was going to title the artwork by the name of the portfolio "The Outsider in Hollywood" but changed my mind and decided to title each for the story it illustrates. Obviously I didn't catch it all when cleaning up the title. I'll submit a fix.--Rtrace 05:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews in Whispers

I'm creating pub records for books that were reviewed in Whispers and not already in the database. There's a puzzling one in Whispers #8. Are there reviews for two separate pubs by Day? I can't find anything about the supplement " Paperbound Books". Is there some publishing info provided in the review that can help locate enough information to create a pub record? Thanks. MHHutchins 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Could it be referring to this title? MHHutchins 05:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that is the correct one. Schiff seems to be sloppy with titles (and he occasionally omits the author). That review is for the Arno Press reprint, HC, $7.00, 129pp. That's only a page off from the pub record.--Rtrace 05:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That should clear it up. I'll be updating the Whispers wiki page (probably tomorrow, it's getting late). If you get a chance can you check the tasks on that page and see which issues have been verified, titles merged, reviews linked, etc. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I updated the tasks. Do you think I should go ahead and take the primary verification on the trade edition where I have the limited variants? I do effectively have those issues, just with an additional binding. I have verified the limited variants (thus the numbers in the bibliographic details on the wiki page).

The Thief of Thoth / . . .And Others Shall Be Born

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub. Thanks Willem H. 12:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Poe's "The Island of the Fa?" in Selected Tales

Hi. In your verified Selected Tales is listed "The Island of the Fat" F-a-t. Could that be a typo? He's got a short story "The Island of the Fay" F-a-y... --MartyD 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. It's a typo and I've submitted a correction. Thanks for the catch.--Rtrace 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bending the Landscape

Just wondering about the title of Bending the Landscape: Science Fiction. The cover seems to be a little different, so I wonder if the title page also says "Original Gay and Lesbian Writing"? Ahasuerus 02:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. However, the title page is simply "Bending the Landscape: Science Fiction"--Rtrace 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see! Thanks, note added. Ahasuerus 02:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Behold the Man and Other Stories

FYI, I approved the Title Type change from Omnibus to Novel and then changed the title from Behold the Man and Other Stories to Behold the Man. Ahasuerus 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had meant to do that, but must have missed it. Hopefully, I can now get the true omnibus, that I previously split out, merged together--Rtrace 03:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Poe's "The Duc de L'Om[e]lette" in Selected Tales?

Hi. Another title spelling question in your verified Selected Tales: Is it really "L'Omlette", or does it have another "e" in it: "L'Omelette"? The various references I've found have it with the "e", but they are all older publications. Thanks. --MartyD 15:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another typo on my part. I've submitted an unlink for the title and will merge it with the correct title after that's approved. I probably could have done that in one step (merge only), but didn't think of that until after I submitted the first edit. Thanks for catching this.--Rtrace 17:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this the case where one actually wants to edit it in place (so it changes everywhere)? No matter; all paths lead to Rome.... Thanks for fixing it. --MartyD 18:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well that was a mistake. The reason that I didn't edit in place, was that I thought the title had to be merged with its parent. I missed the difference between "Duc" and "Duke", so a merge is not what we want. I'll re-build the variant relationship, after the title is corrected. As an aside, I'm surprised that there aren't more records with these titles already in the database. It appears that both this story and "The Island of the Fay" don't appear in any other collections that have been entered. I would expect Poe's stories to be more ubiquitous.--Rtrace 18:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, you ran into some of the variants I set up while researching the titles. Pubs are coming. I decided to fix up the existing titles and relationships first. Now I am in the process of entering a bunch of collections, and the earliest ones use Edgar A. Poe. I caught the Omelette spelling as I went to make the variant and noticed the difference. Some of the very earliest variations of the titles were published in (non-genre) magazines. Those are next on my list after the collections. --MartyD 18:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Chrysalis 8

I accepted the submission for a paperback of this title, but the price is incorrect. It looks like you cloned the hardcover and forgot to change the price. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, indeed, clone it and missed the price. I'll submit a correction when I get home tonight. Thanks.--Rtrace 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Eye in the Pyramid

Can you check the ISBN printed on this pub? Thanks. MHHutchins 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

SF: '58

Added the month and a Currey note to give the source to [[15]]--Bluesman 02:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox Woman/Blue Pagoda

The notes for [this] pub have references to Currey that are incorrect. He does indicate a priority of issues: "(A) Tight weave mesh (nearly smooth) black cloth. Issued in plain paper dust jacket. (B) Glossy pebbled black cloth. Issued without dustjacket. Two states, simultaneous issue: (A) Illustration on page [19] depicting nude woman; (B) Illustration on page [19] depicting nude man. First edition so stated on copyright page." Further, he has the title without the 'and', as the cover image would suggest, but I can't speak to what is on the title page. As to the edition size: "Although stated limitation was 1000 copies, more were printed. Unnumbered copies have been observed; in some cases booksellers have numbered them." Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I focused on Curry saying that the two states were issued simultaneously. I didn't take the entry to mean that the first binding (A) "tight weave mesh" to go with the the state (A) nude woman. Actually, I find the entry slightly confusing in that respect (priority in bindings, but simultaneous issue of state). As it is, my nude woman state has a tight cloth weave and does match binding (A). My copy with the nude man, is rougher, though I don't know that I'd call it pebbled. However, it is certainly not glossy. It's actually quite flat. Neither of my copies have jackets.
I probably left the title as I found it. There is no "and" on the title page. The title page has the title on a Bok illustration of a three dimensional structure. On one side (to the left) it lists "A. Merritt" over "The Fox Woman" on the other side (to the right) it lists "Hannes" over "Bok" over "The Blue" over "Pagoda". I'm probably describing int badly and I'd be happy to post a scan if you'd like. In any case, feel free to change the title if you think a slash would be more appropriate.--Rtrace 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Without a book in hand I rarely change a title. We do list them as what is on the title page. I went back and re-read the notes and Currey and your description is probably just fine. He gets a little terse at times and the binding/issue thing gives me headaches, too. I just added a short Currey note to your verified "Ship of Ishtar" and he has no less than ten bindings and only one printing. Maybe an early attempt at print(bind)-on-demand??? These are the reason I always just quote him and let the reader of the note figure it out! I'm still loathe to do Lovecraft from Currey, as some of his descriptions run half a page for one edition. Someday... ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Title pages do get annoying at times. Today's nightmare is here. Much alcohol later, I can laugh. Weakly. BLongley 23:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually have that annoying publication. I should have stopped at the title page as four separate attempts have got me to about page 20. Parodies should have some semblance of humour...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the "and" certainly isn't present on the title page. However, it is listed in Tuck, Reginald1 and Clute/Grant with an "and". Bleiler uses "[and]". Chalker/Owings uses "&". Curry uses "/". I'm actually fine with the title as it is. However, if someone else feels that it should be changed, I'll do so. I had no idea about all the bindings of Ship of Ishtar, it appears mine is either Curry's state C or D.--Rtrace 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


In this, might the Review: Borderland on p314 actually be a poem? BLongley 21:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutely puzzled as to how it got to be a review. I've submitted an add while marking the review as delete. I'm not sure how or if I could have accomplished it in a single step. Thanks for catching this.--Rtrace 23:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A Fire Upon the Deep - a different look

Morning!. This is yours. [16] . This is mine. [17] . First I added this notation. "Maps by Elissa Mitchell. Should be Ellisa Mitchell. One not titled map on page opposite page 1 with signature "Ellisa Martin, 1991" at bottom right." I did not make a Martin entry, but I did change it to the correct spelling. You are showing "Elissa Michell" which adds a misspelling of Mitchell to the mix. My second problem is either an 'actual' difference or a difference in 'opinion'. You are listing an "untitled Forward", I have this as a note only, "Not titled "Acknowledgments" before pagination with signature "-V.V." for Vernor Vinge." I read the above carefully and find it as stated and deleted the 'Forward' that was originally in my 'contents'. This is an FYI of what I encountered. I sent a dup of this to DCarson and Bluesman. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 11:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your points and I've submitted a delete of the introduction. The map credit is actually "Ellisa Mitchell" on mine. I'll fix that and clone the notes from yours that apply to mine, after the delete is accepted. Sorry I was so sloppy on this one. - Ron --Rtrace 12:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hollow Lands

Added a brief Currey note to [[18]]--Bluesman 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Power That Preserves content title

Hi. Kevin noticed a "What Has Gone" instead of "What Has Gone Before" for the introduction in my verified copy of The Power That Preserves (that I had also entered). I see you have a newly-verified THPWRTHTPF1979 using the same title, and I assume it cloned the typo. I am going to blast the title record 981940 on that assumption, but figured I'd warn you in case content adjustment is in order.... --MartyD 10:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mine is indeed from the clone and also needs correcting. I'm not sure what you mean by "blast". If you've already aubmitted a delete and re-add on your pub, I'll merge titles when that is complete. If you haven't submitted yet, go ahead and edit the title in place, and it should correct both out records. Thanks. --Rtrace 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"Blast" was a short way of saying "edit the title in place (pending moderatorial approval)". Thanks for checking. --MartyD 16:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Swfritter has approved this. BLongley 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Road to Corlay

I added the cover artist, a note and the contents to this verified pub to match my copy. Please see if you can agree with this. Thanks Willem H. 11:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


I approved your edit of Wolfwinter putting the proper ISBN in the database in place of the catalog number, but I went back and added the Catalog number to the notes (instead of allowing that information to disappear forever from the record). Thanks Kevin 17:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind, though I've generally haven't added it when the catalog number is incorporated within the ISBN.--Rtrace 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It's primarily for those collectors who may have started before ISBNs and are used to referencing catalog numbers solely. By keeping it in the notes, it gets indexed by Google and is 'findable' when someone Googles for STORYNAME CATALOGNUMBER, and it will cause the ISFDB record to float to the top over other records/websites that only have an ISBN listed. The only time I remove information from a publication record is when I consider it wrong. In this case, the catalog number is a correct way of referencing this book, it is just less prominent than the ISBN. In the future, we may/should/hopefully will have the ability to enter multiple ID numbers for a single publication into the database proper (ISBN, SBN, Catalog#, ASIN, OCLC#, LOC, etc, etc) and if it's in the notes, it will be much easier to upgrade the record when the time comes. Kevin 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that some collectors collect first editions, Ace Doubles, DAW books, etc, so they are very much interested in catalog IDs even when ISBNs are available. They are particularly important for DAW books, since at one point DAW used both ISBNs and two types of catalog IDs (!). Ahasuerus 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Against Arcturus

On the cover of [this], the Putney side, my copy clearly has "MARTI........" on the bottom right corner. Artwork cuts off there, so no way to extrapolate. Does yours show more or less? Don't want to add an unnecessary note if yours shows more or if you have an idea what the full name would be. ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've looked it over with a magnifying glass and can't see more than you do. Corrick and Reginald are no help. Sorry I couldn't add anything.--Rtrace 17:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Some just get away....! Thanks for looking. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilvish, the Damned

It appears the cover[19] has a price of $2.50 is this correct? If so then this is the US printed version with the US price. Mine is the US printing with the CDN price of $3.25. Thanks!Kraang 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for missing that. I've removed the cover scan from yours and prepended a "C" to the price per the help pages. I've also submitted my copy as a clone. I guess I can't rely on stated country of manufacture or printing to be a guide as to pricing. --Rtrace 18:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Drinking Sapphire Wine

I'm holding your submission to unmerge a pub (I can't tell which one) from this title record. They all seem to be under the correct record. Which one are you unmerging and why? Thanks. MHHutchins 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's 268191, and it's because the Hamlyn edition is actually an Omnibus with "Don't Bite The Sun". Am I right? BLongley 19:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
BLongley has it exactly. The title page even says something like "Drinking Sapphire Wine including Don't Bite the Sun" (at work right now, so not exact). I was intending to make it a variant of the existing omnibus, with the expanded title.--Rtrace 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You're both right (and OCLC agrees). I'll accept the submission and do the extra steps so it won't have to wait until this evening. Thanks to you both. I can't wait for BLongley's changes that will allow moderators to see which pub is being unmerged. How about a field for notes to the moderator to explain situations like this? Or am I asking too much? MHHutchins 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think "Notes to Mod" was a feature request at one point, or at least something we talked about, and one I supported, but the current list of features here is out-of-date, incomplete, and frankly messy. We may improve if we do a decent transfer to Sourceforge Feature requests instead (de-duplicating, ignoring things already fixed, etc). At the moment, there's no clear indication on what we developers can do beyond changing the current scripts, though. So adding anything that means changes to the database schema is rather controversial, and even fixing existing data via a script hasn't been agreed yet. Still, there's a lot of improvements already committed, they just need testing and implementation. Implementation means convincing Ahasuerus: testing means we need more volunteers. There's a large backlog of changes, and although we've got several developers onboard now, they tend to be people that want their changes promoted rather than spend time testing other changes. (I'm guilty of that - there's so many obvious "quick fixes" that I've neglected the big changes to library functions that may affect lots of things, that will need massive testing. But I've incorporated those locally and may discover problems by accident.) BLongley 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"Convincing Ahasuerus" may not be particularly hard once we have established a track record of fixing things without breaking anything in the process. At the moment, we are waiting on Al to give his blessing to our proposed approach. Once that has been secured and we have installed our first patch (without destroying a big chunk of the Galaxy), things should go faster. Ahasuerus 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll flesh out any additional details (and a cover scan) tonight.--Rtrace 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Remember the dumpxml trick, Mike. The rest was just Google to find this. BLongley 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Chaos

Does [this] pub state the printing month? Locus1 has it as October. Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes: "First Orb Edition: November 1999".--Rtrace 02:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover artist of your verified [20] from signature on the 3rd printing.Don Erikson 03:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Conan Chronicles Volume 2 -- Catalog #/ISBN typo?

Sorry, I'm not picking nits, but I happened to notice while generating some test cases the Catalog ID on your verified The Conan Chronicles Volume 2 is "1*85798-747-0", which looks suspiciously like a typo in a real ISBN. A recently-conducted poll of popular, book-oriented Internet destinations supports this notion, but what says your book in hand? --MartyD 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is definitely a typo, and I've submitted a correction. Thanks for catching it.--Rtrace 02:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ace dbl D-84

Added an artist credit for one cover of [[21]] from ACE Image Library. --Bluesman 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tales From Gavagan's Bar

In your second printing (and the first too) the preface was credited only to De Camp. In my copy of the 1st printing, it is signed by De Camp and Pratt. I merged the title with the preface from the Owlswick edition, that was credited to both. Can you check your copy to see if you agree? Thanks Willem H. 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I double checked and it is indeed signed by both. Thanks for catching it. - Ron --Rtrace 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Hostage of Zir

I added the cover artist and a note to this verified pub Thanks Willem H. 15:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

R.M.S. "Empress of Australia"

The title record you wanted to update was dropped in the merge so I added it my self. Is this[22] correct? Thanks!Kraang 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If anything, you probably even worded it a little better than I did. Thanks. - Ron --Rtrace 03:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize a cut and paste could do that. :-)Kraang 03:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agonized over how to enter the two counterfeits included in this collection. It just now seems clearer than I remember wording it at the time. Thanks again.--Rtrace 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Case of Conscience

Added a note to [this] pub re publication date. OCLC agrees with the book and Amazon.UK agrees with Locus. Still a draw!!! ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dragons & Nightmares

Added a Currey note about the limited edition to [[23]]--Bluesman 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

31st [sic] of February

Added a Currey note to [this] and that Contento missed the title as well. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Word for World is Forest

Just wondering if the stated 6th printing of the Berkley edition which you have just added might be the same as this 1978-02-00 printing? Ahasuerus 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible, but there's no date in my copy, so I couldn't be sure.--Rtrace 03:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, perhaps we will eventually find a later printing with a listing of all previous printings and their dates :) Ahasuerus 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ace DBL D-36

Added the second artist credit to [this], courtesy the ACE Image Library. It would help, when crediting an artist for a dos publication, to state which half the credit is for. ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ace DBL F-273

I have never seen ACE give credit for both covers of a dos publication on only one copyright page, as the note from [this] assumes. The two interior art pieces, if they are both Gaughan's, should have his typical/stylish "JG" on them somewhere. The ACE Image Library only credits the one cover to him, as well. Cheers! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Both copyright pages list both titles (one on top and one at the bottom), but only Dark Intruder (on top) gives an artist credit. All of the interior pieces have Gaughan's signature. There may be a signature on the Dark Inturder cover, but it's not Gaughan's usual one. I can't find any signature on Falcons Corrick (Double Your Pleasure) only credits the Dark Intruder cover to Gaughan and Falcons to a "Emsh imitator". I'll add a note about the signatures on the interior art. Thanks. -Ron --Rtrace 02:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just picked up a fine copy of this today, so scanned in both covers and linked the images in the notes. Expanded those somewhat. Dark Intruder does have Gaughan's signature on it, as gaughan, he also used to sign as jgaughan before just going with the initials, though all his interior mini-sketches only ever used the initials. Funny about the EMSH-imitator bit, as that's who I thought it might be, and he's one of the sneakiest to find the initials, and I tried!!!! ~Bill, --Bluesman 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Brak vs. The Mark of the Demon[s]

Can you verify that your pub doesn't have the "s" in "Demons"? Your note contradicts the title. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We were working on these at the same time, and I just accepted your submission correcting the title. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and submitted a correction. I'm at work right now, but I'm certain that the reason I put the note there was "Vs." vs. "Versus". I'll double check it when I get home tonight. Thanks.--Rtrace 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Crowns for America

I updated your verified pub Two Crowns for America with a month of publication from the copyright page, and I added the Canadian price to the notes while I was editing. This matches my first printing in hand. Thanks Kevin 01:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Added artist credit

I added cover credit to your verified [24] from the artist's Wikipedia page.Don Erikson 18:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cloak of Aesir

Added a "First Edition" notation to [this]. Currey says it's there but if not please remove the note. If it is just remove the [Currey] part as I did verify the pub. Contento has the page count as 254 but I assume with book-in-hand your count is accurate. ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"First Edition" is on the copyright page, so I'll edit accordingly. Page 255, is an About the Author page. It is actually numbered, so I included it. Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Conan of the Isles [2]

It would appear you have an unstated second printing of [this]pub. OCLC does list two printings, one with the 1968 designation [here] and one with the ©1968, 1969 designation [here]. Lancer was almost as bad as ACE when it came to identifying printings. This is not an isolated case. Best bet would be to clone this record and transfer the verification. And Currey doesn't list later printings unless there are title or content changes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Added a Currey note to [this] Conan title re: identifying the first printing. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And a final Conan addition, [this]. The notes don't mention what's on the copyright page of the verification copy, but thought the additional info to identify a first printing useful ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the discussion in #Conan of the Isles above. -DES Talk 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I did read that, yet the 'second printing' pub has yet to appear. The OCLC data kind of pushes it from a maybe to a definite...? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to Mike's statement, the last in the thread, which read "It doesn't look like you need to clone another record. Your pub appears to be the first printing. You might want to add a note that it states 1969, even though several sources (now including Tuck) give it a 1968 publication date." He appears to conclude, I'm not sure how, that all the sources reporting a 1968 printing are mistaken. Mind you, your evidence above suggests otherwise to me, but if this conclusion was accepted no additional pub would be needed. -DES Talk 11:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to respond. This one was in the third layer of a shelf! I'm inclined to leave the record as is. I can't say for certain whether the Worldcat record is referring to printing or copyright date. I certainly know that Worldcat has records under disparate OCLCs that refer to the same publication. Neither Denholm nor Levack mention a second printing under that catalog number. Since Levack attempts to list all printings, he is either in error by not listing a second edition, or by stating that it should have "A Lancer Book * 1968". I've tried to document it clearly enough that if mine is indeed a second printing, and someone else has the first, they'll know that it should be entered separately. --Rtrace 03:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sky Pirates of Callisto

Artist source for [this]? Reason I ask is there are ... delete-able notes on the first printing if yours (with the same cover) can be verified? Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that the artist listing was already there when I got to the record. I've looked at the signature under a magnifying glass and it looks like "V Di Fate" to me me, and it certainly matches his style. Sorry I can't verify it with anything more than the signature. ~Ron --Rtrace 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thongor & Dragon City

Added a Currey note to [this]--Bluesman 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deryni Archives - Appendix III

In the SFBC edition of Deryni Archives the title of Appendix III is "Partial Timeline...." In your verified copy the appendix is titled "Partial Chronology....". Cold you please double check your edition? If its truly different we can add some notes documenting this change. Thanks Kevin 06:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My title is indeed wrong and actually matches that of the SFBC edition. I'm certain I imported it from the Legend pub and wasn't careful enough. Since the Legend pub isn't verified, do you think we should just merge the two titles in favor of the one we know is correct? Or, make a variant? ~Ron --Rtrace 02:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I just merged them. If it turns out the Legend copy has the alternate title, we will deal with that when someone comes along to verify it. Thanks for checking! Kevin 01:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bishop's Heir

I upgraded your verified pub The Bishop's Heir (PB) with separate appendix listings. FYI. Let me know if you see anything amiss. Kevin 16:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I only added a page number for the original novel. Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Campbell's Invaders from the Infinite

Can you check your copy of Chalker & Owings and see what they have to say about this pub and join the discussion on Bluesman's page? Thanks. MHHutchins 22:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 1980 6th? printing

I've just acquired a book rather like your The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (stated 6th printing, 1980, etc) except that the price is 80p rather than 90. Can you double-check yours please? I've not yet seen a Pan book get a new price without a new printing number, but mistakes happen. (I won't be keeping this long, I prefer my 27th printing - it's annoyingly undateable, but signed.) BLongley 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mine definitely states "First published by Pan Books Ltd, Cavaye Place, London SW10 9PG" followed by the line "6th printing 1980". It has only the U.K. price of 90p on the back cover and no prices for other countries. There is an ad for "The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy Double LP" offering it for £6.99 + 50p postage and packing. It certainly sounds like we've got different editions. ~Ron --Rtrace 02:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Strange. Mine is definitely 80p and no other prices, has the same ad, start of copyright page text is "First published 1979 by Pan Books Ltd, Cavaye Place, London SW10 9PG" followed by the line "6th printing 1980". I'll create a separate pub. BLongley 18:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ACE Dbl #D-173

Added an artist credit for one cover of [this] courtesy ACE Image Library. --Bluesman 03:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Reluctant Dragon

I've adjusted your verified The Reluctant Dragon to a Chapterbook for the moment. Does it look OK in that state to you? BLongley 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not sure why you have square brackets around the page count, or why "Notes" say "data from the 11th printing" when it's primary verified - surely the data comes from your printing? If yours IS the 11th, just say so, and tell us what edition it's an 11th printing OF. BLongley 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chapterbook is fine. The brackets around the page count are meant to indicate that it is unpaginated. Someone made that edit to some other unpaginated book that I entered, so I thought it was convention. I've changed the note to "stated 11th printing". There are only three lines on the copyright page "Eleventh Printing", "Copyright 1938 copyright Holiday House, Inc." and "Copyright © 1966 by Ernest H. Shepard". ~Ron --Rtrace 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you check date?

Could you check the date of your verified 1st printing of the Ballantine edition of Tolkien's THE RETURN OF THE KING [25]. You verified it as December 1965, while the 2nd and later printings give the date as October 1965. Thanx.Don Erikson 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've double checked and it certainly say "First Printing: December, 1965". Curry also gives the December date. Tuck only gives 1965. Oddly, The Ballantine Index in The Science-Fiction Collector 6 gives the date as 1966. Strange that they would re-date it. I wonder if the date was confused with The Fellowship of the Ring which Curry gives as October of that year. ~Ron --Rtrace 03:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dispossessed

Can you check The Dispossessed again please? Amazon Look-inside suggests Jim Burns did the cover, not Chris Moore. BLongley 16:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I think the error crept in when I cloned this edition. I've submitted corrections to bothd mine, as well as the other since it wasn't primarily verified. However (and, of course, after I submitted the change), I thought to check Locus and they give the artist as Chris Moore. So the question is, was the cover art changed (which I have seen with SF Masterworks). If that is the case, then the image on the 1999 pub is incorrect (it matches my copy exactly). I'll add a note after my first edit is approved. ~Ron --Rtrace 03:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Literary Swordsmen

Added the Roman Numerated pages to [this], source OCLC, --Bluesman 16:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Zork Chronicles

Just an FYI that your verified The Zork Chronicles has been updated with Notes data. Also added "Acknowledgments" since it's a short essay about the sources used by the author rather than a simple list. Ahasuerus 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelazny's Madwand

I believe your copy of this title is a later SFBC printing, based on the leading zero in the catalog number? Does it have a gutter code of "M03"? If not, I'm going to create a record with catalog #5928 with this date, and you should make yours an undated later printing. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how that 0 crept in there. Mine is actualy "5928" and does have a gutter code of M03. I've submitted an update. ~Ron --Rtrace 13:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Signed edition of Whispers #19-20

Can you tell me if Michael Bishop was one of the signers of this edition? Thanks. MHHutchins 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to ask. Do you recall what was the sell price for this hardcover edition of the magazine? Thanks. MHHutchins 23:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I submitted an edit to the note. This one is only signed by Schiff and Whitley Strieber. Unfortunately, the publication page doesn't mention the pricing of the bound state. I bought it directly from Schiff for $24, but that was in 2006. At that time he offered me the regular edition for $6, which had a cover price of $5, so presumably he was charging more than the original price.--Rtrace 12:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Tsaddik of the Seven Wonders

I added a note about the cover artist to this verified pub. Hope you agree. Thanks Willem H. 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)