User talk:Rtrace/Archive6

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Re: Shadowdale
Replacing Amazon image with one scanned from personal collection (inlcudes ISBN & price along left edge of cover). Adding LCCN & map credit to notes.--Astromath 02:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


Re: Tantras
Replacing Amazon image with one scanned from personal collection (inlcudes ISBN & price along left edge of cover).--Astromath 03:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

New Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos

Uploaded panoramic cover scan for SFJuggler 06:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Ogre's Pact

Re: The Ogre's Pact
Replacing Amazon image with one of better quality scanned from personal collection. Adding LCCN to notes.--Astromath 13:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tyrant of Time - Eshbach

Added better image to 05:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dragonking of Mystara

Re: Dragonking of Mystara
Adding LCCN to notes.--Astromath 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dragonmage of Mystara

Re: Dragonmage of Mystara
Replacing Amazon image with one of higher quality scanned from personal collection. Adding LCCN to notes.--Astromath 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad

Re: Crucible: The Trial of Cyric the Mad
Replacing Amazon image with correct one scanned from personal collection. Adding LCCN to notes.--Astromath 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Titan of Twilight

Re: The Titan of Twilight
Adding LCCN & map credit to notes.--Astromath 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Door Through Space

Have identified one artist for [this] from another set of covers, linked in the notes. --~ Bill, Bluesman 03:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Coils of Time

Found a signature on one cover of [this], afraid I don't know the first name. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Glory that Was

New image and notes for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Brain-Stealers

Found a 'signature' on the cover of [this]. Added the artist and edited the notes. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Essays in The Language of the Night, 1980 trade pb edition

Could you possibly take a look at your copy of The Language of the Night and verify that the title of the essay on page 161 is really "Is Gender Necessary?" and is not "Is Gender Necessary? Redux" -- I am trying to track down the first appearance of the "Redux" version. No rush, but I'd love to find out eventually. Thanks! BungalowBarbara 03:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The title is as listed without the "Redux".

Also, my copy of the 1993 edition has an essay title as "A Citizen of Mondath" not "A Citizen of Mondrath" -- what about yours? BungalowBarbara 03:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Mhhutchins has now corrected this error. Thanks for catching it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Hag's Contract

Re: The Hag's Contract Added "+16" to the page field to show the extra 16 pages from the excerpt.--Astromath 13:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Daughter of Is

User:MLEX has added a cover credit to Daughter of Is per signature information (see pub notes). Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Howard V. Brown[e]

Would you check the spelling of Howard V. Brown[e] in your verified Fantasy of the 20th Century: An Illustrated History ? I have on hold a submission that wants to make the "e" version a pseudonym of the "e"-less version, and I'm wondering if the "e" version might be a typo. Thanks. --MartyD 12:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That same "e" variation (referring to the same cover) is in your verified Art of Imagination: 20th Century Visions of Science Fiction, Horror, and Fantasy, along with a large number of "e"-less ones. --MartyD 12:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The book has the credit as listed with the caption "Morgo the Mighty" and the name with the "e", so the pseudonym is warranted. We should change the existing title record for the magazine cover to the canonical e-less form of the name which it is how it is credited on FictionMags. I'd also suggest that we add the story that it illustrates, Morgo the Mighty to the magazine record as well as the other 3 parts of the serialization. It looks like part 4 is already there, though the magazine title is missing the initial "The". I'm going to go ahead and fix the two versions of the magazine name. I'll handle the other edits too, but I don't want to take them away from Dirk P Broer if he had planned on doing any of the other edits. So I'll let him have first crack, if he wants. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I accepted the pseudonym. He didn't submit anything else, so I don't think he has any plans you'd be circumventing by doing those edits (he usually submits everything for a given author in a cluster, then moves on to the next name). Thanks for checking into it. --MartyD 00:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Added apostrophe

It doesn't seem like much but I added an apostrophe to the title of the poem "Cordelias Song: From the King in Yellow" from your verified anthology [1].Don Erikson 22:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Colossus Story Length

You verified Conan the Freebooter from Lancer that contains this story. The story is currently classified as a "Short Story". I believe it's length clearly indicates it is a novelette, which seems apparent comparing it to other stories in this pub. Please let me know on my discussion page what you think about reclassifying it. Bob 19:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Planet of the Damned

The cover image at Planet of the Damned is NOT by Tom Kidd, but is by Michael Whelan see?. I tried to correct it with just a note, but MHutchins says I have to discuss it with you... O'Fearna 21:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with me. You have to discuss it with the primary verifier according to the ISFDB standards. I would hope you would want the same courtesy extended toward you and your verified records. Mhhutchins 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The copyright page of the book explicitly credits the cover art to Kidd. I eventually found the image on Whelan's site in the biography section. I wanted to see it in context to ensure that he wasn't presenting it as "here is a painting that inspired me". It is my understanding of the policy in cases like this, that we should leave the COVERART title credited to Kidd and make it a variant of a new title credited to Whelan. We should note that this comes from Whelan's website on the publication record for the book and the (parent) title record for the COVERART. I will also add a note that there is an explicit credit on the publication record, and since I'm updating the note, I'll also mention that it is really Whelan and credit the source. I'll leave the other edits to you, if you're comfortable making variants. If not, just let me know and I can do those too. Good catch. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
One other thing. I think I see what happened. The 1982 Tor printing has different cover art by Kidd. I expect they mistakenly didn't update the artist credit for the 1987 printing. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Ron, in the case of an obvious publisher crediting error, we give the correct credit, and then add a note about the error, providing a reliable source in the Note field of the record. Unless the policy changed while I wasn't looking.:) Mhhutchins 03:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Mike, I'm not certain I understand the distinction between this and other crediting errors where we use variants. We create variants and pseudonyms when a name is misspelled (e.g. [2], [3] or [4]) and I am aware of at least one case where the publisher mistakenly credited a novel to the wrong author. Though in that case, Grant thought the author was Smith. I really did believe our policy was that these mistakes were documented though variants. To me, a misspelling and failure to update a credit from an earlier printing seem exactly the same sort of error and I would think we'd want to handle both the same way. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Mistakes in crediting cover art are not the same as the miscrediting of fiction, and they are handled differently. (After all, this is the IS*F*DB, so we don't have to handle art the same way we handle fiction.) The publisher made an error in not correctly crediting the cover art. Sometimes they make errors in the publication date or the printing number which we will note and then correct. As for how the Grant was handled, it's fiction. We wouldn't want it to appear on Smith's author page, even if it is credited to him. And it wouldn't make sense to change credit of the publication record, because that's actually how the book was published.
I can't tell you if any of this is documented in the help, but I know there are dozens of cases where publishers failed to change cover art credit for subsequent printings, and the ISFDB editor caught it, noted it, and made the correction. (DAW is notorious for doing this.) If you feel there's another way of handling it, or that it should be handled the same way as fiction, I would suggest starting a Rules & Standards discussion. Mhhutchins 01:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

History of the Necronomicon

I have a later printing of your verified pub History of the Necronomicon, published in May 1998. Mine is the eighth printing. The copyright is given as 1980, so your copy must be a later printing as well. Does it say which printing it is? Joshi's "Afterword" also has to date to 1980. Bob 05:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the sixth printing and I've now marked it so. Chalker/Owings has the first printing of the Necronomicon Press chapbook as 1977 and states that the Joshi afterword was added in a reprint, but doesn't specify which one or the date. Even though the afterword is signed with a May 1980 date, we don't use signature dates for introductions and afterwords. While the copyright date is probably correct, it occasionally can differ from publication date. Additionally, the copyright is for the entire chapbook. I let included content records take the date of the container publication when entering them and when the date can't be determined. Then when merging their title records, they can take the earlier of the two dates and we'll always have the earliest date that we've been able to verify. Eventually, someone will enter the first appearance and when it is merged we'll have the correct date.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I do understand all that; it does look like the copyright date and Joshi's afterword probably reflect the first publication with that afterword. But of course, if and when someone enters the earlier editions, those dates can be correctly entered. Bob 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Two final points. The title of the chapbook is "History of the Necronomicon" and that's also the title on page 6 above the text. But the "Memorial Edition" title page, page 5, has "A History of the Necronomicon". I've used the latter as the title of the article; should I change it? Second, you label the article as an "ESSAY", I have called it a short story. Which is the right designation for an article like this? Aren't "ESSAY"s normally non-fiction? Bob 15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You are certainly correct that it should be SHORTFICTION and I've gone ahead and made that change and informed the one other verifier who has a publication containing the title. I would consider page 6 to be the title page of the story and, in fact, have swapped out the title in my copy for the variant that is titled "History of the Necronomicon (An Outline)". The title page on page 5, is a facsimile of the title page of the 1938 Chapbook, but not the "essay". We could certainly enter a record for that edition and the Necronomicon Press Chapbook could be a variant of A History of the Necronomicon, however both would contain the title "History of the Necronomicon (An Outline)" i.e. the chapbook would have a different title than the "essay". I discovered that the variant title that appeared in Beyond the Wall of Sleep had never been made into a variant and I've now fixed that. Assuming your copy is identical to my printing, the easiest way to get your record into shape would be to merge your title "A History of the Necronomicon" with "History of the Necronomicon (An Outline)". Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ron. Will do. Bob 15:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Haefele's Bibliography for August Derleth

I pretty much rewrote the notes section, edited the price and date for Haefele's bibliography, for which you were the primary verifier. It looks like you might have bought this pub in 2008 or later. I bought the thing when it was published in 2006; the addenda was not included, but was sold for $5 in 2008 when it was published. I've added that addenda as a new pub. The new date and price reflect when and for how much I bought the original publication from Leo Grin. Two of the Cimmerian Library volumes were indeed $8.00, but this one and the first one were $15.00 each. Bob 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Verification question

This C.J. Cherryh book [5] you and four others verified as being the 1st printing as per number line with "Printed in Canada". My 1st says printed in the US. Now there is no entry for a US printing. So is the there a Canadian printing with with a number line starting with a "1"? Is it a contributor's typo? Could five verifiers made the same mistake? Seems unlikely. I'd like to enter the US printing if these aren't the same book. I'm sending this to the other four verifiers to help figure this out.Don Erikson 00:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I missed that when I verified my copy. Mine also says "Printed in U.S.A." with no statement about where the cover was printed. I'll remove my verification from the existing copy and wait to see the results of your other inquiries. After you've created the US copy, I'll verify that. Good catch. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Privately printed"

I see you've given the publisher in this record as "Privately printed" which I assume is not a real name. If there is no publisher given in the publication, the field should be blanked, with a note explaining the situation. Thanks. Mhhutchins 06:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Same situation with this record (and I can only assume you created the record, based on a review published in one of your verified records.) Mhhutchins 06:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the notation to the notes. For Jurgen and the Censor, it is explicitly stated that way on the title page. I don't know if we should consider "The Emergency Committee" or "The Emergency Committee Organized to Protest Against the Suppression of James Branch Cabell's Jurgen" as publisher, but with it in the notes, I'm sure that's fine. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Taylor

FYI, it turns out that we have 4 people named "Richard Taylor" and I have just finished disambiguating them. Richard "Dick" Taylor, the famous New Yorker illustrator who did your verified Arkham House covers in the late 1950s-erly 1960s, is now "Richard Taylor (artist)". Hopefully he doesn't mind! Ahasuerus 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Notes of Various..."

Can you check to see if the piece by Falconer in this book is titled "Notes of..." or "Notes on..."? If the latter it should be merged with this record. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mine matches the other titles and I've gone ahead with a merge leaving notes on the verifiers' pages for the other editions that contained the incorrect title. Thanks for catching it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Art of the Imagination

Can you confirm that the artist is credited as "Rowena Morrell" on page 469 of this publication? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Double-checked and that is how her name is spelled in the caption. Mike, this relates to the above discussion which you haven't responded to. I had the flu last weekend and was slow to respond myself. In any case, since there was a caption with the a misspelling, I left the misspelling as a pseudonym. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Which was the proper procedure. There are major differences in these two cases. In the one above (to which I've responded), the error was caused by the publisher's failure to change the credit on a later printing. In this case, the publisher misspelled (by one letter) the artist's name. I think the cases are significantly different that they need not be handled the same way. Mhhutchins 01:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


There are two pubs with an ISBN of 1-930764-09-X: Aunt Jane's Nieces and your verified Toto of Oz (plus its leather bound edition). Amazon shows Aunt Jane's Nieces for the ISBN while WorldCat shows Toto of Oz. The notes for Aunt Jane's Nieces state "Data per review in the Winter 2003 issue of The Baum Bugle." I'm hoping you were the one who added the note and can double check the ISBNs on these. If they are truly duplicates, it would be good to add a note to the pubs. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Both the ISBN in the book for Toto of Oz and the ISBN in the review for the Aunt Jane's Nieces book are identical. I've checked the IWOC site and unfortunately, they don't list their ISBNs. I'll be attending an Oz convention this summer and if they have copies of Aunt Janes Nieces (and I remember), I'll try to take a picture of the ISBN on the book. I'll add a note to both pubs. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Dying Earth" in The Spell of Conan

I am holding a submission that would merge Robert E. Briney 's "The Dying Earth" in your verified The Spell of Conan with what appears to be a review version of the same text in Amra V2n18, December 29, 1961. Could you please check your copy to see if this work is better classified as a review? TIA! Ahasuerus 05:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It does appear to be a a review. The only thing that gives me pause is that the acknowledgements page states that it comes from Amra, no. 8. How one gets to number 8 from V2n18, I couldn't say. The copyright date of 1961 does match, though, so you should probably let the edit go through. However, why are we merging it to only 1961 instead of the full date of the issue (1961-12-29)? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I have approved the submission and re-added Vance's name which disappeared during the merge due to Bug 3603645. As far as the date goes, Bob has some issues with precise-vs-imprecise dates and I had to restore a few of them after approval. Ahasuerus 00:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Footprints on Sand

Apologies, I approved Bob's changes to this pub before I noticed that you were one of the verifiers. Bob added the following comments to the Notes field:

  • 10 copies were flexible-bound in morocco, according to information on p. [330]. Laughlin & Levack, De Camp, Underwood-Miller, 1983 lists five variants: (1)One copy bound in flexible brown morocco leather, (2)983 copies bound in burgundy cloth (trade edition), (3)460 copies bound in burgundy cloth, signed by the de Camps and numbered, (4)8 copies bound in red buckram, and (5)9 copies in half-leather binding using morocco and marbled paper. States 1 and 5 were produced by Jeff Ford (not Advent). The trade state was reprinted in 1982.

Hopefully the first sentence matches what you have in your copy! Ahasuerus 04:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. It's in the colophon exactly as he stated it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Heroic Age of American Invention

You verified a copy of this pub. The first edition has "First Edition" on the copyright page and the gutter code C-3 on p. 290. There are at least three other printings without "First Edition", with gutter codes F34, G31 and I1. This info is from Laughlin & Levack, De Camp: An L. Sprague de Camp Bibiograpy, Underwood-Miller, 1983. I have G31. If you would enter your gutter code in the notes, I could see if I need to clone or verify your entry. Bob 16:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mine is G31 also and I've added it to the notes. Thanks for catching this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I verified your entry and added words to the notes about other printings. Bob 15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

de Camp: An L. Sprague de Camp Bibliography

The ISBN's on the softcover version and the hardcover versions of this book are reversed from those given on the first page of the pubs. Are the numbers given in the database correct, or those in the books? If the former, shouldn't there be an explanation in the notes? Bob 17:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed them to match the books and notified the other primary verifier. You may want to drop a note for the verifier of the library edition to see that ISBN matches either of the other two. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I did leave a note, although he is no longer active. I verified both. Bob 15:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Incomplete Enchanter

Sorry for bugging you so often lately; we both seem to like de Camp. You verified the Prime Press version of this pub. Laughlin & Levack say there are two variants, one with green covers and one with blue. Which one is yours? I added some words to the notes. Bob 20:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I accepted the submission to update this record by adding eight unnumbered pages to the page count. Please confirm that there is a reason for adding these pages to the record. Thanks. Mhhutchins 20:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Mine is bound in green cloth. I recall the recent discussion about entering unnumbered pages in square brackets, but I don't recall what the ultimate decision was. I ordinarily do not count these pages when entering a publication and use "bp" if I need to indicate content on pages before the numbering starts (as the help page says to do. In this case, if we are going to enter the pages, there would actually be 10 is you begin counting with the half-title page. However, there is no content of any note on these pages just the title pages, a dedication and an epigram. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I took off the bracketed pages and added words about the variant bindings. Bob 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarke's From the Ocean...

I've accepted a submission that added the gutter code to this record which indicates a printing in the last week of November 1961. This adds new light to the actual publication date, so I updated the Note field. Maybe it was "published" in 1962 but appeared late in 1961. Mhhutchins 20:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove my verification and clone. The gutter code in mine is "H19" and the price doesn't match either. Additionally, the copyright page has "B • 4 • 66", which makes me think it may refer to a printing. 4th perhaps? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have almost no Harcourt Brace & World books, clearly not enough to have established a pattern for their printing codes, but I'm pretty sure that "H19" means printed May 1966. Also, I didn't know that Harcourt Brace used the same presses that Doubleday used, and had gutter codes! Can you look to see if this book has a gutter code as well? Darrah seems to have figured out the code in this edition. I'll ask him about the gutter codes in his verified copies of HBW books. But it seems Kevin thinks that it's the letter that designates the printing and the middle number is the month. Check out this record. Mhhutchins 04:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The Cabell book has no gutter codes. Neither does it have a printing code, but it is marked as a first edition (I've added that to its notes). The note on Darrah's Norton book is from Currey. However with the other Clarke book I would think it reasonable to assume the letter indicates the printing number, with the rest being month and year. The only problem is that gives me an April 1966 publication date with a printing date of May. I haven't cloned the copy yet. What date would you recommend for my edition? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That's hard to say until we can confirm with more examples exactly what the HB&W code means. Perhaps the gutter code in HB&W editions is different from the one used by Doubleday? Mhhutchins 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Lands Beyond

I added extensively to the notes for Lands Beyond. As shown in the notes, there are two bindings and more than one printing of this pub. My copy is one of those with gray boards and is not a first printing. If you would clarify what yours is, I will verify or clone as indicated. Bob 01:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Beige cloth with boards that I would describe as black. The Rinehart is on the copyright page. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I've cloned yours for my later printing. Bob 01:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Lost Continents

I added some notes to Lost Continents. There are two variants, one with gray cloth, one with green paper boards. I have both. Would you note which variant yours is, then I'll clone for the other. Bob 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

green boards with a design embossed in silver.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added some words to the notes and verified your entry. Bob 01:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Tales from Gavagan's Bar

The Twayne version of Tales has 3 bindings: Dark blue, turquoise blue and green. Which one is yours? Bob 22:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Mine has navy blue cloth. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ron. I really appreciate your timely responses to all this stuff about de Camp. Bob 15:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible capitalization typo

Hello, Ron! For the second author in this I'd assume that it's only a lower case 'I'. Stonecreek 06:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a common typo for me as I hold on to the shift key too long. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Red Moon and Black Mountain", by Joy Chant

Your 1976 verified pubication of this book included a note that this was the "First US hardcover edition". That's not correct, since there was 1971 SFBC edition which was a hardcover. I removed that note, and added a couple of other minor notes, to the pubication. Chavey 07:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tutuola's excerpts in Elsewhere III

Hello, I am very keen to trace the exact sources for Tutuola's excerpts in your verified 12132. I'd really grateful if you could let me know (parts of) first and last sentences for excerpts on pp. 292 and 306. Please feel free to ignore this request:) Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 11:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

Sure. Opening sentence on page 292: "Akiti and Tort, the Shell-man were natives of the town called Eleegun." Ending: "But as 'a tormentor makes his victims stronger' I believe, you will not allow anybody to betray you again like Tort, the Shell-man!' Ireti remarked in proverb."
The one on page 306 begins "'Ah, this our present king's régime is bitter and unfortunate for the people of this town!' Tort, the Shell-man shouted dejectedly, one morning." and ends "The the king praised the One-footed Osanyin greatly and he gave him a valuable present as a reward of his bravery."
Hope it helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!!! It really helped - now I am really confused:) Do you know where the pub date of 1952 for them comes from? Is there anything in the book about the sources? Thank you again! Best, ForJohnScalzi 23:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
The acknowledgements actually state that the appearance in Elsewhere is the first English language publication of these stories. I suspect that the 1952 date comes from Locus1 which states that these first appeared in The Palm-Wine Drinkard published by Faber in 1952. Since you're researching this, please feel free to update the dates as you feel necessary. We should probably note where the acknowledgements or Locus1 have incorrect information. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Now the mist starts to clear:) They DEFINITELY are not from The Palm-Wine Drinkard. I thought so myself when I looked at the date but the titles soundes unsuitable. So year is just a Locus artefact. I'll keep researching. ForJohnScalzi 03:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

Cthulhu's Dark Cults

Because the cover art in this record is from a secondary source, shouldn't the artist's canonical ("Steven Gilberts") be credited? Thanks. Mhhutchins 21:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

About this same artist: can you confirm that the credit is for "Stephen" in this publication? Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 21:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no credit in the anthology, and I've changed it with a note that it is miscredited on the publisher's site. However, the Smith collection credits the cover as "Stephen Gilberts" on the title page. I've made that one a variant with the pseudonym. Thanks for catching it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 21:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Verses Dedicatory

I added the information that this is second in The Charnel House Chapbook series for Verses Dedicatory. Bob 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Over the Edge

Is there any biographical data about the author Michael Bailey in this publication? There may be as many as three authors that have credits under this name. I've removed one based on Locus1 data. The third one has a pending change in the queue, so I suspect he's the authors of all of the 21st-century titles (although he's not responded to his talk page to confirm this.) I'm rather sure the author of "Aneanoshian" isn't this last guy, but it's possible he could be the second one (with 1992-1993 records). Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 21:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Happily, there is a bit of an introduction. Derleth does give his birth year as 1944, so he's likely the same person that is referenced in Locus. He's further described as a Wisconsin author, though his birthplace isn't given so he may just have been living there at the time as Derleth indicates he was attending the University of Wisconsin. Derleth also stated that "Aneanoshian" is his first published story. I'm guessing that the birth year listed for the un-disambiguated author belongs to the new record you created. Please feel free to move the story to the other author if my guess is correct. Hope that helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this helps a lot. Thank you and thanks to August for providing some pretty good biographical data. :) Mhhutchins 04:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Watcher by the Threshold and Other Tales

When you get a chance, could you join this discussion? Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, since you added an earlier printing for this title, the date of the title record should be changed. Tuck doesn't list the 1902 printing, and mistakenly conflates this title with the 1918 collection with a similar name but different contents. I'm not even sure now if his listing for a 1915 edition is entirely correct. Mhhutchins 19:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I fixed it. I also found a Worldcat record for the 1915 Blackwood edition and added an OCLC verification. Worldcat also had the 1921 edition mentioned in Tuck and I've cloned that one into the database. Both the Worldcat records have the 1902 contents listed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Moore's Scarlet Dream

Please confirm the story title on page 156 of this edition. The verifier of the signed edition has changed it to "Dust of Gods". Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 00:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Pulps: Fifty Years of American Pop Culture

Another editor updated and did a second primary verification of this publication. I noticed the discrepancy in the page count field and suggested that the unnumbered pages should be added to the page count field as "xvi+239+[48]". Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got to run to work right now, and will re-read this disussion later today, but shouldn't the page count be "xvi+[48]+239? I'll also look at this disussion regarding whether we should have bracketed the page numbers of the plates. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, both those discussions really deal with how the page numbers are to be recorded rather than page count, though tangential page count discussions ensued. Michael you made a comment and a link to one of your own verified publications where you appended the count of the plates (which is what we have here) to the end of the page count, rather than where they occurred. The only difference here is that these plates are between two numbered text blocks, and including them where they occur wouldn't involve breaking an otherwise numbered block. I don't have a real problem if there is a set policy that we record plates after the sequence of numbered blocks, but I was unaware that we had such a policy. Do you recall if it has been discussed before or documented somewhere? Also (on the reverse tangent), how do you feel about the use of the extended Roman numbers to indicate the location of each plate. In your comment to the other discussion you advocated leaving the page numbers blank. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 17:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If the record had been given as "xvi+[48]+239" I wouldn't have even brought up the subject. It's just they weren't included at all. About placing them where they occurred in the publication, that's pagination. (Some editors in the past had trouble distinguishing page count from pagination.) In the case of my verified record which you cite, recording the page count field as "viii+205+[12]" makes much more sense than "viii+38+[4]+72+[4]+48+[4]+47" just in order to place the plates within the publication. (That's why I did it in the Note field.) Besides, the field couldn't handle that many characters! So I have no objection to your entering the count of unnumbered pages anywhere in the page count field. There is no policy, as far as I know, about in what position you record unnumbered pages. And as long as you note why you're using roman numerals to indicate the plates, there's no problem. It wouldn't work to use that system and not let the user know that the pages really aren't roman-numeraled. Mhhutchins 18:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Star Wasps

Hi! Added cover credit for your verified 47843 from "Outermost: The Art + Life of Jack Gaughan". Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 00:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

Weirdbook 30 Combined With Whispers

Hello. I believe there are two verified records for the same title: your verified 285683 and 383424. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForJohnScalzi (talkcontribs) .

One for the magazine edition and one for the hardcover edition. Mhhutchins 01:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sir Harold

Hello! I this verified 313450 could you please check the name of the artist , is it Stephan or Stephen Fabian. Thank you! ForJohnScalzi 01:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC).

It's specifically credited to "Stephan Fabian" on the title page which is why we have it set up as a variant. We were missing the interior art for the frontispiece and I've added that. I'm surprised that the crediting is different in the hardcover edition from the same publisher, though. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I have just asked PV for hc and he said is credited as Stephen. Bit weird, I agree. ForJohnScalzi 01:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC).

Gollancz ed. of Over the Edge

When you get a chance, can you read this discussion and then move your verifications to the record I created for the first printing? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. No problems. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Ultimate Invader and Other Science-Fiction

I recently got this book in the mail from a used book dealer, and while I'm verifying it (I'm number five in the queue) I think by ISFDB rules this book is mis-listed. This book is listed on this site as The Ultimate Invader and Other Science-Fiction edited by Donald A. Wollheim, but this is the title only on the book’s cover, but the title page lists this book as The Ultimate Invader and Other Science-Fiction Stories From the Four Corners of Time edited by Donald A. Wollheim. I would ask Dragoondelight but unfortunately he is now gone from this site, so I'm turning to you as the second verifier. Isn’t the title that is on the title page the one that should be used? Could you check your copy? MLB 13:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Stories From the Four Corners of Time" is a subtitle and I have no objections if you wish to add it. Since it is a subtitle, you'll want to add it after a colon: The Ultimate Invader and Other Science-Fiction: Stories From the Four Corners of Time. I'd also leave a note on the other verifiers pages that you've made the change. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. MLB 02:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait, I don't have to notify myself do I? :) MLB 02:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Great Hunt

Hello. Could you please check the artist's name in your verified 298506; i suspect it's Mat t hew C. Nielsen. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 03:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC).

Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sirius: A Fantasy of Love and Discord

Hello. My copy of your verified 344053 has artist as Cliff Nielsen rather than Nelson. Thank you. ForJohnScalzi 00:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC).

Corrected. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Superstitions andTaboos (Weird Tales, November 1941)

In your verified Weird Tales, November 1941, the Superstitions and Taboos essay and artwork are both missing a space between the "and" and the "Taboos". Is this a typo in the database or the publication? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a typo on my part. Thanks for catching it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wells piece in a Williamson collection

It seems very unlikely that the piece starting on page 395 in this record is the same as what was published as this title. Unless it was printed in very small type. Perhaps it is an excerpt from the original? Mhhutchins 01:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't presented as an excerpt. However, it may be an essay contained in the Mirage Press edition. It does have a sub-sub title: "The Limits of Progress: Cosmic" which I assumed to be a section heading, and the acknowledgements page refers to it as "H. G. Wells, Critic of Progress: 'The Limits of Progress'" and states that while it was taken from the Mirage book, it has a copyright of 1966. I'll leave a note on Willem H. page asking him if the 1973 book contains such an essay under either title. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Chapter 3 of "H. G. Wells, Critic of Progress" is titled "The Limits of Progress: Cosmic", so that's probably the part of this book in the Williamson retrospective. As the copyright page states, Parts of this book have appeared, in different form, in The Riverside Quarterly, copyright © 1966 by Jack Williamson, and The Saturday Review of Literature, copyright © 1972 by Saturday Review Inc.. That's where the '66 copyright comes from. If it makes sense, I can enter the chapters as separate essays (6 chapters and an appendix). --Willem H. 09:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've swapped out the NONFICTION for an ESSAY using "The Limits of Progress: Cosmic" as the title. Please feel free to merge it if you want to split your collection up into essays. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
We ordinarily wouldn't create individual content essays for chapters, whether it's for a fiction or nonfiction work. An exception could be made in this case, because it appears that the work was originally published in the fanzine The Riverside Quarterly in five issues between August 1967 and August 1969. This is essentially a serialization of his 1966 Ph.D. dissertation. Without having access to the issues, there's no way to know how the five parts relate to the six chapters of the book publication. Perhaps the sixth chapter was the one that appeared in The Saturday Review, January 1, 1972 as "H. G. Wells: The Man Who Discovered Tomorrow" which was published in At the Human Limit. Mhhutchins 02:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
That's what I meant with "If it makes sense". Thanks for the additional information. The first chapter (A Man Ahead of His Century) is sort of an introduction to the book version, so it's likely that the other five chapters were published in The Riverside Quarterly. There's no statement which part was published in which issue. Essays added btw, and "The Limits of Progress: Cosmic" merged. --Willem H. 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Hyborian Age

I would like to reclassify "The Hyborian Age" from ESSAY to SHORTFICTION. The piece is obviously fiction; there are two pubs containing this content that I don't believe should be called NONFICTION based on the label ESSAY on "The Hyborian Age". You verified Skull-Face and Others and at least three other pubs with this content. Please comment on the proposed reclassification at my page. Bob 03:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Great Detective Stories about Doctors

I'm assuming you may have added or updated this record (based on the uploading of the cover art and the review by Webster) and wonder which, if any, of the stories are spec-fic. Based on the title and the number of authors who only have one story in the database, it's hard to see if any of them are eligible for the database. I would understand that the anthology title is eligible based on the editor's status, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the contents are eligible. Thanks for looking. Mhhutchins 18:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It was certainly me, and the anthology did give me pause. However, given that the Webster book states that it is dealing SF anthologies, and since detective and SF or supernatural fiction, sometimes overlap and because I generally take an inclusionist view, I opted to go ahead and add the content. Unfortunately, Webster doesn't really talk about the individual stories, mostly he just speaks to how hard this book is to find. He goes a little further into the earlier companion book stating that the best "evil doctors" are represented. I don't know if one can extrapolate from that statement that these stories are of the Mad Scientist variety or even whether one should assume the second anthology is more of the same. I had not previously noticed that the article which includes the review was originally published in the February 2002 issue of the The New York Review of Science Fiction which would make the inclusion of the anthology (container title) eligible for inclusion under ROA 12. Since we don't know which of the stories are SF (eligible for inclusion) and the review doesn't say, I don't know how we would determine which stories to include and which to exclude. I'd probably rather have a few non-SF stories mistakenly listed in the DB rather than excluding stories that should be here. I will note that at least two of the stories are otherwise included in a collection or anthology already listed and that several of the stories are by authors who have other work in the database. I don't want to assume your position, but based on our past discussions, I suspect that your position is that you'd rather exclude the stories unless proven to be SF. Would an acceptable compromise be to add a note to title records that their eligibility for database inclusion is unknown? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fair, and with a note in the publication record urging the primary verifier to remove the non spec-fic stories from the record and delete them from the database. Here is my actual stance on inclusion and eligibility, and it's based solely on the current rules:
  • If a work is published in a spec-fic publication it is eligible for inclusion in the database regardless of its genre.
  • If a spec-fic story is published in a non-genre publication, a record can be created for the publication, but only the spec-fic contents should be included in the database.
  • It follows then that a non-genre story published in a non-genre publication should not be included in the database. (No arguing with that, is there?)
It's obvious from the title of the anthology that this is a book of detective stories, so it's clearly a non-genre publication, and only spec-fic stories should be included in the database. Mhhutchins 03:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
We do actually agree. I've added the notes except to the two stories otherwise already in the database. I also deleted the Conan Doyle story since it is a Sherlock Holmes. Though when I got to his author page to remove the title records, I noticed that we have all of the Holmes books and many of the stories listed. I have no problem with Conan Doyle being above the threshold, but I didn't think any of the Holmes stories had actual supernatural or speculative elements that were not eventually explained. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Lin Carter's Something in the Moonlight

You have verified this pub containing Something in the Moonlight and this pub containing Something in Moonlight. Would you mind checking to see if these are the same story and should be varaianted? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It was mistitled in the Chaosium book. I've merged the titles. Thanks for catching this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Per this discussion about "The Avon Fantasy Reader", I changed the artist to Gray Morrow. You may avoid the chance of the tumbling books that fell on my feet while pulling my copy if you think your copy is likely to bear the same information.--swfritter 00:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird Tales, Summer 1998

Hello, in you verified 307847 could you please check the name of poem author on p. 48. Thank you, ForJohnScalzi 03:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Fixed. Thanks for the catch. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledgments for Children of God

Hello, Ron! I am shortly leaving for a two weeks vacation but would like to mention my addition of this title to this edition, so that you might add it to your verified one. Thanks, Christian (Stonecreek 21:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC))

I added it, though with more than a little hesitation as we don't usually include acknowledgments. I'm interested if the other verifier of a copy agrees to add this as well. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Worlds of Weird cover artist identified

The cover of this publication is a reprint of the one used for Weird Tales, October 1933 credited to Margaret Brundage. I added the credit to the record and then made the coverart record a variant of the original record. Mhhutchins 16:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Left Hand of Darkness

Seems to be one too many records for [this], a second one [here]. Both appear to be the same ... ? Same message on Willem's talk page. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I verified an existing record. Since Ron was first, and I can't find any proof for the 1970 publication date, I moved my verification and deleted the duplicate. --Willem H. 20:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspectful author?

Hello, Ron! The author of this essay seems rather doubtful to me. Shouldn't it be either Lupoff or our good friend 'uncredited'? Sorry for the trouble, if I missed something. Stonecreek 19:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Good heavens! I shudder to think how long that error has been sitting there. I suspect that if I introduced it, it was due to cutting and pasting. Anyway, thanks for catching it and it has been corrected now. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does happen! I just came across it while searching just for Lovecraft (and not H. P. Lovecraft). Stonecreek 05:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Help on Lovecraft collection appreciated

I have a 1984 ph publication called The H. P. Lovecraft Christmas Book that consists of several poems organized in four sections. Since you seem to be a genuine expert on all things Lovecraftian I'd like to ask for your help in determining them. I do have some suspects as possible candidates but the first section is untitled and it's not clear if it consists of one longer or of 17 short ones. Would you mind spending some time in finding out on possible parent titles? Thanks for considering, Stonecreek 19:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You're probably overestimating my knowledge of HPL, but I am happy to help. This book strives to be complete and has an index to first lines. You can either post the opening lines here, or email me through the wiki if you'd prefer. I'll see what I can find. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! An index of first lines is just what the doctor would prescribe. Moving from the simple to the somewhat complex I'd like to move backwards. So,
4) Last item is titled Festival and should be identical to the poem on p. 58 of The Ancient Track. It has 20 lines, begins There is snow on the ground, and ends with (...) shewing dimly the sign of the beast.
Matches the poem in TAT exactly.
Fine! A hit!
3) Theobaldian Hibernation in Christmas Book and Theobaldian Aestivation on p. 360 could be alternate titles. Hibernation has four lines, it starts See in his cell the lonely Hermit sit, (...).
Not the one on page 360, which is 138 lines. The one you've got is part of "[Christmas Greetings]" on page 310. That item in TAT, could be split into 112 separate poems. It's only listed once in the table of contents, and has its own heading, followed by 112 numbered headings. Your poem is probably #32: "Theobaldian Hibernation [To Edith Miniter]". It runs 6 lines in TAT, but the 2nd and and 4th are indented. I could split it and make it a series. I'm typing this as I go and I suspect some of the others you have may also be parts of "[Christmas Greetings]".
Seems to be identified by content.
2) In The Ancient Track there is To S. S. L.: Christmas 1920 on p. 438. My publication features S. S. L.: Christmas 1920 (dropping the dedicational 'To'). It has 40 lines (first line: These trivial tokens of a festive day).
This one is puzzling. First, the title in TAT is incorrect and should not have the leading "To". It is incorrect in Locus1 and I was probably cutting and pasting and missed the error. Unfortunately, it also appears in this pub. I'll contact those verifiers to see if their copy had the same title error, or indeed the same poem. The other issue is that the poem in TAT is only 6 lines long, ending with A Christmas cheer which never quite may fade! The notes in TAT indicate that the publication in Saturnalia and Other Poems is the first appearance. I'll also ask the verifiers how long their poem is.
Well, it was my interpretation that all the lines following the heading do belong to one poem. In fact, the paragraphs are separated by indented lines - now I think that these paragraphs are poems of their own, maybe in majority or all taken from "[Christmas Greetings]". The endings match, but still this poem has eight lines in my publication: These trivial tokens (...) / How little (...) / For in each (...) / Regards untold (...) / Yet all, perhaps, (...) / The annual spirit (...) / Disclosing still (...) / A Christms cheer (...)
Sorry. Mine has 8 lines as well and they match yours.
1) The most confusing part: If it's only one poem and not seventeen, we'd be lucky. In every case, this section has roughly sixty lines and starts with Little Tiger, burning bright / With a subtle Blakeish light. Stonecreek 05:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a poem in the "[Christmas Greetings]" (#80, "[To Felis (Frank Belknap Long's cat)]") that begins with those lines, but it is only 8 lines long. The next in the series in TAT, "[To Charles A. A. Parker]" begins May that fleet lark, whose late ambitious flight and is 4 lines long. There is nothing in the notes that indicate that #80 was ever grouped with others. If the next lines in yours copy match #81, I can give you the first lines of the next 16 in the sequence, so we can verify. If not, you'll have to give me what to look up. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and start splitting "[Christmas Greetings]" into its constituent poems. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
As before, I think that the paragraphs in this section are poems of their own. The first of them has indeed 8 lines. The beginning lines of the following paragraphs are as follows:
In Yuletide mood my pencil fain would trace
#106 "[To Sonia H. Greene]"
Once more the greens and holly glow
#88 "[To Sonia H. Greene]"
Precocious Sir, who draw'st with wizardry
#107 "[To Frank Belknap Long]"
As when a pigeon, loos'd in realms remote
#105 "[To Annie E. P. Gamwell]"
There was an old geezer nam'd THEOBALD,
#11 "[To Charles A. A. Parker]"
May good St. Nick, like as a bird of night,
#2 "[To Eugene B. Kuntz et al.]"
St. John, whose art sublimely shines
#76 "[To Rheinhart Kleiner]"
Haughty Sphinx, whose amber eyes
#108 "[To Felis (Frank Belknap Long's cat)]"
Slight is the tour my lines essay
#89 "[To Lillian D. Clark]"
In wishing Christmas joys for you,
#3 "[To ?]"
Tho' short the course my humble note must run,
#38 "[To Annie E. P. Gamwell]"
In these dull lines, deserving of no praise,
#34 "[To D. R.]"
With catnip deck the temple doors,
#103 "[To ?]"
Each column by Potomac clear
#54 "[To Anne Tillery Renshaw and Wilfred B. Talman]"
Enclos'd you'll find, if nothing fly astray,
There are two that fit this. #44 " [To C. W. Smith]", which continues Cheer for a bright New-England Christmas day; and #104 "[To Lillian D. Clark]" which continues Cheer in profusion for your Christmas Day;
Once more the ancient feast returns,
#67 "[To Sonia H. Greene]"
I have one more question on titling: What would be the standard to enter all these untitled poems? Something like untitled ('Once more the ancient feast returns,')? Stonecreek 16:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I just entered the publication, as by now with only two poems. Stonecreek 17:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, using the first line as the title for untitled poems appears to have been discussed and agreed to in this discussion. I'm less certain on what we should use for the canonical title and which should be the variant. I believe that all of the titles in TAT that are in square brackets are probably untitled poems and the editor decided to title them that way. The notes for [Christmas Greetings] stated that Lovecraft frequently noted in the margins who the poems were for and I would guess that is where the titles come from. I might lean slightly for using the TAT titles as canonical and my reason is that it is a title under which the poem was published as opposed to using the first line for an untitled poem i.e. the first line isn't really a published title. I could be talked into going the other way, though as we have no evidence that the TAT titles have been adopted for these poems going forward.
I think I've put all the ones you need into the series, so you can look them up by number. I'll get to the rest, but I didn't want to hold you up. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 18:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Take all the time that you need - my session for today is near its closure and tomorrow is a day of a family festivity. There'll be the poems following To S. S. L.: Christmas 1920, though. Would you like to variant them once I will have entered them (which will probably take a few days)?
It's perfect for me to use the already established titles, your arguments do fit into my view of things. Thank you very much so far! Stonecreek 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't need to make the variants, but can do so if you'd like me to. I've finished putting all the poems into the series. I've also included the first line in the notes for those where the title is re-used. Let me know if you need me to make the variants. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ron. Bare than one I varianted the poems in the Christmas Book. The one exception is this, for which I couldn't find a corresponding first line. May I ask you one more time to consult your doctor's book? Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 08:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the variant. I only included the first lines in the notes where there were multiple poems with the same title. It is "[To Laurie A. Sawyer]". --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Stonecreek 12:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Lovecraft's Christmas Greetings poems

There are two records numbered as 60 in this series, on page 321 of this record. Mhhutchins 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
A question: why is the series name in brackets? There are plenty of series which aren't "officially" named, and they don't use brackets. Mhhutchins 04:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It's how it is named in the the book. Many of the individual poems, both in this series and others, have names in square brackets and my assumption is that these are untitled items where the editor (Joshi) assigned a name. In this case, the series is listed both with the bracketed name in the table of contents before the first numbered poem. As I'm sure you've noted from the above discussion, I originally had the series as a single poem (which is also how Locus1 lists it). Anyway, I don't have any complaints if you'd like to remove the brackets. It does make the display in publications a little strange since the brackets nest: "[To Samuel Loveman] • [[Christmas Greetings] • 1] • poem by H. P. Lovecraft". --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
But the name of a series is, for the most part, based on a consensus of its readers, what it is most commonly known by, sometimes even outside the author's control. I understand why the poems' titles would be bracketed, if that's how they're presented in the publication, but that still doesn't explain why the name of the series is bracketed. As it is now given in the database, the brackets are actually part of the series' name and many, if not most, of the db users would have no idea of their meaning or intention. I'm willing to let it stand as is, but you'd have to admit it is unusual within the context of the ISFDB. (It's the only one in the db that uses brackets.) Mhhutchins 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Chabon's Kavalier & Clay

I've corrected the title (from "Kavaler" to "Kavalier"), added notes, fixed the broken Amazon image link in this record, and did a second primary verification. I also change the title record to NONGENRE. Thanks. Mhhutchins 22:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


The content record on page 314 of this publication has a PARENT TITLE ERROR, meaning that it was made into a variant of another record which is no longer in the database. It's possible that the original record may have been merged with another, or deleted for some reason. Can you look at the illustration and see if the parent record may be under a different title or author credit in the db? Thanks. Mhhutchins 04:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill recently verified the novel and I suspect he blanked the cover artist that was the parent title. I want to double check he is OK with it before adding it back and have left a note on his talk page. Thanks for catching this. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Charterhouse ed. of Dorian Gray

I'm not sure if you were the editor who added the contents of this record, but hope that you may be able to answer a question. I see that there are two pieces credited to "Basil Hallward". This is a character in the novel, not a real person. Could this just be a publishing conceit in attributing the work to the character? Mhhutchins 21:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It may have been me, but I can't be certain. I may have just done the verifications on an existing record. I've searched for the Google books record mentioned, and have not been able to find it. I've also checked Internet Archive without success. I did happen upon an ad in Publisher's Weekly that mentions the preface and the artwork. My own copy of the book has neither. For the artwork, I would guess that we should variant it to uncredited. For the preface, I would suggest that we also variant it to uncredited and make the type SHORTFICTION. Do you agree? --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sounds like a good plan. BTW, I also couldn't find the referenced Google books' scan of that edition. But I did come across something even more interesting in the search. This explains that the Charterhouse edition was pirated, and that from its "Artist's Preface" there arose a widely-believed misunderstanding of how the novel was originally conceived. All based on this erroneous "Artist's Preface". Ha! Mhhutchins 23:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I've made the changes we discussed and added notes referencing the explanation you found. Please feel free to adjust them in any way you feel necessary. Good sleuthing. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Herman (E.) Bischoff

Just a note that The Lottery (cover) by Herman Bischoff in your verified Art of Imagination: 20th Century Visions of Science Fiction, Horror, and Fantasy has been turned into a VT of "Cover: The Lottery, or, The Adventures of James Harris, Daemon Lover" by Herman E. Bischoff.

P.S. Hopefully Outlantacon was a success! Ahasuerus 22:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a bit of a relaxicon, but fun nonetheless. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The Automated Goliath/The Three Suns of Amara

I think the date for [this] record is totally incorrect. The [Double] cited in the notes does indeed have the date for a previous printing as April 1963, but it has exactly the same data for the other half of the double. If correct it would place F-129 and F-195 as printed in the same month. Unlike the five-digit Ace editions, the lettered ones were done in sequence, making such a coincident printing quite impossible. Found this anomaly during a current ACE project that has determined that the Ace Doubles were printed one per month for at least ten years and that there was one missing from 1962, February to be exact. Looking at the [ACE] page for 1962, F-129 fits perfectly as the February Double. Thus I'd like a consensus of the verifiers to change [with notes] the date for the current record. Have a look and see what you think. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change. Both Tuck and Reginald1 have a 1962 date, bolstering your argument, though neither of them specify the month. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Corrick (in this pub), gives also a February 1962 date. Hauck 12:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks logical. I fully agree with the change. --Willem H. 18:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, gentlemen! Record has been updated. --~ Bill, Bluesman 21:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
That looks good. I summarized this thread and added it to the notes for F-129. I sure wish book stores had saved the publisher catalogs as they would be great sources today for what was released each month of the year. I've also been trying to get older copies of "Books in Print." --Marc Kupper|talk 15:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


Hello, as the sole verifier of this publication here, can you have a look at it and verify if the author of _Providence_ is Kevin J. Stein or (more likely) Kevin T. Stein. Thanks. Hauck 14:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the middle initial should be a "T". I've corrected it. It's always good to check with these White Wolf publications as several of them have quite serious errors in their editing. Thanks for finding the error. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Genesis: Cadwiller Olden

Your verified Windy City Pulp Stories #3 contains this story. The story is dated 1937 and the note on the story's title record states "excerpt from Repel". However:

  1. The credited author was born in 1953; and
  2. Repel is credited to Lester Dent.

Would you mind double checking this story? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine why I entered it this way. It is an essay about the first appearance of the character Cadwiller Olden, which was in Repel and there are excerpted passages. But it really is an essay. Thanks for pointing this out. I've corrected the records. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It still has the date issue (1937 vs author was born in 1953). -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. Fixed now. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthopology 101

There is an error in one of the content records (page 132) in this publication record. I've asked a question of the editor who recently made some changes in the pub records for the original title that may have caused the error. Please check to see who is credited in the publication, and whether it should be varianted to another record. (It's currently varianted to a missing record.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 02:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, it's unusual to create interiorart content records for covers of books under review. I don't think I've ever seen it before, even though 90% of all reviews include cover reproductions of the titles being reviewed. Is this publication "special", requiring the creation of interiorart records? Mhhutchins 02:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken record. My credit was taken from the record for the book, so I've changed it to Lehr. No special reason for creating the interior art records. I've entered a number of other books that have reprinted covers recently so that when I encountered these, I entered them without even thinking about it. I doubt I would have done so if it was a magazine. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Do you have any idea how the name "Barbara Luttringhaus" got attached to the record? Mhhutchins 02:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I see from Bill's response that the cover credit on the hardcover edition differed from the paperback and he corrected it. (Maybe Luttringhaus was the cover designer.) When he corrected that record, the parent record of your variant was deleted from the db. That explains the error. Mhhutchins 02:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I happened to be editing when you posed the question. I took the credit for the interior art from the record for the hardcover, trusting it was correct. It may be as you and Bill have suggested. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Submission by Therapnes

Hello, Ron! I just would like to direct your attention to a submission waiting in the queue that would affect this pub. (item on p. 469) verified by you. Thanks, Stonecreek 08:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a good edit as my credit was a mistake. I've approved it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Playboy's MASK anthology

A question. You verified this [6]. It is noted that it says "First Edition". My copy does not say this anywhere that I can see. Could you check your copy to see if mine is a different printing? Thanx.Don Erikson 19:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to check. However, I'm away from my library until next week. I am fairly certain that those aren't my comments. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Back now. It does actually state first edition, right after the LCCN, in the third paragraph on the copyright page. If yours doesn't list it there, presumably you have another printing. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hearafter, Inc.?

Is probably a typo in this publication. Most editions have Hereafter, Inc.. Can you check this? Thanks, --Willem H. 13:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed a typo and I've merged it under the correct title. Thanks for catching it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird Tales Spring 2009

I accepted a submission to change the title of the story by Caleb Wilson (in this issue) from "Count Scranto" to "Court Scranto" (changing the titles of the interiorart records as well). If this wasn't right, let me know and i'll revert the titles. Mhhutchins 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a typo and the correction is a good one. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Brundage collection

There are a couple of missing parent title records in the contents of this publication (pages 56 and 186). Mhhutchins 04:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I know what happened here, since I did the edit that probably broke the variants. I changed the cover artist of that issue of Weird Tales to the "M. Brundage" pseudonym (She is explicitly credited that way in the table of contents.) I did this within the publication record. It appears, that changing the cover artist creates a new title record under the new name and if there were no other publications with that title record, deletes it, regardless of whether there are variants (as there were in this case) or not, thus causing the missing parents. I'm not sure if this is a use case where a warning should be noted (on approval), or if this is enough of an edge case that it wouldn't be worth the effort. I'll certainly endeavor to keep this in mind when changing cover artists going forward. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't happen that often to warrant a warning to the moderator, but there is a clean-up script that finds them pretty easily. That's the only way I knew that these variants had been broken. Mhhutchins 16:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Some Notes on a Nonentity

This record should be typed as NONFICTION. The CHAPTERBOOK type is restricted to a single work of fiction (and any accompanying essays or interiorart). Mhhutchins 04:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks for letting me know. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Tagging the Moon: Fairy Tales from L.A.

I'd like to add 10 individual interior art records for your verified pub Tagging the Moon, as they all individually illustrate the ten stories. What say you? PeteYoung 13:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free. I have no objections. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. I've also added to the note a mention of the 10 photos at the back of the pub. Thanks. PeteYoung 14:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Necronomicon: Selected Stories

There's a problem with duplicate (or near duplicate) titles on page 192 of this record. It seems to have also worked itself into the other editions of this title (here and here). Thanks. Mhhutchins 23:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, for all editions. I've removed the one with the incorrect title. Thanks for finding it. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A Fred Lerner essay

Hi Ron, could I ask you to have a look in your verified pub A Bookman's Fantasy: How Science Fiction Became Respectable, and Other Essays, and check the title 'Towards a Definition of Science Fiction: A Reply to James Gunn'. Is it "Toward" or "Towards" (as in your pub)? I'm working from an index Fred Lerner provided to me, where he has it as "Toward" as it first appeared in his fanzine 'Lofgeornost'. Need to know whether to merge or make a variant. Thanks. PeteYoung 09:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's "Towards" so a variant would be warranted. I'll leave it to you to make the variant. However, I'll change the date to match the title change in my book. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Petaja's Stardrift

Is there a comma present in the title on the title page of this publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 16:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No comma. It must have been in the record before I verified it. Fixed now. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Lost Moon" by Donald Wandrei

Since you are the primary verifier, could you please check if Donald Wandrei's "The Lost Moon" (short story) and "The Lost Moon" (poem) contain the same text? If not, I wonder if we may want to update their Notes? TIA! Ahasuerus 14:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a prose poem, and they are the same. Merged now. Thanks for finding pointing it out. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Rebellious Stars

Hi, the cover artist for the Asimov half of this Ace Double is Harry Barton, as can be seen at this Munchkinpress gallery. Thanks. Horzel 08:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the record and notified the other verifiers. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Herzog's Earthsound

Can you see if there is an explicit ISBN stated in this record? It seems that in 1976 Signet had not yet started using ISBNs. Also, there is no ISBN given in the OCLC record (and they give an additional "x" pages). Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 03:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The ISBN is on the spine only. I've added a note to that effect, while I was updating the page count and because of the question of when Signet began using ISBNs. Happy to look it up.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 04:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Big Book of Ghost Stories

I have made the following changes to your verified The Big Book of Ghost Stories:

  • Changed "The Phantom RIckshaw" to "The Phantom Rickshaw" (p88, story and p89, artwork)
  • Changed the page number of Wilde's "The Canterville Ghost" from 247 to 347
  • Changed the M. R. James story to be a variant without a comma after "Whistle" (p513)
  • Credited "The Considerate Hosts" artwork (p730) to John Giunta per signature in upper right (previously uncredited)
  • Added LCCN

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Three to Conquer

Hi, the cover artist to the above part of this Ace Double is Robert E. Schulz, the original art can be found at, I hope the link works for you too. Never mind that they spell it Schultz, just look at the signature. Thanks. Horzel 19:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the artist and notified the other verifiers. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I Am Legend

It's possible this record may be misdated, or the book gives the wrong date. There is a record in the db for the 4th printing in the previous year, and it's not likely it would have had ten more printings in that time period. Also, if it has an ISBN-13, it must have been printed after 2005. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 14:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of it. The copyright page states "First published in Great Britain in 1999 by Millennium" and further down states "This edition published in Great Britain in 2001 by Gollancz". Lastly there is a number line with 14 as the lowest number. I purchased this new in 2007. I had assumed the 2001 statement referred to the printing data but perhaps it refers to when Orion switched from the Millennium to the Gollancz imprint. I'll switch it to an unknown date. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It's an undated 14th printing. Many publishers only give the year (or month & year) of the first printing, and don't remove the statement when a work is reprinted, only removing one of the numbers in the number line. Mhhutchins 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lord of Light

Can you confirm that there is an ISBN-13 in this 2004 publication? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 16:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Same question for this one. Mhhutchins 17:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This one is more problematical. The notes assert that there is an ISBN-13, but that's not possible for a 2003 publication. It must a later printing (2005 or later). There is a record (unverified) in the database for the 2003 edition, which I assume is the first printing. Could your 2nd printing with an ISBN-13 possibly be published in 2005 or later? (Perhaps there's a ad or listing of other titles in the series to help date the book.) Thanks. Mhhutchins 18:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

All three of these have an ISBN-13, but may fall under the same issue as with the Matheson above. The statement on the Brunner is slightly different, however. Instead of saying it was "published" is states "This edition reprinted in 2003 by Gollancz". The Zelazny was also purchased in 2007 (same trip). The Pohl & Kornluth was also likely purchased then though may have been used. The Brunner was purchased in 2008 and also may have been used. If you agree, I can certainly switch these to the unknown date. I probably should check the rest of this series as well. However, I'm about to go out of town for a long weekend, so I'll have to wait until next week to recheck these. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 01:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No rush. Just when you have time. Mhhutchins 02:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lowndes' Three Faces of Science Fiction

There's a problem with the three essays in this collection entered into the series "Science Fiction as Delight". They are variants of other title records, and series data should not be given in variant records. Unfortunately, the parent records are in a different series, and the system doesn't allow a title record to be in more than one series. So a decision will have to be made about which series to enter them in. Perhaps a note in the title records and the publication record can explain the works' appearances in two different series. (This came up on a clean-up script which finds variant records entered into series.) Mhhutchins 01:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about that while I was doing it. I did actually look at the cleanup scripts before making the original edits, but didn't see anything under series. I hadn't noticed the ones under variant. Anyway, I've moved the parent titles to the series that appears in the book and made that series a child of the magazine column series with a note on the child series explaining the arrangement which seems workable to me. This wouldn't work, of course, if there were other essays from outside the parent series that needed to be added to the child, but that is not the case in this instance. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Weird Tales, Spring 2009

Ron, when you get a chance can you look at this record? It was a Fixer submission which I just accepted and then discovered there's a record for this issue which you have verified. There are some slight differences, the major one is the publication date. This new one appears to be an August 2013 reprint of the original. It has a higher price, an ISBN (does yours?) and a slightly different cover design (same art). If it is a reprint, then it deserves to stay in the database. If you think it's the same printing, feel free to delete it from the database. These POD publishers are a headache, and Wildside's publications always give me one. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wildside certainly made it tricky to find, but it appears that they have done a facsimile reprint of that issue. Mine if from my subscription. Looking through their site, it appears that they have additional reprints or "book paper editions". This raises a number of questions about how we deal with magazine reprints of this nature. Are they magazines or anthologies? Should they be placed in the regular magazine series, or should they be given their own reprint series? Should they be given the cover date or the date of the reprint? What if there is no source for the reprint date? I am aware of one editor who is giving a date from his own records. I don't think we have a well defined standard for this sort of publication or at least not a well documented one. This is one instance of how I handled a similar case. This series is another way it has been handled. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 12:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In the past, some editors have chosen to enter facsimile reprints as anthologies, which is quite illogical to me, especially if the publication is an exact reprint of a magazine. It was never, as far as I know, ever discussed before the group. But back then the magazine editors pretty much decided things on their own without bringing the rest of the group into the discussion. That's why we have such oddities as this case and others, like the different way of entering interiorart pieces, the use of a dash instead of a slash for bimonthly issues, appending "(reprint)" to titles of illustrations that are identical, thus creating a new record just because it was reprinted. I could go on. This situation might require opening a discussion on the Rules & Standards page to allow other editors into the circle. Mhhutchins 15:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Delany's The Tides of Lust

Ron, the title page of your verified pub, the Savoy edition of The Tides of Lust, is as by "Samuel Delany" without the customary "R." initial. Thanks. PeteYoung 05:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've made the corrections. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 11:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bazil Broketail

I added the two maps to the contents of Bazil Broketail, three maps to the contents of Battledragon and one map to the contents of The Dragons of Argonath and Dragon Ultimate. I also added words to the notes of the last one. Bob 17:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Sleeping Dragon

I added content to The Sleeping Dragon. The same map appears in the next book in the series, The Sword and the Chain. Bob 19:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Added a precise date of publication to your verified Greybeard. Thanks. PeteYoung 04:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Systemic Shock

I added the maps to the content of Systemic Shock. Bob 23:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Carr's Fantasy Annual III

Can you confirm the month of publication given in this record? Amazon has it as April, and I have it has May in my Bishop bibliography (without looking back at the issues, I think that was sourced from Locus.) Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 23:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Stated as May. I've corrected it and added a note. Thanks for finding that. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 23:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Die Lautlose Macht (cover)

Hello, Ron! I stumbled over this title of a cover by Mattingly in this book and I wondered if it might be the one on the cover of this novel, which seems to be more in the style of him than of Daniels, to whom it is credited. Would you be so kind to take a look into the matter? Christian Stonecreek 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they're different. The cover in the Robinson et al book, does state that it is a German book club edition and "Science Fiction & Fantasy Club" across the bottom of the cover. I was able to find the Mattingly illustration through a Google search.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your effort! It seems that artists can show a variety of styles. Christian Stonecreek 03:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

SF Masterworks ed. of Star Maker

Ron, a couple of things with your verified pub, a copy of which I also have to hand. Firstly, the Foreword by Aldiss is as by "Brian W. Aldiss", not "Brian Aldiss". Secondly, concerning the Glossary: It has an introduction by Harvey Satty on page 261-262, The Glossary was written by Stapledon himself, as Satty makes clear in his introduction; I've also added a recent SF Masterworks (II) edition here which has identical Contents to this edition, and where you can see the Note I've added re. the Glossary. I also have a copy of the first Millennium impression and again the contents are identical, so I expect the Contents of your 4th impression are the same too. Thanks. PeteYoung 17:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct and I've replaced my contents with yours. I've no memory of why I did a transient verification of the 4th printing. The only reason that I would have kept a 6th in place of a 4th is if there were condition issues. In any case, I've updated both records. Thanks for pointing out the issues. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Finding Oz

According to the Amazon Look Inside, this was published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Harcourt purchased Houghton Mifflin in 2007, and they sometime use "Houghton Mifflin" as an imprint, but some time do not (as in this case) giving the full name. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 18:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed "Houghton Mifflin Harcourt". Thanks for catching the error. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Shadow of Nightmare", by Clark Ashton Smith

Since you appear to be our resident Clark Ashton Smith fan, I thought I'd mention I discovery I made today. The poem "Shadow of Nightmare" was listed by us with a 1971 date, as that was the earliest publication we had of it. In looking through some fanzines I recently purchased, I found it published in a 1950 fanzine. I haven't entered the fanzine yet (fanzine setup and contents always take a while), but I entered the basic data with the title rec for the poem (linked above). Chavey 06:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it appeared in The Star-Treader and Other Poems in 1912. There is a pretty good Smith web site where I found that it was in the earlier collection. We didn't have it, but happily it is in Google books, so I was able to add it. I imported the contents from another poetry collection and I still have to correct the dates (ran out of time before work). I suspect that many of our dates for Smith's poetry are later than they should be. I am afraid I'm not much of a poetry fan in general, but I am quite fond of Smith's prose. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks for adding that collection in. I agree with your suspicion that lots of the dates we have assigned to Smith are substantially later than they should be. But of course that's also true for many of the older authors in the database. Eventually we'll find many of the missing sources :-) Chavey 03:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Entering CHAPTERBOOK records in series

I'm cleaning up this script which finds CHAPTERBOOKS which have been entered into series. It is ISFDB standard to enter only the SHORTFICTION record into a series. (See this latest clarification of the standards.)

I've discovered quite a number of the records on the list for the Oz series and the Twinkle Tales were primary verified by you. If you look over those series, you'll find that many of the titles are duplicated because both the CHAPTERBOOK and the SHORTFICTION title records contain series data. When you have a chance, please look over the results of the script, and if they are your primary-verified publication records (or those you may entered) please remove the series data from the CHAPTERBOOK title records. Thanks. Mhhutchins 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I'm actually aware of the current standard, though I clearly wasn't (or it was not the standard) when I entered those. Anyway, they're all cleaned up now. Thanks for letting me know about them. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Encore un whiskey, monsieur Jorkens?

I've changed the Publisher to Néo in order to standardize and put the publication in its proper series for this pub. Hope you'll agree. Hauck 16:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Same Lundwall

Perhaps it should be just Sam in this? Stonecreek 14:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks for catching the error. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

About the Author (The Tombs of Atuan)

Please see this discussion regarding the About the Author which appears in your verified The Tombs of Atuan. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Survivors

My 4th printing of Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Survivors has an uncredited frontispiece illustration with Jack Gaughan's signature… wondering if your 1st printing does too. Thanks. PeteYoung 05:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It does indeed. I've added the illustration and informed the other verifiers. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Fortunes of Brak

Hi, my copy of this edition shows on the back cover "Cover painting by George Bush / Interior illustrations by Doug Beekman". Please check your own copy. Thanks. Horzel 16:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've corrected the cover artist. I also agree (but not strongly), that the interior artist can be listed as "Doug Beekman". Aside from the credit on the back cover, the interior art is copyrighted by "Douglas Beekman" on the copyright page, which is likely why the credit was entered as it has been. I want to ask the other verifier if he agrees before changing the credit. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I won't mind if you leave the interior art credit as it is. But Doug Beekman is his canonical name. Horzel 19:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Except Doug Beekman's interior art credit is now missing altogether. Horzel 19:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It's there as Douglas Beekman. The interior art credits are hidden by default. You have to click on "(View Full Listing)" to see it. I try to list artists by their canonical name unless there is an explicit credit. Here we have two explicit credits, on the back cover and on the copyright page and they disagree as to the form of the name. It's a matter of whether we consider the form on the copyright page to trump the back cover. As I said, I'm leaning towards the canonical name, but I wanted to get input from the other verifier before we make the change. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 20:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

30th Anniversary ed. of Interview with a Vampire

According to the notes in this record the slipcase is pictured, but the record is currently linked to an image on Fantastic Fiction. Did you intend on adding a different image and it "slipped" your mind? (Sorry.) Mhhutchins 01:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(groan). Actually, I've no idea if Fantastic Fiction had the slipcase pictured nearly 5 years ago or not. In any case, I've slipped a new image in. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 02:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me that the website holding the image may have changed the file. That clears that up. Mhhutchins 02:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Cover art for Rachel Pollack's Unquenchable Fire

I've discovered an error in crediting the artist for our verified SF Masterworks edition of Unquenchable Fire. The back cover credits Martyn Pick, however it is in fact by Christopher Gibbs. I've changed the credit and added a note. PeteYoung 12:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cover art for Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed

Ron, could you please check the cover art credit for your verified 6th impression of The Dispossessed… Chris Moore certainly did the artwork as also credited on other printings, and it seems to have caused some confusion as per the note for the verified third printing. Thanks. PeteYoung 04:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely credited to Jim Burns on the back cover. I'll make a note on my copy and variant it to the Chris More cover. I'd actually prefer that the Pollack novel above be done in the same manner. However, since you were the first verifier on that one, I was going to let it go. My personal manner for handling artwork is to use the canonical name of the actual artist, unless there is an explicit credit, as there is in both these cases. If there is an explicit credit, I'll use that exactly as it appears and variant it to the canonical name, or indeed the correct artist if the credit is known to be incorrect. I don't know if this is a stated standard or not, but it seems to fit the spirit of the way we handle authors. Anyway, I'll make the changes to my printing of the Le Guin. We should probably have the notes on the 3rd printing regarding the credit removed, since it appears to be in order there. I'll leave a note directing that verifier to this discussion. Thanks for the research.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 00:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Avon Fantasy Reader

I have a submission on hold to modify The Avon Fantasy Reader. A new editor is attempting to change the cover artist credit from "Gary Morrow" to "Gray Morrow" with a moderator's note of "The name of the cover illustrator as spelled on the publication page is 'Gray Morrow'. Note that 'Gary Morrow' as currently spelled in this record is also credited with at least one other cover and two interior illustrations. If he was correctly credited in those publications, then the name as spelled in this book should probably be reported as a typo in the Notes section."

I notified the editor that they needed to discuss this with the primary verifiers, but they don't seem to have found their talk page. As a primary verifier (while you are #3, you are the most active), would you mind checking this? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. The credit is "Gray" on the copyright page, so the edit is good. Swfritter did respond to an inquiry on mine within the last week, so he is at least somewhat active and the editor should probably at least inform him. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It's been two weeks so doubt the editor will follow-up. In the process of notifying Swfritter, I stumbled across this previous discussion. Looks like he intended to make the change, but it fell through the cracks. I'll go ahead and accept the change. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, please double check the note I added to the pub to make sure I understood you correctly. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You did. I may not have quoted the name since it only needs emphasis in light of the original typo, but it certainly doesn't hurt anything. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Odd that I said that I had already made the change? Don't know what happened. I might also note that this verified publication lists Gary Morrow as the artist but this ebay ad is an edition signed by Gray Morrow. This wikipedia article also lists Gray Morrow as the artist. I will will leave it to someone else to make the call.--swfritter 00:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Saat aus dem Grabe

Hello, Ron. I normalized the titles connected with this book: In german only the nouns begin with capitals. I also changed the publisher to just 'Insel' (from Insel-Verlag), to have it in accordance with other publications. Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 14:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the changes. I recall that I did a search for the publisher, but didn't find any matches. Regarding the capitalization, I fall into the category of those editors that apply the current guidelines regardless of language as many in this discussion do. I did take one semester of German about 30 years ago, and have unfortunately forgotten much of it. I could probably make a good guess between nouns and other parts of speech, but it would be a guess. Additionally, I'm not sure I would remember how the rules vary for each language. Perhaps it would be useful to have a page in the wiki where the capitalization rules could be looked up by language. From the tone of the earlier discussion, I would think there would still be resistance to following other rules, but I could be wrong. That being said, I've no complaint if someone who is fluent in a language subsequently corrects my entries. Especially here, since I worked only from secondary sources. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

ConJose Convention Program

Please check the spelling of the piece on Vernor Vinge on page 17 of this record when you get a chance. It also needs to be varianted to James R. Frenkel. Thanks. Mhhutchins 03:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. I daresay he seems to appear without his middle initial more often than not. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
That's the trouble with several "pseudonyms", the most egregious example is "James E. Gunn" who stopped using his middle initial more than 40 years ago! I've swapped many canonical names and pseudonyms, some more easier than others. But I'd hate to think how many submissions it would take to swap the ones for Gunn! Mhhutchins 15:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Intro to Last and First Men

Ron, for your consideration: the essay title Introduction ('Last and First Men') that appears on page xvii of your verified Masterworks edition of Last and First Men is actually part of the novel: its full title is "Introduction by One of the Last Men", and it doesn't appear as an independent essay title in any other edition of the book. A candidate for removal? PeteYoung 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be removed. I've looked it over and it still appears to be an introduction, albeit a fictional one, rather than part of the novel. The writing itself refers to "This book", thus being aware of the novel as a separate entity. Lastly, the editors at Gollancz considered it different enough to place it in the Roman numbered introductory pages rather than the Arabic numbered pages of the novel proper. There are several examples where fictional introductions have been included ([7] or [8]) in the database, though most of these are for collections rather than novels. That all being said, we should definitely changed it from an ESSAY to SHORTFICTION. I wouldn't change the title. Rather, I'd change the author to "One of the Last Men" and then variant it back to Stapledon. However, I feel less strongly on this last point and could be talked into changing the title as you say. I'll leave a note on the other verifier's page (although it looks like his last contribution to the wiki was last July) before making the change. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 14:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just my 5cents. After considering both points, I'm more inclined to agree with Rtrace on this. Sincerely Viter 05:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"The Were-Wolf " by Clemence Housman

Since you are the primary verifier of this pub, I wonder if you may be able to shed some light on a related enigma. Various sources, including Encyclopedia of Fantasy, indicate that the novel version was first published in 1896. We also have a novelette version of the same title on file, which is dated 1890 and the Note field says "First published in the magazine Atalanta, December 1890". Would you happen to know if the 1896 novel may be an expansion of the 1890 novelette? Ahasuerus 01:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

They appear to be the same. The Project Gutenberg copy listed under both the novel and the novelette is 15,281 words, which is a novelette by our standards. The copy I verified is the scan on Google Books of the 1896 John Lane printing which appears to be the same one that Gutenberg is drawn from (The HTML version includes the 1896 Lane title page). FictionMags has the magazine appearance, so I think the note is good. I can only assume that Clute/Grant only considers book publications when giving the date of first publication. Interestingly, they describe this as an extended prose poem. I'll proceed to combine the records. I'll leave it as a novelette despite Clute/Grant's characterization. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 03:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Ahasuerus 03:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Month of publication for 2001 as cited in Locke

Can you check your copy of this title and see if Wikipedia is correct in giving Locke as the source for the publication month of 2001: A Space Odyssey as June 1968? Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 04:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. It details several editions, but the only one it gives a month for is the first paperback (Signet) which it states has "First Printing, July 1968" on the copyright page. It only lists year for the first (NAL) and first UK (Hutchinson) editions. Despite the note I do have he Addenda sheet, and there is nothing there that modifies that entry. Hope this helps. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 06:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bishop's Transfigurations

I've added notes to this record and changed the price from £8.99 to £9.99 with the assumption that the original listing was incorrectly priced. If your copy has the former price, please return it to the record, and I'll add another note about my copy having a different price. Thanks. Mhhutchins 05:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The price on mine is the same as yours. Sorry that I missed it. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Der Zauberlehrling" (The Sorcerer's Apprentice), by H.H. Ewers

A couple of years ago you did some research on the first publication of this work. I've added some notes to yours, although I was also unable to verify a 1907 publication date. Just in case you're interested. Chavey 02:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Dreams & Nightmares, September 2012

The title of this pub should be "Dreams & Nightmares, #93, 2012" to match all the other entries of the series. I submitted an edit, but it is on hold since, I was told, you are the primary verifier and need to approve the request. Thanks. Biswas 14:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other issues are incorrect. See the magazines and Missing or variant dates sections of this help page. The standard is to use Magazine Title, Date and "The date is always preferable, even if the magazine typically gives the issue number". Thanks.--Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Delany's Aye and Gomorrah collection

Can you see if the title given in this record is properly stated? According to some sources it's simply Aye and Gomorrah: Stories. Thanks for checking. Mhhutchins 19:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. The record must have predated my verification. I've adjusted the publication. I've changed the title record to remove the subtitle entirely, since the UK edition appears not to have a subtitle. Thanks for finding the error. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 22:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Aldiss's Helliconia

A few things about our verified SF Masterworks (II) edition:

  • I've uploaded a cover scan to replace the Amazon image, which had the typography incorrectly placed.
  • There is a map across two unnumbered pages before the introduction begins on page ix, initialled "MA". This is by Margaret Aldiss, and there's already a record for it here, which as the PV1 you may wish to add.
  • I've varianted Aldiss's 'Introduction' to the 1996 'Preface', as per this discussion.

Thanks. PeteYoung 12:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. I'll notify the other verifier. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 19:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)