User talk:Willem H./Archive/02

To Your Scattered Bodies Go

Your submitted new pub for To Your Scattered Bodies Go seems to be an exact dupe of TRSCTTRDBD0000. On hold pending your response. -DES ^Talk 21:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... shows how sharp I am at the moment. Thanks for noticing, and please reject this. Willem H. 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Earth Gods Are Coming

Hi Willem, I see you want to unmerge one of these pubs "Of Earth Foretold" from "The Earth Gods Are Coming", is the variant wrong or is it something else. I ask this because at my end it doesn't indicate which title is to be unmerged(no title displayed). When doing an unmerge with variants it has to be done from the variant title and you did the unmerge from the parent title "The Earth Gods Are Coming". Thanks.Kraang 02:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do see ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard#Of Earth Foretold and above #Of Earth Foretold for previous relevant discussion. -DES ^Talk 04:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm practicing lots of zen and other stuff to keep from straining my heart. Please release my edit so I can go on with my life ... btw, I was unmerging the variants from the parent title. Thanks Willem H. 19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The easier way was to break the variant link, which I've done. You can now fix "Of Earth Foretold" and then remerge as a collection. I approve the submission since it would have no effect on any of the titles.Kraang 00:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm always searching for the easiest way to do things. Next submissions are made. Willem H. 07:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the contents have been entered and linked, just one thing is missing and that's the title record for the collection[1]. The main title is still set to a novel and is linked to the content title of the same name. If you like I can break the variant, create the collection title record and redo the variant. :-)Kraang 01:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the collection title is the same as the novel title, which is a variant of another title, a bit of a knot and not something encountered often. In the end we need two identical titles one for the collection the other for the novel.Kraang 01:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, no variants needed to be broken, just a new collection title record created and merged. It can get confusing as you navigate through the various records (novel title, collection title, 2 collection pubs) called "Of Earth Foretold", but I think it is all proper if you look closely, and some confusion is inherent in the way this was published. The novel is a varient, but the collection is not. Still, this isn't as bad as when we have two collections with the same name but different contents. -DES ^Talk 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This way works to, I was only suggesting the other way if Willem wanted to do it, I thought it would be less confusing. If new editors can navigate through these tangled messes it helps them learn.:-)Kraang 02:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Campbell's Analog 4

Can you check out this pub record? Tuck gives the date as 1968. The record is dated 1967, but the notes gives a statement that it was published in 1976. Also Tuck gives the price as 25/- if you wish to update the pub. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Very sharp. Slip of the keyboard I think. Edit is made in two sessions. Please ignore (or reject) the first. The second is better. Thanks Willem H. 17:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not too sharp. If the date had matched Tuck's I probably would have missed the note. Thanks. MHHutchins 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragon's Egg

There is something a bit odd about your recent new pub submission of a 2nd printing of the pb Del Rey edition of Dragon's Egg. You date it 1983-10-00 with a price of $2.95. But DRGNSGGVJH1984 is recorded as the 3rd printing, with a price of $2.25. Either your entry is in error, or the record for the 3rd printing is in error, or the price went down, which, to say the least, unusual. I see another mod has approved this, but would you recheck, please? -DES ^Talk 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this when entering, so I was extra careful. I even checked Locus1 (it's not there). Mine is exactly as I entered it, so whoever entered the third printing must be wrong. I don't think prices went down in 1984. Thanks Willem H. 20:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Probably whoever it was cloned the 1981 ed and forgot to change the price. I think I'll move that price to the notes. -DES ^Talk 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If the book was printed in Canada this could have a Canadian price on the cover.Kraang 21:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's possible. the existing record doesn't mention being printed in Canada. Since it isn't verified, no easy way to tell that I know of. -DES ^Talk 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course, but mine was printed in the USA. Title page states: A Del Rey Book over Ballantine Books . New York, copyright page states: manufactured in the United States of America Willem H. 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I still suspect that the $2.25 for the 3rd printing started as a clone of the first printing, not as a Canadian price, but i can't prove that either. (Canadian prices of that era were usually higher, not lower.) The only think I'm sure of is that a US price of $2.25 in 1984 is very unlikely to be correct. Until someone verifies a copy of the 3rd printing, no way to be sure. -DES ^Talk 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I accepted the original submission based on it being a book-in-hand. I noticed the discrepancy with the record for the 3rd printing, but because it wasn't primary verified I assumed that the problem was with it and not with Willem H.'s submission. So I came to the same conclusion as DES: "Until someone verifies a copy of the 3rd printing, no way to be sure." MHHutchins 21:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to hold the submission based on this (and i didn't), but I thought it was worth asking Willem to double check. And while the submission looked like a book-in-hand, it might not have been, until Willem said that it was. I've entered books from secondary sources resulting in records that didn't look so very different from this one. -DES ^Talk 22:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For now I'm still verifying the books that actually are in my posession. Only 4000 to go, so maybe I'll be ready by the end of the year (or next year...). After that there's the weirder stuff in my collection to go through, adding coverscans etc. It will take some time before I'm ready to add anything from secondary sources. Willem H. 07:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloodhype

Willem if you come across anymore of the Ballantines[2] with a Canadian printing and everything is identical including the price just add a note to the existing pub such as "two printing exist Canadian & US and except for the printing statement both are identical". In a case like this I don't believe two separate records are necessary. Thanks!Kraang 21:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That probably saves me a lot of work. I had come across these simultaneous USA/Canadian prntings before, but most of these had two seperate entries already. Willem H. 21:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Silent Multitude

Added a cover image to [this]. Both Currey and OCLC have the date of this pub as 1966. Was/is there 1969 somewhere in the book? Thanks. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in the book itself, but it was one of the first series of ace-specials, which started in 1968. It also has a five-digit booknumber (also started in 1968) and the Ace Image Library dates it in 1969. 1966 is the copyright year (first british publication was in 1967), so I think it's safe to assume 1969 is the right yeear for this pub. I added a note too. Thanks Willem H. 06:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Think OCLC copied Currey who went by the copyright date. His attention to detail on hardcovers is quite exemplary, but not quite so on the pbs. ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All Fools' Day

Just a heads up that I have expanded the Notes field in your verified Berkley Medallion edition of All Fools' Day. It now reads "Assumed 1st printing. No number line. Cover art not credited." Ahasuerus 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Adam

I just approved your submisison of a new pub for this title. However, your pub looks like a duplicate (although with more detailed data) of this pub. If so, MRDMNMHCFF1949 should probably be deleted. It often saves time to check for an existing duplicate and add info to it, rather than adding an entire new pub, if one exists. And if the existing pub has been primary verified, or has info not included in the new pub, an awkward situation may result. Just a note for the future. Thanks for all your work. -DES ^Talk 20:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did notice this one. Checking for duplicates is one of the things I (almost) always do these days. The pub youre aiming at has a different (later) publication date, so it must be a later printing (the stated first printing can't be right, since mine is the 4th). There's also this printing, which could be the first, but has no information at all. Willem H. 08:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I apparently didn't look closely enough. I have deleted MRDMFDMQVV1948 as a duplicate -- it at any rate gives no info beyond that already present. I suppose it is possible that pocket books considered the 1949 printing a new edition for some reason, but then I would expect the catalog number to have changed. Probably an entry error, but I don't see how to be sure. Anyway thanks for taking so much trouble. -DES ^Talk 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Testament -- unstable Amazon LZZZZZZZ URLs

I just approved your update to your verified pub Testament. I notice that it uses an amazon LZZZZZZZ URL for the cover image. IN case you were not aware of it, such URLs are unstable -- when/if a new edition or printing with a different cover but the same ISBN comes out, Amazon makes such URLs point to the new cover, and if the book is well out of print, Amazon sometimes causes such URLs not to work at all. To gt a more stable Amazon URL:

1. Go to the amazon sales page for the publication (using the side bar link is an easy method for pubs with valid ISBNs).
2. Check if the cover image displayed is correct for the pub. Assuming it is:
3. If the image has a "view larger image" link available, click it.
4. Right-click on the displayed cover image
5. Select "Properties" for the pop-up context menu that appears
6. Copy the URL shown for "Location" in the "Image properties" section (the exact lapels may vary depending on your browser and the image involved, but it will be pretty clear which field is relevant).
7. Paste this into the address bar of another browser, or another browser tab (or edit it in any text editor).
8. If there is a section such as ._SS500_. or ._SL500_AA240_. just before the "jpg" extension, delete it leaving only a single period (dot).
9. Display the resulting URL in a browser to make sure it goes to the right image (this checks against editing errors).
10. Edit the publication record.
11. Copy the URL to the "Image URL" field.
12. Submit data.

Or you may choose to download the Amazon image, and upload it here, just as you would with any scanned image.

If the Amazon Image is already wrong, delete the "Image URL" from the publication record unless you can find a correct one, or scan and upload an accurate image. No image is better than an incorrect one.

If you already knew all or most of this, my apologies. I figured it was better to give you the info than not. -DES ^Talk 20:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea of this. The image seemed to work, so I left it alone. For now I submitted a new link to the Amazon image, in time I will be adding scanned images to all my pubs, but there's so much to do and so little time... Thanks Willem H. 08:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to provide you with some useful info. -DES ^Talk 13:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LCCNs

I notice that you have been adding LCCNs to some recent submisisons. I think this is a very good idea, and i thank you. Did you know that given an LCCN, it is easy to create a stable link to that books record in the library of Congress online catalog? See Help: How to create a link to a US Library of Congress (Loc) record for details. -DES ^Talk 15:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are new things to be learned every day. Thanks again for the tip. I added this to my other reminders (HTML is not my thing, and never will be, but I learned to live with it :) Willem H. 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is always more to learn, and no one is good at everything. Glad to be of some help. -DES ^Talk 16:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed on some of the recent submissions that you're using LOCC#, when the abbreviation used by the Library of Congress is LCCN ("N" stands for number so you don't have to use the pound sign.) Not that it makes much difference, but a few users might be confused. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been using "LCCN:" consistantly, I suggest this format. I agree that LOCC# may confuse some users. -DES ^Talk 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed this in my model, so future links should have LCCN. Thanks for noticing. Willem H. 15:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

River of Eternity

Does your copy have the statement of limitation as noted in the record for this pub? My copy has only three blank pages after page 205. MHHutchins 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was getting a bit better, but I didn't notice this one. No, only empty pages after 205. Maybe Marc Kupper has another edition? I'll ask my friend Rias Nuninga, who owns both the trade and the special edition what his copies tell him. Thanks Willem H. 21:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Rias both his editions have the statement on the unnumbered page [207]. Looks like we have a misprint. I don't think it's worth of adding a new publication for this, but shall I add a note?

By the way, all copies of the book I've seen have a wrong ISBN on the frontflap of the dustjacket (0-923096-28-X) The right ISBN is 0-932096-28-X (stated on the copyright page). Is yours the same? Willem H. 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(The) Land of Unreason

Can you see how this publication is titled on its title page? Both Locus #220 and OCLC don't have "The" in the title. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. No 'The'. I submitted a correction. Thanks Willem H. 05:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Savage Pellucidar added cover/notation

Morning! This. [3], I added a cover, the 75¢ version, but the same art, and notation to match my copies of 75¢, 95¢ and $1.50 versions. I deleted the content entry Return to Pellucidar and replaced it with "The Return to Pellucidar" as shown on story title page. Hope you are doing well. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I agree with the changes, and submitted a MakeVariant for "The Return to Pellucidar". Nice scan too. Someday I'll start uploading my own scans. I'm recovering nicely, getting better every day, but still quickly tired. Willem H. 10:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Go easy, and set reasonable goals. Recovery is often up to the individual. Keep smiling! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sphere edition of de Camp's The Clocks of Iraz

Is the price obscured on your verified copy of this title? I'm unable to find this edition listed on the British Library Integrated Catalogue. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I Must have had a very weak moment. Submitted an edit for this. Thanks Willem H. 09:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gunn's Crisis

I have approved the changes to Gunn's Crisis(!) and set up a series for the stories and the fix-up novel. One question, though: according to your note, the title of the fifth story was "Woman of the Year" while our unverified Analog Science Fiction and Fact, April 1985 record lists it as "Mother of the Year". Could you please double check your data? Thanks! Ahasuerus 12:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I saw that after submitting the change. Crisis! has the title as "Woman of the Year", and (mistakenly) states the same title for the analog entry on the acknowledgements page. I copied the notes from there, so I saw it only after checking the data for my own database. Locus1 has "Woman of the Year" as a variant of "Mother of the Year". I submitted a correction for this. Thanks Willem H. 13:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gods & Golems

Added a cover image to [this], added a couple of notes. Both Currey and OCLC mention that "del Rey" is spelled "del Ray" on the title page. How is the recovery coming along? ~Bill, --Bluesman 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

They're clever boys, Currey and OCLC. And they are right too! I added a note for this. My recovery is moving slowly forward. The operation has been five weeks ago now, and soon I will be allowed to start with the real recovery. For now I'm up to one hour walks (or slightly more), but not every day. One of these days I'll send an e-mail with more details. Willem H. 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Slow is better! Bones knitting simply can't be rushed. And I am certain you hit that wall where your energy just seems to STOP every day. At about 7-8 weeks it will start to recede. ~Bill, --Bluesman 19:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Book of PKD

Added some notes to [this], all from Currey, who notes the existence of ten lines of "First through Tenth" as being on the copyright page. Is this true? Is so, could you remove the quote marks and Currey's name from the note? Also a note to Marc Kupper's page would be appreciated as he is doing a rather exhaustive DAW research and this copyright page printing designation was quite rare in the DAWS. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Curry is right. I'll delete him and the quote marks. I think I'll ask Marc Kupper for a copy of the DAW spreadsheet. I own some 450 (most of them 70's and 80's) DAW titles, there should be some things in there he doesn't know yet. The copyright page with the ten lines of (First through Tenth printing) was used for a few months in 1973 I believe. Most titles between number 40 and 50 were that way. I'll do some more research. Most of them should be somewhere on my shelves (I firmly believe in the alphabet for placing books in the right order). Thanks Willem H. 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm sure Marc will appreciate it. Thanks! ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord Tyger

I have the same third printing of the Signet edition of Farmer's Lord Tyegr and, as is currently stated in Notes, there is no date of publication stated. Do you happen to have a source for 1974-00-00 or was it already there when you verified the publication? Thanks! Ahasuerus 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember if the date was already there. In everything about Farmer my source is the PJF International Bibliography. I always??? add a note when I copy indormation from that site. I submitted a note for this pub. Thanks for noticing this. Willem H. 05:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 12:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

= The Song of Mavin Manyshaped

You submitted an edit to 47513 that would change the date to "1985-05-00", but adds a note saying "Stated Ace Original / March 1985". Should the date read 1985-03-00", or should the note read May?

I have the submission on hold, pending your response. -DES ^Talk 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did??? Must have lost track of the number of fingers I counted. It should have been "1985-03-00". Good catch. Thanks, Willem H. 15:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll approve and fix. Thanks. -DES ^Talk 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your update of Hominids

Please don't use HTML in title fields to provide italics or other font changes. It makes searches on titles too likely to fail. See Help:Screen:EditPub#Title_2, the section on Fonts. -DES ^Talk 19:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have approved this but removed the italics. The result is here. -DES ^Talk 19:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I copied this from the paperback edition. Thanks for the warning, won't do it again. I submitted a merge, to remove the italics from the other entry too. Willem H. 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Stations of the Nightmare

Could you please check whether the cover on your verified 1982 Tor edition of Stations of the Nightmare matches the cover scan that is currently linked? My cover is completely different, so I wonder whether we have different printings or whether our scan is wrong. Thanks! Ahasuerus 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The cover shown is from the 2nd printing. I moved the link to the coverscan there. Thanks Willem H. 07:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ahasuerus 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have cross-verified the publication, added notes, set up Variant Titles to reflect the way the story titles appear on their respective title pages and set up a series for Paul Eyre. Boy, I need a vacation! :) Ahasuerus 02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Planet of Exile / Mankind Under the Leash

I identified the month of publication for Planet of Exile / Mankind Under the Leash as October based on the information in the third printing of Planet of Exile. Thanks Kevin 04:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Elgin's Star-Anchored, Star-Angered

According to Locus #223 (Jul/Aug 1979), this was published in June 1979. It should have a gutter code starting with either "J" or "U" followed by numbers between 15 and 20, probably "J19". MHHutchins 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. J19 on page 181. Does that mean Doubleday used gutter codes in all publications and not only in the book club editions? I submitted a change. Thanks for noticing. Willem H. 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, from mid 1958 until mid 1987, 99% of all Doubleday trade books and book club reprintings had gutter codes. MHHutchins 18:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Dune

In your recent edit to this pub of Dune you added a map on an unnumbered page. The convention is to list page numbers (derived by counting) for unnumbered pages in [brackets]. Or one can use the spefcial codes listed in Help:Screen:EditPub#Page, such as "bp" (for unpaginated pages before the first numbered page) and "ep" (for unpaginated pages after the last numbered page). -DES ^Talk 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I know I know... where is my mind. I changed my other edition of Dune too. Thanks Willem H. 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am SO jealous you have an "N-3", the mythical one itself!!! Heavy sigh...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Grayspace Beast

Added a cover image to [this]. OCLC credits "Illustration" to Rick Sternbach without specifying cover or interior. If there are no interior illustrations, then it's a source for the cover artist and that "in my opinion" note could be deleted. If there is interior artwork it should be noted. OCLC # is in the notes. ~BIll, --Bluesman 20:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right about Rick Sternbach, but it's indeed an interior illustration. Added this, and the LCCN. Don't know how I could have missed this, Rick Sternbach is mentioned on the title page. The cover artist stays sadly empty, and the "in my opinion" note stays for now. Thanks for noticing. Willem H. 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

REH's The Garden Fear

I see you're doing some clean-up of Robert E. Howard titles and wonder if you think The Garden Fear might be a typo for The Garden of Fear? The first title only appears in the two editions of Pigeons from Hell. The Ace edition was verified by a non-active editor, but you did some updating of the Zebra edition, and I thought you might have a copy. According to the Howard Works bibliography, both should be "The Garden of Fear". Thanks. MHHutchins 14:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that after my first submission, so I waited for this to be accepted. I was just about to make new submissions for this story. In my edition of Pigeons from Hell (the Zebra) it is The Garden Fear on the contents page, which is obviously a typo, as the credits and the story itself have it as The Garden of Fear. A think we can safely assume the Ace edition is the same. By the way, I would also add the story The Thing on the Roof to the Ace edition, and change credit for the Introduction to Glenn Lord. It looks the same as the Zebra edition, even the pagenumbers are the same. I'll drop a note on Unapersson's talk page about this. Thanks Willem H. 15:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the table of contents credit doesn't matter. How is it credited on it's on title page? If you think the Ace should be identical to the Zebra, you can leave on note on Unapersson's page, but go ahead and make the correction. He's been inactive for some time now. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you've merged the two records before I wrote the above. The merge and updates were approved. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mechanical Mice by Maurice A. or Maurice G.

Can you check your verified copy of Adventures in Time & Space to see if "Mechanical Mice" is credited to "Maurice A. Hugi" or "Maurice G. Hugi"? I believe that typo has been perpetuated since the first edition. I have the second Ballantine printing and it incorrectly credits "Maurice A. Hugi". If you discover that the entry is incorrect use the add and remove method to correct it as the story has several reprints as by "G.". Thanks. MHHutchins 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It's "Maurice A. Hugi". I made the first submission (I'll merge them afterwards). Thanks Willem H. 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I only noticed this because Harry (Dragoondelight) brought the error to my attention, and I had to correct my copy. MHHutchins 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Taverel Manor

I'm holding your submission updating this title record. By changing the author credit here, you'll also be changing the credit as it was published. It has only appeared in one publication, and I doubt that Lupoff is credited explicitly on that story's title page. (I could be wrong. Do you have a copy of Skull-Face?) There appears to be enough evidence to create a variant of Lupoff being the co-author, but we want the pub record to reflect how it's credited. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just finished my submission of Skull-Face. That was a hard one. Yes, Lupoff is credited explicitly as co-author on the story's title page. The title page of the story has Taverel Manor* in big black letters, and in the lower left corner '*With Richard A. Lupoff.' So this was a deliberate edit. Should I have mentioned this in the story notes? Thanks Willem H. 21:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine. If you verify the pub, then you're verifying the credit given to the contents as well. I'll accept the submission. Another string loosened from the tangled web that is the credits for Robert E. Howard and his co-authors (necrophiliological or not). Thanks. MHHutchins 21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)