User talk:Biomassbob/Archive/2012Oct-Dec

< User talk:Biomassbob‎ | Archive
Revision as of 16:56, 11 February 2014 by Mhhutchins (talk | contribs) (Archived messages from October-December 2012)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Honor Among Enemies

I corrected the published title of your verified publication Honor Among Enemies. I removed an incorrect preface, changing the title from "Honor Harrington: Honor Among Enemies" to "Honor Among Enemies". This matches my copy in hand. Thanks - Kevin 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kevin. Amazon sticks these "extras" in on titles for popular series, and I've seen that whoever brings them into the data base usually brings these "extras" in. That's not so bad, but sometimes the first verifier doesn't remove them. Usually I catch them, but for some reason I missed this one. Glad you caught it. Bob 12:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tales from the "White Hart"

I added a note to your verified pub Tales from the "White Hart" matching my copy in hand. "Gutter Code "K02" on page 144 indicates a print date in January 1980.[Primary Verification 2]" If your copy has a different gutter code, please add it to the record and also to the table at Publisher:SFBC 1980-1984. - Thanks - Kevin 02:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My copy has the same gutter code; I added "1 &" to your note so it now reads "[Primary verifier 1 & 2]". Bob 13:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hard reject for cloning The Collected Poetry of Robert E. Howard

Sorry, but I was forced to reject this because Title 1500154 is no longer in the database. Stonecreek 06:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

An Echo from the Iron Harp / The Gold and the Grey

Hi Bob. Those variants you want to break, what's up there? Did you make them in the first place? Thanks. --MartyD 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The two poems are very similar, but not identical. I probably did make them in the first place; there are some pubs that suggest they are the same. Closer examination convinced me that it would be better to keep them separate and use the notes to indicate the similarities and differences. Bob 01:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I accepted them. --MartyD 02:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Karen Zim[m]erman

In your Nights & Demons, I think you left an "m" out of Karen Zimmerman's name. I noticed we already have the same title with the 2-m spelling in your 2-verified Balefires. So I changed the 1-m version to have two, to try to save you an edit. I hope that was the right choice. Since you have both books, you're in a good position to take a look at those bibliographies and see if they are the same and should be merged. --MartyD 10:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Marty. I went back and added which items appear in "Night & Demons" that are missing from "Balefires". And the bibliography in "Night & Demons" is dated May 2012, so I believe it's an updated version of the 2007 bib. The text at the beginning of the list is certainly changed. I'll add that info to the notes. Bob 12:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Empire" variant

I was forced to reject your proposed variant of Empire to something, because that something no longer existed. I suspect whatever it was was part of an earlier merge that deleted it. It's best to either do edits/variant, then submit merges once the edits have been accepted or to do merges and then submit edits/variants once the merges have been accepted. Anyway, I don't know what it was supposed to be a variant of, so I couldn't fix it for you -- you'll need to find the surviving title and resubmit. --MartyD 11:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

O.K., I suspected that might happen, but tried it anyhow. I've found that usually add info to the notes and add variants without waiting for approval of the notes, but I can't do notes and merges without waiting for one to be approved first. This pair of changes was testing the limits; now I know. Thanks for putting up with my experimentation! I'll take care of this poem. Bob 12:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
In a merge, no matter what specific fields are kept from among the various records being merged, the lowest ID always survives (everything to be preserved from the records with the higher IDs is copied to the lowest ID's record, then the records with the higher IDs are deleted). So you could safely variant to the lowest ID, even if a merge is pending. But merging as a separate step, when the records are otherwise quiescent, is least error prone. --MartyD 13:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


I see your proposed variant submission for THE MYSTERIES and The Mysteries. It bothers me to have a variant bases solely on capitalization. Does it really seem Howard intended the all-caps? If not, I'd be inclined to normalize it to the standard capitalization and relegate the fact that it's all-caps to the notes (and, so, merge the two, keeping the standard capitalization). I'm not insisting, just suggesting. --MartyD 11:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This one was a little screwy. "The Mysteries" is composed of several parts, "The Invocation", "The Chorus of the Chant" and "The Sacrifice". Where it is capitalized ("Collected Poetry"), the titles of the separate parts are given in the ToC, as well as the overall title. In the ToC, "The Mysteries" is italicized, rather than all caps; in the text, all poems' titles are italicized, including those of the sections of "The Mysteries", so "The Mysteries" is all caps. I was trying to figure some way to handle this, but wasn't entirely happy with the result. Since you you aren't either, I'm going to just merge the titles and do away with the all caps, ignoring the parts. Thank you for helping me resolve my dilemma! Bob 12:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fan-/Maga-zine naming

Just what you need, someone commenting on something not directly related to your submissions, but.... While reviewing your content addition to The Howard Collector V1n5, Summer 1964, I noticed the "V1n5" in the name/title. Is that in the fanzine's title? We don't record volume and/or issue number in the titles for fanzines or magazines, the only exception I'm aware of being when the whole number is included as part of the title (e.g., "Foobar Quarterly #5" or some such). We put those in the notes if they're provided. If it really does include that text in the title on the title page, never mind. --MartyD 01:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Marty, I had a loooong discussion (argument?) with Michael Hutchins about fanzine designations. With professional magazines, using just the date with the title is enough. They may come out weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually, but they come out regularly. Fanzines usually do not. A few do/did. "Crypt of Cthulhu" is the only one of those I've entered, although their dates are a bit bizarre. I did not enter the first 75 of those, someone else did. And used issue numbers. "The Cimmerian" and "The Robert E. Howard Foundation Newsletter" are two I still need to enter. All the rest (of those I have) issue irregularly. I think it's important for someone using the data base to know if issues are missing. Look at the issue you cite. It appears with three other issues under "The Howard Collector - 1963-1965". They are dated Summer 1963, Summer 1964, Spring 1965 and Winter 1965. How many issues are missing? None, of course, as shown by the issue numbers. I suppose that would be clearer is instead of Vxny, I used whole numbers. But it would weaken the utility of the data base not to any number at all.
Both the Vxny and the whole number appear on the title page, but the title page also has the ToC. The whole number appears on the cover beginning with issue #7 in the form "The / Howard / Collector / Date / # ". If you think it would be better to use the whole numbers, I would have no objection to that. As an aside, whenever I run into "This is the way we always do it", it reminds me of Emerson's saying "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines". Bob 20:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I freely admit to having a little mind. In an endeavor such as this, standards exist for multiple reasons: To make sure appropriate information is recorded, to make sure the same information is recorded the same way, and also to ensure future adaptability. Suppose we decide to add fields for volume and issue number. Because our "standard" says to put that information in the notes, it's a simple enough programming exercise to go parse the notes for that information and move it into those new fields. But no one would necessarily know to go look for that information in titles because that's not how the information was supposed to be recorded. You run into "This is the way we always do it" because it's too hard to make the software enforce all of the rules and standards, so we rely on teaching people the dos and don'ts that are not encoded. My best advice to you would be to follow whatever Michael suggested; he's the most expert resource we have. In my mind, if they started putting the whole issue number on the cover, they consider that part of the issue's title, so I would be inclined to go with that. BTW, the Rules and standards discussions page is a place to bring up objections to/suggestions for making changes to "the way we always do it". --MartyD 11:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


I'm going to reject your proposed change of Futility ("Time races on...", excerpt) to Futility ("Time races on and none can stay the tread..."), - Excerpt). It would need to be re-edited anyway, since it has some punctuation problems. I think an unfortunate construct of two sets of parenthesized terms is the way to go. So, question: Is the poem a version of "Futility" that starts "Time races on and none can stay the tread...", which is then excerpted? Or is the poem "Futility", and then it's this version of the excerpt that starts with the quoted line (as oppposed to some other excerpt starting at another line)? We want TITLE (DISABIGUATOR) and TITLE (excerpt). To combine the two, I'd figure out which of those best represents the work at hand and then apply the other of the two to that: "TITLE+(DISAMBIGUATOR) (excerpt)" or "TITLE+(excerpt) (DISAMBIGUATOR)". I hope that makes sense. --MartyD 11:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The last paren was left by mistake. I'll fix it. Bob 20:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

To All the Lords of Commerce

In your edits to To All the Lords of Commerce, your note uses the same title in wording that I would have expected to then show a different title, so I figured I'd mention it in case you meant to use some other title there or added the note to the wrong version of the title. --MartyD 11:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The note is correct, the first time the poem was published, the name was incorrect. Howard named the poem "To All Lords of Commerce" and the editor used "To All the Lords of Commerce". That's why I made the latter title a variant instead of merging it and wiping out the first-published title. Bob 20:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Last Day

I changed the beginning of the quote in the notes from "Fear Finn..." to "Dear Finn...". Trying to save an edit-approve cycle. If "Fear" was right, let me know and I'll put it back. --MartyD 11:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Fear" was correct. Bob 20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I put it back. --MartyD 10:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Bedford[-]Jones letter in Magic Carpet

There is a letter credited to H. Bedford Jones in your verified copy of The Complete Magic Carpet Magazine. The author's name commonly has hyphen (H. Bedford-Jones). Could you double check how it is presented in your copy. I would assume that since yours is a facsimile, both the Girasol reprint of the individual issue as well as the original magazine would follow the same form. If it is indeed presented without the hyphen, we should set up a pseudonym and variant, otherwise, we just need to correct the name. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 13:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It does have the hyphen, I just missed it. I made the change. Thank you for catching this! Bob 14:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Howard's sequences

The notes in Invocation registered for some reason this morning, and I thought I'd mention: You could use a title series for something like "Black Dawn" and then supply the title's position as the series number, rather than recording that part of the information in notes. Not only does it keep the notes shorter, but series information is often included in some of the summary views, making it visible without going to the title's details. --MartyD 10:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. I'll review the Black Dawn sequence to make sure I take advantage of that concept. Thanks! Bob 17:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge candidates

Some things I noticed in passing:

  • The two variants of this differ only in case. They could be merged, preserving the normalized capitalization.
  • Looks like there are some duplicate titles seen here.
  • This and this fragment starting "And so his boyhood" differ only in spacing of the periods in the elipses. An elipsis in a title should be given spaces between the periods. I don't know that the normalization guidelines specifically address elipses at the ends of quotes, and I know this isn't done consistently one way or the other (it's also very hard for a moderator to see whether spaces are in fact present when reviewing submissions). Where you've got it both ways, I suggest keeping the spaced one (unless these are different fragments, of course).

Thanks. --MartyD 10:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Marty, the first I can take care of. In "Collected Poetry", the editor named untitled poems by their first line with initial caps only over the poems. In the index, he used UNTITLED ("First line..."). I thought it was important to keep the initial caps title for that pub. The editor of the other pub was more conventional, and just capitalized the first line in the normal way. But if you feel there is no need to keep the initial caps title, I'll do the merge. The second and third items just reflect that I haven't finished those poem merges yet. I expect to get to them today. For example, I had to change the "Black Dawn" poems as you suggested yesterday, and could not do that and complete the merges without your approval of the changes first. Usually it only takes two days, modify the notes and when necessary the titles the first day, merge the second. But when I have to make corrections, it can take three. Sorry about that, but it's what us mere editors are stuck with. Bob 17:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd keep the initial caps, unless it's presented as a quote. No worries about the others. I know you're still working on things. --MartyD 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Weapon Shops of Isher", by A. E. van Vogt

Based on the list of what appears to be a "Publication Series", listed on the back of a 1953 Weidenfeld & Nicholson book, I added your verified publication to this series. Chavey 18:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Didn't know that. Thank you! Bob 18:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As I continued looking at the books on that list, I see that two other A.E. van Vogt books of yours are in that series as well, so I added The House That Stood Still and Slan to that publication series. Chavey 18:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Better and better! Bob 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Builders"

See the submission I have on hold that would make this (version 3) a variant of this (version 1). Did you mean that? Given that both v1 and v3 are published in the same collection, it seems they should be treated as different works, rather than as two appearances of the same work. --MartyD 10:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Marty, the history of this poem is complex. The notes for version 1 ("We reared Babel's towers...") try to show this. Apparently, the typescript was two pages, and the first publication (the REH Properties pub of A Rhyme of Salem Town and Other Poems used only the first page of two quatrains. The REH Foundation Press pub with the same title used the first three quatrains, presumably because the fourth quatrain is identical to the first, and the editor thought that the last three quatrains were another version of the poem. Then The REH Foundation Newsletter published only the last four quatrains (the second page), and that version the editor of Selected Poetry labelled "version 3", not realizing that it was really part of version 1. The first complete version 1 was finally published in The Collected Poetry. Only version 2, the one in the letter to Clyde Smith, is really different from all the others; it was likely a first draft, since the first quatrain is so similar to version 1 (with Bab-ilu in place of Babel) and the second and last quatrain ended up as the sixth quatrain in the version 1 poem. Fortunately, the howardworks website and the Notes section (p. 688) in The Collected Poems made all this clear. Bob 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, let me ask for some help with this one. I'm not sure what should be done with them. --MartyD 02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The answer is: Using a variant is not appropriate. They should just be separate titles, with notes describing the situation. We do not currently have a way to record derived, or otherwise related, works. Excerpts, abridgements, and splittings all result in appearances whose text is different from the full work, so we treat them as separate works in their own right. If necessary, we include parenthetical disambiguation. So if one page was published as "... [Version 1]" and the second page was published as "... [Version 3]", each of these should be titles and NEITHER should be a variant of the full poem (just as we do not make ABC (excerpt) a variant of the full novel ABC). The net result is you should cancel that variant submission, and if I understand your explanation and the notes correctly, you should removed the variant relationship of The Builders [Version 1] (assuming it's page 1) to The Builders (assuming that's the full poem). You'd also need to add some notes to those two partial titles. --MartyD 11:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
p.s. The merge I have on hold is because it would delete the title involved in the Make Variant. There's nothing wrong with it, and I will accept it once this other part is straightened out. --MartyD 11:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
O.K., I cancelled the submission for the variant, removed the Selected Poems Version 1 variant from the Collected Poems version 1 and "unmerged" the two A Rhyme of Salem Town version 1s. Once these are approved, I'll variant the Selected Poems Version 1 into the A Rhyme of Salem Town, REH Foundation Press Version 1 and add notes to all the less-than-complete version 1s. I intend to leave the note on Collected Poems as it is.
As far as the merge is concerned, I don't think it involves the poem in the Make Variant, it involves another poem in the same pub (I surely hope). While the version 1 poems in A Rhyme differ, the version 2 poems are identical. Bob 17:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Lost Altars"

I changed the date on Lost Altars from 1972 to 1969 to match your new note. --MartyD 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Marty. I should have caught that, obviously. Bob 22:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Little brown man of Nippon..." variant

See your submission that I have on hold. I don't see any difference between the existing title and its proposed parent. I freely admit I could be missing something obvious -- it's been a very long day -- but I've looked at it several times now.... --MartyD 02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which title I tried to variant it to, so I'll just cancel the submission and resubmit to variant it to one of the titled poems. Unless I tried to variant that item to itself, I don't see how I could have tried to attach it to a poem of the same name, since this is the only place the poem was untitled. Bob 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Marty, a note on a merge. I merged two appearances of the poem "Destiny", version 2 that appear in Robert E. Howard: Selected Poems. This poem really does appear twice in this pub. There are a lot of mistakes in this pub, this is just one of them. Bob 23:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi Bob, I bet the last story here was also by Fritz Leiber! Original typo though for this author...--Dirk P Broer 10:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly was! I am prone to typos; glad you caught this one. Thank you! Bob 17:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Winds of the Sea"

The notes for both this and this talk about versions of different lengths, yet each says "16-line version". I'm suspecting one of the two is wrong? --MartyD 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Right on. Fixed. Thanks for catching this one! Bob 15:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Extra quotes and paren on two poems

I accepted a set of edits to Untitled poem ("Drawers that a girl strips down to her thighs . . ."), but among the changes was the addition of an extra trailing double-would plus closing parenthesis: Untitled poem ("Drawers that a girl strips down to her thighs. . .")"). I removed them, since they appear to be a typo, but I'm mentioning it because it seems a little odd for a typo. Thanks. --MartyD 11:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for your edit to Untitled poem "Flappers flicker and flap and flirt . . ."). --MartyD 11:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Marty. I think this happens when I put spaces between periods in the ellipses where there were no spaces before. The ") is off the end of the line where I can't see them, and I just automatically type extra ones in. Bob 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Is the first "i" in LIbertine deliberately capitalized, or is it a typo? --MartyD 11:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Never even noticed that! Thanks again! Sloppy day! Bob 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"The shades of night"

I accepted the modifications and variant involving The shades of night are falling fast and itled poem ("The shades of night were falling faster. . .") and noticed the "fast" vs. the newly-added "faster". Figured I'd mention it in case there's a mistake in one of them. --MartyD 13:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the flag, Marty. "Faster" is correct in both cases. Bob 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lines to G. B. Shaw"

My turn to ask a question :) In the Notes field of this record it says that the first words of Howard's letter to Tevis Clyde Smith, ca. November 1932 are "Fear Finn: / Well, I finally got around to answering your letter...". Is the first word really "Fear" rather than "Dear"? Ahasuerus 19:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that Howard frequently used this form of address. Things we learn! :) Ahasuerus 19:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Howard had a thing with Gaelic, and apparently "Fear Finn" means "pale man" or "fair man". Bob 19:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

New Howard Reader #2

I think it might work out better to put "(Second State)" before the comma and date, in The "New" Howard Reader, #2 August 1998 (Second State). When you put this into the magazine series, the grid will show "#2 August 1998 (Second State)" in the box. Maybe that's what you intend. If you put it before the comma, the grid will only show "#2 August 1998". I'd treat the true title as the thing to be disabiguated, then date that. I don't see a precedent to guide us, unfortunately. --MartyD 11:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I really wasn't certain whether to add "Second State" to the title at all. I know that three of the first four issues (#1, 2 & 4)I have are second state because there is something to show that; I think it's likely that there were two states to the third issue as well, but have no proof and no way to tell which I have. Bob 19:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"The Sword of [Mohammed|Mahommed]"

Would you check the spellings of the titles in the merge that I have on hold? It looks to me like it wants to preserve a misspelling ("Mahommed") and lose a proper spelling ("Mohammed"). Thanks. --MartyD 13:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked the pubs. I think I must have typed in "Mohammed" biased by what I thought the name should be. I also checked with, and the "Mahommed" spelling is correct for both. These merges give me a good chance to check spelling; I apparently just read past the wrong spelling when I reviewed the single publication. Bob 15:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks. --MartyD 18:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"[The] Shadow in the Well" synopsis

For this one, which I also have on hold, one of the titles being merged has a leading "The", while the other does not. Is there a "The" on the version in Cromlech #2? If so, the merge is fine. If not, a variant should be used instead. --MartyD 13:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked this before I submitting the merge. "The" belongs in both. The Cromlech version did not have "the" in the ToC, but did have it over the story. Bob 15:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Those pesky, inaccurate TOCs... Nice catch. --MartyD 18:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Relentless Reginald artwork

For the Relentless Reginald merge that I have on hold, how is the art actually titled in each of the three publications? Do they all use that full-blown "Relentless" Reginald and his partner in crime, "Chorus-girl" Percival Vanderbilt? That's a pretty big difference compared to just "Relentless Reginald". If they all use that long form, the merge is fine. If the others use just "Relentless Reginald", a variant should be made instead (merge the two "Relentless Reginald" instances into one, and then make a variant between that and the long-form title). --MartyD 13:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I checked to make sure. The drawing is in a Howard letter, and the long form is under the drawing. I suppose that the short form would be o.k. as an alternative. This isn't a printed picture, it's hand-drawn, and the letter is hand-written. Hard to say what the right "title" is, but I'm more comfortable with the longer form. Bob 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No, that's fine. I wasn't trying to argue for shorter titles. I just wanted to make sure the same label was used in all three places. --MartyD 18:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


Should this be "Postcard..." instead of "Postcare..."? --MartyD 11:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Fixed. Bob 16:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rejected variants

I had to reject the proposed variant of To Harold Preece... to something, as the something no longer exists. It likely was removed by an earlier merge. If you want to submit concurrent variants and merges, either do the variant first or make sure the variant is being made to the lowest ID of the title records you are merging. Anyway, you'll need to find the surviving version of the intended parent and resubmit. Thanks. --MartyD 11:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Same thing happened with To Travis Clyde Smith.... --MartyD 11:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The first one I understand; I had to merge two, then make the pair variants. Obviously, a two-step process. The second one was done backwards, though. Fixed both. Bob 16:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"The Man Whose Name..." merge

In your proposed merge of "The Man Whose Name I Never Knew", you're losing ESSAY and keeping SHORTFICTION, but you didn't keep the "ss" length. Is SHORTFICTION right, and, if so, should it be a short story or something else? --MartyD 02:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an ESSAY, I missed the ss. I'll fix it. Bob 02:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"And Bill..." merge

In your proposed merge of the untitled poem starting "And Bill, he looked...", you are keeping "bill" and losing "Bill". Do you really mean it to be lower case? --MartyD 02:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Restoring the capital B is on my list to fix. Otherwise, I wanted the merge with the title I chose. Bob 02:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I accepted it and did the "b" -> "B" fix. --MartyD 12:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Golnor the Ape"

Sorry about so many questions. This one makes my brain hurt a little bit... For your proposed "Golnor the Ape" merge, you're putting the ones denoted "(fragment)" together with the one labeled as a short story, leaving all appearances labeled as "(fragment)", and no non-fragment occurrences. Is that right? And all of the appearances are that same text? If there's no non-fragment publication of this story, it doesn't seem there's a benefit to including the "(fragment)" in the title. --MartyD 12:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow! All instances of "Golnor the Ape" are the same fragment, there is no complete version. There are a fair number of such fragments among the items written by Howard that have been published. If Howard completed them, the usual indication on the incomplete item is "draft" (although sometimes drafts are complete). This isn't my idea, it seems to be the standard for Howard studies. Likewise, story or poem fragments that Howard never completed are usually (but not always) labelled (fragment) or (unfinished). Sometimes the two designations are used for two types of incomplete items; fragments may be limited to items where pages have been lost or Howard put pieces he was working on in letters to his friends. I have habitually used "fragment" on all incomplete items. You may have noticed that there are "Untitled fragment"s among the Howard entries. Sometimes these fragments were completed by others after Howard's death. I have always thought it was a good idea to label items that are incomplete, even when that isn't necessary to disambiguate the item; you seem to feel that's not a good idea. Any particular reason?
Our standard is to record the titles as given, adding parenthetical information to disambiguate, not to explain. We use the notes for explanations. So if you include parenthetical information, someone will go looking for the "other" work(s) from which it is being disambiguated. Unless a not-completed work was completed and published, there's no need to disambiguate there. There's even no need to disambiguate if the work is completed by someone else: the completed work will have different author credits and won't be a variant. If parts of the work have been lost, that's a little different. We know it's not the full work, and we know the full work exists/existed, so pre-disambiguating seems ok to me, even if the full work might never be found or published.
For "Golnor" here, if any is published as "Golnor the Ape (fragment)", you should leave both and make one a variant of the other. Sorry, I didn't realize what you were doing, or I would have given you this feedback sooner. --MartyD 11:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I fixed a bunch of them, putting the information in the notes. However, I had to merge some first; I'll get those after the merges are approved.
Sorry, I had to go to work early today and didn't get to do much moderating. Hopefully someone else will get to them; if not, I will try to process them tonight, tomorrow morning at the latest. --MartyD 13:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts about my note on "Something about Eve"? Bob 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I missed something. I don't know what note you mean. Care to point me in the right direction? --MartyD 11:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

An Unknown HPL Artist (An Old One and a Shuggoth)

Could I get you to double check the spelling of the artist's name for "An Unknown HPL Artist (An Old One and a Shuggoth)" in HPL. I've got a letter in an issue of Weird Tales from an "Ivan Funderburgh" and suspect it is from the same person. Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the t should have been an r. I corrected it. Thanks, Ron. Bob 17:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Riding Song/A Riding Song merger

Do you want to merge these two titles? A quick look at "The Howard Review #2, March 1975"[1] has the ss as "Riding Song" not "A Riding Son" as the warning note[2] claims. It also warns against merging the two. Can you check this title[3] to see if anything has been changed. Thanks!Kraang 02:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which two titles I tried to merge, so I cancelled the submission and resubmitted the correct merger. Please note that The Collected Poetry of REH contains both "A Riding Song" and "Riding Song". The Howard Review #2 has "Riding Song" only. "A Riding Song" is also in Shadows of Dreams and REH: Selected Poems. Bob 17:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A Farce to Be Reckoned With

I added some notes to this verified pub. Thanks, --Willem H. 10:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Willem! Bob 20:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of The Howard Review (second edition), #3 August 1998

I was going to object to your changing a date on a review from 1968 to 1975 that appeared in a publication dated 1968, when I realized the publication's date should have been 1998, not 1968, assuming the title is to be believed.... So I corrected the pub's date to 1998. --MartyD 14:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I'll go back and correct all the now incorrectly dated content. Thanks for catching this! Bob 20:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviews and variant titles

For the proposed variant reviews I have on hold, welcome to a whole new world of complexity. We don't make variant reviews based on variations of the identification of the reviewed work, we only make variants based on the review's credit (e.g., if the review writer's credit were a pseudonym, we would make the review a variant of another review record using the review writer's canonical name). A further consideration is that we do not want to introduce further variant titles or pseudonyms simply due to crediting in a review -- we only want variants for credits as they appear on published works.

So when you're dealing with a review that uses a non-canonical title for the reviewed work or a non-canonical name for the reviewed work's author, you have to go down one of two paths:

  1. If we already have a title record for the work that reflects the combination of reviewed-title wording and reviewed-author naming used in the review, that combination can be used as-is. That the reviewed title is non-canonical will be handled/reflected by that title's being a variant of the canonical record, once the review is linked to the variant title.
  2. If we do not have a title record for the work that reflects the combination used in the review, we make the REVIEW record use the canonical form(s) instead and document the review's actual citation in the notes.

See Help:Screen:NewPub#Reviews. Since we have no The Swords of Shahrazar title record, the Roarke + Manteel review should be recorded against Swords of Shahrazar, with a note about how the title is credited. The uncredited review should likewise be recorded using "Swords of Shahrazar", again with a note, and then should be made a variant of the fixed-up Roarke + Manteel review (due to the variation in the review-writer's credit).

I hope that makes sense. Ask if you need help or further clarification. --MartyD 15:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Marty, I know all this, so no problem. I don't remember what I tried to do with the variants or why -- sometimes I do forget when I come back to things I haven't done for a while. The way I entered some of the INTERIORART I know needs to be fixed as well. I'll cancel the submissions and change "The Swords of Shahrazar" to "Swords of Shahrazar" in the two pubs. However, since I already have changes to at least one of the pubs already, I'll have to wait to change the reviews until these other submissions are approved. I should also have to take care of the review attributions; those that are uncredited need to be variants of those by Roarke and Manteel. I don't know if you noticed, but in one of the pubs, most of the reviews are credited to McHaney and Manteel instead of Roarke and Manteel; the former will have to be variants of the latter. Dennis was apparently careless in attributions early on. Bob 22:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


See the proposed variant that I have on hold. Looks like the wrong parent selected? --MartyD 02:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like. Parent should be 1522387; don't know what I picked. Thanks, Marty! Bob 03:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Sin Eaters

I'm making several changes to The Sin Eaters (Lost Fantasies #9):

  1. Changing Fabian's name for the cover to the variant "Steve Fabian" as he is credited on page 2.
  2. Adding the title page illustration on page 1 (copy of the cover).
  3. Correcting the title of the Kellough artwork to "The Sin Eaters" (it was missing the final S
  4. Changed the Pendarves story title from "The Sin-Eater" to the variant "The Sin Eater" as it appears on the title page.
  5. Added interior artwork based on the credits from the original Weird Tales appearances.

Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, Ron. Bob 23:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Fury", by Henry Kuttner (& C. L. Moore)

I added a cover artist and a few additional notes to your verified edition of this book. Chavey 08:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you! Bob 19:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The House that Stood Still

Added the price to [this] from Tuck. --~ Bill, Bluesman 05:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Twice-appearing titles

In The Howard Review #10, you have as interiorart the cover from Cross Plains #6 on both p. 12 and p. 19. (Note: You can only see both instances by editing the pub or bringing up the title-removal screen, and the editor screen is confused, showing the same title on p. 12 twice). Is that correct? If so, you'll need to change the second one to have a unique name and make that a variant of the original cover. By the way, once the variants are in place, there's not a lot of benefit to having the parenthetical disambiguator -- the title itself will convey the info, and not having it would keep the display much more compact (i.e., if you went with "The Howard Review #10 [n]"). --MartyD 12:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have on hold another merge that would produce the same sort of result (sorry about not noticing the first one in time). It wants to merge two instances of Austin's "The Howard Review #14 (Cover illustration for "Echoes from an Iron Harp", Grant)" -- one on p. 24 and one on p. 36. So what you'll need to do there is give the second one a unique title and make each instance a variant of the cover. --MartyD 12:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
And a third one, for the "Etchings in Ivory" covers on p. 17 and p. 34 in that same pub. --MartyD 12:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
These are real duplicates in the pub, which I had not run into before the Howard Reviews. I guess the easiest way to disambiguate these is to add "[2]" to the second appearances. I hadn't realized that this was necessary. I understand your comment about the disambiguation not being needed once the variants are in place, but it is needed to find the variants in the first place. When I form the variant, can I change the title of the item at the same time, or would I have to come back after the variant if formed? Thanks for the info! Bob 18:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, [2] or some such will be needed. The sofware can't cope with two appearances of the same title, so you'd either have to enter them just once and note the second appearance or give them different titles (such as with [2]). For renaming variants, you can't do it on the submission itself, but you can do a second submission without waiting for the variant to be approved -- neither varianting nor renaming affects the other submission (unlike merging, which will take one of the title records away). --MartyD 12:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


I have on hold your proposed merge of The Howard Review #5 with The Illustrators of R. E. H.. That doesn't look right to me. What are you trying to do there? --MartyD 12:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Illustrators was issued as part of, and simultaneously with, THR #4 (not #5). So THR #4 and The Illustrators are really two parts of THR #4. The merge was meant to show that. Unfortunately, there is no way to add a note to the moderator on merges. Bob 18:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
If they are two different things, they should not be merged, they should just stay separate. I don't know of a better way to treat this situation. You could try asking on the Help desk. --MartyD 12:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Etchings in Ivory cover mis-variant

This one I meant to put on hold but accidentally accepted. You made The Howard Review #14 (Facsimile cover for "Etchings in Ivory", Glenn Lord) by Glenn Lord a variant of Cover: Etchings in Ivory: Poems in Prose by John Stewart. Are Lord and Stewart the same person? If so, please set up a pseudonym relationship. If not, should this have gone to a different cover? (I couldn't find a cover by Lord). --MartyD 12:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I screwed up and attached the THR reference to the wrong version of Etchings in Ivory. I'll undo the variant, and if there is a cover artist for the correct version, I'll variant that one. Some of these covers have no art, and I suspect this may be one. Bob 18:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Another mis-variant

See the submission I have on hold. Something's not right there. --MartyD 13:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Marty, I can't view the submission, all I can see is that some proposed variant exists. I'll pull the submission and try to replace it with one that works. Bob 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


Expanded the notes a little and added the back cover image to [this]. Cheers! --~ Bill, Bluesman 19:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I'm no longer a verifier of this pub, and you are now both primary and secondary. Was I the primary? Bob 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Howard Review #12

Hi! Had to reject this makevariant [4] would have made it a variant of "siseneG" short story by Arthur C. Clarke.Kraang 02:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! Don't know how I managed that. I redid the variant, hopefully correctly this time. Bob 04:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pride of Monster - Schmitz

Uploaded a better cover scan for this 04:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

'H. P. Lovecraft'

You verified this pub which contain this essay credited to 'H. P. Lovecraft'. Are the quotes correct? If so, are they a stylistic element? Or do they imply that it really isn't Lovecraft? Would you mind checking and 1) remove the quotes if not appropriate; 2) make a pseudonym to H. P. Lovecraft if appropriate; or 3) add notes if not a pseudonym? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the quotes, since the letter is obviously not from H. P. Lovecraft. It is signed H. P. Lovecraft / Swan Point Cemetery / Providence, RI. The letter concerns the pronunciation of impious, which the writer points out is pronounced impy-ous, not impie-ous, like pious. So there is no known pseudonym. I'll add a note. Bob 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The World Fantasy Awards, Volume Two

Added gutter code to notes.SFJuggler 19:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A / The Plague of Masters

Can you check the title of this story in your verified editions of Flandry of Terra here and here? In both my editions it's "The Plague of Masters", not "A Plague of Masters". Thanks, --Willem H. 19:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm consistent. In this case, consistently wrong. Thanks, Willem. Fixed. Bob 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid I had to reject the Edit Title submission since it would have changed the title's spelling in every pub where it appears. Could you please follow the "add-and-remove" method outlined in Help:How to change a story in a collection instead? That way only your verified pubs will be changed. TIA! Ahasuerus 23:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Better wait until all primary verifiers have responded. I suspect all editions have "the", if so I can change the title record. Thanks! --Willem H. 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
O.K., done. I agree that it is most likely that all of the titles with "A" are incorrect, but understand the problem. I will have to come back after approvals and put them as Flandry stories and variant them. Bob 18:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Approved, and merged the various novella entries. Don't add the series, varianting to Earthman, Go Home! has the same effect. --Willem H. 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Kuttner's Thunder in the Void

I've made a few changes to Kuttner's Thunder in the Void:

  • Uploaded a new cover scan as the Amazon scan was slightly off from the actual book.
  • Changed the first edition statement from the copyright page to the colophon.
  • I added a note that the LCCN is not in the LOC catalog
  • I expanded the note about "Raider of the Spaceways" to make it clear that it is the original appearance that is in error.
  • Corrected the title of "The Time Trap". There is no hyphen in the title.
  • Replaced "We Guard the Black Planet!" with a variant title omitting the exclamation point.

Thanks. --Ron ~ RtraceTalk 15:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ron. Bob 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Return to Bear Creek ("Cover illustration for "The Riot at Bucksnort", Bison)" as a variant

I had to reject your submission proposing to make Return to Bear Creek ("Cover illustration for "The Riot at Bucksnort", Bison) a variant of something. That something no longer exists -- probably removed by a merge submitted before the variant submission. If you're going to submit both together, either do the variants first or make sure you're using the lowest ID value from among the titles you merged (the lowest ID value always survives, no matter what information you choose to keep in the merge). Anyway, you'll need to find the appropriate survivor and resubmit. Thanks. --MartyD 11:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Likewise The Howard Review #14 (Cover illustration for "The Riot at Bucksnort"). --MartyD 11:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I thought I had varianted these to the lowest ID value, but clearly blew it. Thanks, Marty! Bob 15:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Keegans and Crimson Shadows covers

There is a bug in the ISFDB software where listing two cover artists who jointly did one piece of cover art, does not work correctly. Listing the two of them in the publication gets you two separate coverart records, one for each artist (as opposed to one coverart record jointly credited to the two of them). I noticed this in accepting your interiorart variant (which does not have that problem). The way around the problem is to record just one artist, then go find that COVERART title once created and add any other artist(s) to it. I did this for the three Crimson Shadows that were credited to Jim and Ruth Keegan. See if they look correct to you. I did not have time to go look for others -- I'm sure there will be more. --MartyD 11:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all of the cover art attributed to Jim should also include Ruth as a co-artist. I've started to fix this, and will continue as I can. Interesting glitch! Bob 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You have to completely remove Ruth first, then edit Jim's title to add Ruth (or vice versa). If you edit Jim's to have Ruth, too, while the pub still has a Ruth-only credit (now along with the one credited to Jim+Ruth), the attempt to remove Ruth doesn't work right, as it goes by name. I have accepted your submissions and then fixed up:
They look ok to me, but please double-check. Thanks. BTW, you can tell it's "right" if you see an and between the names in the various listings. If you see a comma instead, it's recorded as two separate works, one by each author. --MartyD 12:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter of the World

Added the maps to the contents for [this] --~ Bill, Bluesman 18:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Bob 19:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Satan's World - Anderson

Cleaned up notes and added gutter code to 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Genesis - Anderson

Uploaded scan of actual Tor edition of and removed note about scan of SFBC edition.SFJuggler 19:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Two Publication Type Conflicts

Your following two verified publications have conflicts between their title type and their publication type:

The ISFDB software expects there to be agreement between these two. When there is not, it doesn't hide the container type from the listing and doesn't place a Title Reference link in the publication information.

Could you please revisit these two pubs and update them so the two types agree? COLLECTION and ANTHOLOGY don't seem appropriate based on the content. NONFICTION as an art book works even though they also each have a poem. Since they are both very short, another option I suppose is CHAPTERBOOK (but it doesn't exactly meet that as the poems aren't the primary purpose of the publication).

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these! Fixed. Bob 00:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Howard Review, #5"

In this verified publication of yours, there is a "Letter to Robert E. Howard, June 3, 1930", listed as by "Alb. Buttner, Editor, Argosy". This seems like it must really be by "A. H. Bittner, Editor, Argosy". Could you check whether this was a typo in entering into our database, or whether the original publication includes that typo? Thanks, Chavey 05:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this one. The letter is signed in script, and I just couldn't read it. I'm glad someone knew who this man was found the mistake! Bob 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Collected Letters of Robert E. Howard Volume One"

You verified this book. Could you please check to see who the author of the letter on p. 59 is? It's currently listed with the author name as "To Tevis Clyde Smith, May 24, 1925 ('Salaam; / Hot zowie, old topper...')", which is the title of another letter, from p. 57. Thanks, Chavey 05:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Must have been coping and thought I had the name instead of the letter. Fixed. Thanks! Bob 03:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Steve Erikson = Steven Erikson?

Do you have any idea if the Steve Erikson in your verified pub may be the same as this author? (If so, he should be made into a pseudonym). Thanks, Christian Stonecreek 17:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Locus says here that it is. (Scroll down to "Erickson, Steven".) Chavey 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is. I knew that, but just didn't make the pseudonym (and spelled the last name wrong, of course). Sorry. Bob 03:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you two. I have added the pseudonym connection and vt'd the one item as by Steve Erikson. Stonecreek 14:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard Merge & Variant Candidates

The Robert E. Howard bibliography has numerous merge & variant candidates. In each of the following cases, you have verified works containing all the titles:

  1. Days of Glory vs. Days of Glory
  2. The End of the Glory Trail vs. End of the Glory Trail vs. The End of the Glory Trail
  3. A Fable for Critics vs. A Fable for Critics vs. A Fable for Critics
  4. Freedom vs. Freedom
  5. The Guise of Youth vs. The Guise of Youth These are NOT to be merged, as noted in NOTES.
  6. Moon Mockery vs. Moon Mockery
  7. My Sentiments, Set to Jazz vs. My Sentiments Set to Jazz
  8. Not Only in Death They Die vs. Not Only in Death They Die
  9. Reuben's Brethren vs. Reuben's Brethren
  10. The Tower of Zukala vs. The Tower of Zukala vs. The Tower of Zukala
  11. Visions vs. Visions vs. Visions
  12. When I Was a Youth vs. When I Was a Youth
  13. A Boy, A Beehive, and a Chinaman vs. A Boy, a Beehive, and a Chinaman
  14. By This Axe I Rule! vs. By This Axe I Rule!
  15. Circus Charade vs. Circus Charade
  16. The Fear-Master vs. The Fear-Master
  17. The Ghost of Bald Rock Ranch vs. The Ghost of Bald Rock Ranch
  18. The Last Man vs. The Last Man
  19. Legend vs. Legend
  20. A Man and a Brother vs. A Man and a Brother
  21. Mr. Dowser Buys a Car vs. Mr. Dowser Buys a Car
  22. People of the Black Coast vs. The People of the Black Coast
  23. The Pigskin Scholar vs. Pigskin Scholar
  24. The Roving Boys on a Sandburg vs. The Roving Boys on a Sandburg
  25. Ten Minutes on a Street Corner vs. Ten Minutes on a Street Corner
  26. A Twentieth Century Rip Van Winkle vs. A Twentieth-Century Rip Van Winkle
  27. Untitled fragment ("A Cossack and a Turk...") vs. Untitled fragment ("A Cossack and a Turk...") vs. Untitled fragment ("A Cossack and a Turk...")
  28. The Vultures of Whapeton vs. Vultures of Wahpeton vs. Vultures of Wahpeton; Alternate Ending vs. The Vultures of Wahpeton vs. The Vultures - There are at least two different stories in these, but there are possible variants to each.
  29. Wild Water vs. Wild Water
  30. Card to Clark Ashton Smith, postmarked December 20, 1933 ("Best Wishes for a Merry Christmas...") vs. Card to Clark Ashton Smith, postmarked December 20, 1933 ("Best Wishes for a Merry Christmas...")
  31. In His Own Image vs. In His Own Image
  32. Jazz Music vs. Jazz Music vs. Jazz Music
  33. Letter to Harold Preece, circa September 1928 ("Salaam: / Glad you enjoyed our reunion...") vs. Letter to Harold Preece, circa September 1928 ("Salaam: / Glad you enjoyed our reunion....")
  34. Letter to Harold Preece, received October 20, 1928 ("Salaam: / Your stationery is alright...") vs. Letter to Harold Preece, received October 20, 1928 ("Salaam: / Your stationery is alright...")
  35. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [April 23, 1933 ("I'm enclosing some of the latest views...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [April 23, 1933 ("I'm enclosing some of the latest views...")]
  36. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, ca. September 1930 ("Dear Mr. Lovecraft: / I envy you your sojourn in Quebec...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [ca. September 1930 ("Dear Mr. Lovecraft: / I envy you your sojourn in Quebec...")]
  37. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [ca. September 1933 ("I was very sorry to hear of your aunt's accident...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [ca. September 1933 ("I was very sorry to hear of your aunt's accident...")]
  38. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. December 1930 ("As always, your letter proved highly enjoyable...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. December 1930 ("As always, your letter proved highly enjoyable...")]
  39. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. early January 1932 ("Yes, I enjoyed the postcards very much..."] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. early January 1932 ("Yes, I enjoyed the postcards very much...")]
  40. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. September 1930 ("I am very glad that you enjoyed your visit to Quebec...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [c. September 1930 ("I am very glad that you enjoyed your visit to Quebec...")]
  41. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [December 1932 ("Having read your latest letter with the greatest interest...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [December 1932 ("Having read your latest letter with the greatest interest...")]
  42. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [December 3, 1933 ("Glad you found the cat article of some amusement...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [December 3, 1933 ("Glad you found the cat article of some amusement...")]
  43. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, {July 13, 1932 ("It is with the utmost humiliation that I begin...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [July 13, 1932 ("It is with the utmost humiliation that I begin...")]
  44. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, May 13, 1936 ("I am indeed sorry to hear that you and your aunt...") vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, May 13, 1936 ("I am indeed sorry to hear that you and your aunt...")
  45. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [May 1934 ("Glad you're having such a good time in Florida...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [May 1934 ("Glad you're having such a good time in Florida...")]
  46. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [October 1931 ("Thanks for the post-card views...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [October 1931 ("Thanks for the post-card views...")]
  47. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [received September 22, 1932 ("I read, as always, your comments on the Greco-Roman...")] vs. Letter to H. P. Lovecraft, [received September 22, 1932 ("I read, as always, your comments on the Greco-Roman...")]
  48. Postcard to H. P. Lovecraft, ca. February 1932 ("This isn't to flaunt my homely countenance...") vs. Postcard to H. P. Lovecraft, ca. February 1932 ("This isn't to flaunt my homely countenance..."
  49. The Question of the East vs. The Question of the East
  50. Sentiment vs. Sentiment
  51. The Sword vs. The Sword vs. The Sword
  52. Drawing of a strange cow vs. Drawing of a Strange Cow

Would you please spend some time resolving these (merging, varianting, or adding notes about differences as applicable)? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Likely there are many more. Sorry I haven't done all the Howard-related merges/variants yet, but I have been working on them as I have time. I have had guests over the holidays and didn't get much time to spend on-line. I think I've done most of the poems, but only a few of the letters and the stories have been spotty. I still have a fair amount of Howard material to enter as well. Bob 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)